The journalist behind the recent Ken Clarke stories explains himself

There has been considerable media coverage over the last week of comments made in December by Ken Clarke which attacked the party line on recognition of marriage in the tax system and suggested that a Cameron Government would be more pro-Europe than the Tory Party has been in opposition.

We covered the stories here and here once they had hit the national media, but noted that both Tim and I had attended the conference where Ken Clarke made those remarks (when he was still a backbencher). Our understanding was the the conference - hosted by the Centre for British Politics at the University of Nottingham - was off the record; indeed, the account which Tim published just after the event was explicitly agreed with Mr Clarke's office.

However, Rory Baxter, the journalist who published the accounts on PublicService.co.uk, has posted a comment on one of the relevant ConservativeHome threads to explain his actions. Here is what he says:

"My name's Rory Baxter and I'm the journalist who attended the Nottingham seminar and picked up Ken's comments. I wrote both exclusive pieces on Ken's views on Obama and Europe (here's the original story, not the one the media ran: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=11168) and on Ken's views on public service spending and marriage.

They have been picked up by virtually every media outlet under the sun, especially the first piece I did where they attempted to suggest Ken was calling Cameron a 'right wing nationalist'. I didn't get that impression when I was there and I didn't write it that way. I can't control how the media treat such stories but I do believe they were, as they say, in the public interest, as we can see by the huge amount of feedback they have generated.

However, I must take you up on the point about Ken's comments being off the record. First of all, the university invited me to the event, knowing I am a journalist, and Ken Clarke was also invited. Presumably somebody should have told Ken that journalists would be present. Even if they hadn't, you obviously had a discussion with Ken about him not saying anything controversial. Here's what you and Ken said at the event, just after Ken had attacked the married couples allowance:

You: “Before this panel started Ken you told me you weren’t going to be controversial, now you’ve just trashed one of the flagship policies.”

Ken: “I also said I hope I’m off the  … are there any journalists here? This is off the record.”

You: “Might be a bit late Ken!” (much laughter from the audience).

Indeed it was too late, the cats were well and truly out of their bags.

Before anyone accuses me of breaching any journalistic ethics, there are three things to note here: 1) knowing that there were journalists present, if Ken was strongly against his comments being reported it should have been made clear at the beginning (or even when the invites were sent out), 2) as chairman you could have stressed this point after he'd made his controversial comments if you thought there was a danger of them being reported and 3) Ken was being very light-hearted about the whole thing as he usually is. I've interviewed Ken and face to face he's told me stuff which he's prefaced as saying it's off the record then accepts later that he can't really do that and he allows it to pass. I think it’s fair to say he cares less about these things than other politicians might.

So it was on this basis that I chose to report what Ken said. You could ask why other journalists there didn't report the comments and the answer might be a) they realised they were controversial and wouldn't do Ken any favours if they were reported and they wouldn’t want to do this because they are the same political hue as him or b) they didn't record the whole event like I did. Which brings me to the point made by Peter Bailey that Ken never said these things and they are made up. I can send you the WMA file if you like, it's all there and much more that I have chosen not to air.

As you yourself have said on here: Ken's views on Europe and marriage are legitimate topics for discussion. That's justification enough for me.

But I must end by saying that while I realised his comments were controversial, I did not write the pieces in a 'Ken bashing' way. The various media and commentators that have picked up the story have chosen to do that. (If you look at my first article it's headed 'Brown is finished', says Ken Clarke, it isn't attacking Clarke at all. The first part is all about the possibility of a hung parliament and the Obama comments come in the second half of the item). And while my second article does have the more controversial stuff at the top, its headline is about what the next government will have to do about public spending and taxes, it has loads of paragraphs about fiscal stimulus, Callaghan, tips on policy presentation and how Brown's public spending pledges don't add up, which no newspapers focussed on). I personally like Ken very much, he's a great guy and a much needed 'character' in the political world. Indeed, my running his comments has gained him many supporters who have said it's great that a politician speaks his mind and we should have more like him. It's usually the media that talks about rifts and party splits and damaging Cameron etc etc. Indeed, in the week that my articles appeared, the Tories moved further ahead in the polls, so I don't buy that at all.

Finally, the fact is, if I'd written the articles in December when I intended to, there would have been no fuss because Ken was a backbencher. However, family issues [ie my mother's very poor health] meant I got around to them a few weeks later, by which time Ken was on the front bench and Obama was president. Suddenly the newspapers and everyone else was interested, but the irony is if I'd done them on time none of this discussion would be happening. So timing has proved to be everything in this case.

Finally, finally, Ken can rest assured that there is nothing else to come out of this seminar. My third and final report from this event will be about what David Willetts said, which I don’t think will be reported at all by any newspaper."

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Sally Roberts]

I don't know whether this Conference was held under Chatham House Rules - presumably not - but as a general point, why is it that Chatham House Rules are so often disrespected these days?

[Opinicus]

I presume if he doesn't know what off the record means he will not be invited to anymore conferences.

[Steve Tierney]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable defence of his position to me. People shouldn't be afraid to air their views in public anyway. Anything you say *might* come out, and any politician should bear that in mind rather than whine about it later.

If Ken has different views to his colleagues, so what? We don't want puppet politicans just aping the consensus. As long as they are polite and respectful of opposing views and dont try to derail whatever is the 'party line' we should applaud debate and discussion of issues.

[Praguetory]

"My third and final report from this event will be about what David Willetts said, which I don’t think will be reported at all by any newspaper."

Lol. I agree with Baxter that this won't affect the polls. 'Unity' is over-rated.

[David Roberts]

Kenneth Clarke is a loose canon and just cannot be trusted to keep his mouth shut. That is why it was a grave mistake to allow him on the Front Benches where he can, will even, cause untold damage to a carefully repaired Party.

Sadly, he is smug enough to believe in his own infallibility despite all other considerations. Sooner or later he will enjoy himself by creating headlines with opinions on Europe which differ from the Party's. Collective responsibility is not part of the Clarke mind-set.

[pp]

I deeply object to the whole idea of 'Chatham House Rules'.

I expect (even demand) that our politicians think the unthinkable and investigate all possible options.

It is totally against all principals of 'freedom of information' and transparency for relavant information to be kept secret from the most of the public.

Ok, a couple of Labour MPs have made some jibes in the house - so what?

Knowing where Ken stands works both ways - rather than just a vague awareness of where he stands on some issues, we can know precisely where he stands - rather than assuming the very worst !!

One of the worst things about politics at the moment is journalists (particularly in the BBC) making statements with out being clear about how official their information is.

[Lex]

There's only one Chatham House Rule; participants are entitled to use the information received, but the identity or affiliation of the speaker(s) and of any other participant in the meeting must not be revealed. The Rule doesn't prevent publication of the information itself.

[Doug]

The guy seems all right based on very superficial evidence. As for effects on polling why wasn't everyone saying in the 90's that a split in opinion on important issues would have affect on public perception when it so obviously did? History and Baxter's view are mutually exclusive and I prefer to look at the historical evidence than a journalists opinion. The question of whether these articles affect the polling will be seen in the next round of polling not the latest ones where the field work was highly unlikely to have picked up any dissemination of Clarke's remarks.

I didn't want Clarke back but after the decision was made I was neutral until he proved his worth one way or the other. At the moment Clarke has one strike against him in my book. A couple more incidents like this and he will be a complete disaster. I think his 'gravitas' was overblown by the fact that people weren't paying a lot of attention to his words while a backbencher.

[Doug]

Doh! Should read "As for effects on polling why wasn't everyone saying in the 90's that a split in opinion on important issues would have no effect on public perception when it so obviously did?"

[Peter Buss]

How on earth anyone cannot see that ken has added much needed gravitas and experience to the front bench beats me. His interview last night on Sky, discussing the recession was brilliant and was devastating in its demolition of Brown and also an articulate display of the Tory approach of focussing on the banks as the best way to cope with the recession.

[michael mcgough]

I'm looking forward to extensive use in May of the photo of Ken and Heseltine sharing a platform with Blair to promote our entry into the Euro.
What with his admitting not to have read the Maastricht Treaty and wanting Parliament to become a regional council chamber we should have fun.

In Europe,and Banging on about Europe!
Tick,tick,tic..........

[Jack Stone]

Michael only the obsessives in UKIP and on the right of the Tory Party care about Europe. Know one else does. The general public fall asleep every time its mentioned.

[Rory Baxter]

I thought it might be worth pointing out these other two Ken Clarke articles I wrote after interviewing him (unbelievably, as long ago as October 2007!) which hopefully dismiss any ideas of 'Ken bashing'.

(I think he'd just washed his hair by the look of these photos that he happily posed for on the day).

There are some great things in here, including this line which is so relevant today: "When he took over from me Brown initially followed my ‘no return to boom and bust’ policy. But the policy from 2000 to 2007 has been high spend, high tax and high borrowing, all of which has now reached a completely unsustainable level.”

EXCLUSIVE: Northern Rock was a ridiculous crisis caused by catastrophic incompetence and made worse by Darling’s dithering http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=8373

EXCLUSIVE: Reform is extremely difficult to deliver when resources are being squeezed, says Ken Clarke http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=8354

[David Holdway]

Perhaps now that both Darling and the Millibore have pulled out of going to Davos, we should send Clarke and Hague there. I'm sure that would get favourable coverage.

[michael mcgough]

Have they pulled out of Davos because something is about to go belly up?

[Super Blue]

"Know one"

???!!!

[Nick Gulliford]

What I find interesting is when Michael Gove makes some really good arguments on the value of marriage ['Who says the decline of marriage is bad for us all? I do' Scotland on Sunday 25/1/2009] it doesn't seem to be picked up by the English media; or ConservativeHome, as far as I can see. But please tell me if I'm wrong!