Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

52 comments from readers

madasafish
03 September 2008 at 17:39

Charles Clarke said

"Labour is destined for disaster if it continues on its current course and adds "we will not permit that to happen "

Which sums up the attitudes of the Government .

Arrogant and out of touch with the real world.

Voters vote Governments in or out.

Charles Clarke can say all he likes. he is Not a member of this Government now: but he was. He could have changed things but did not.

We voters decide.. not politicians.

And Labour - present course or not - is destined to receive from most of us what it had a taste of in Glasgow and Crewe and Nantwich: our opinion on them.

To suggest "we will not permit it" suggests he is living on another planet.

Robert Powell
03 September 2008 at 17:48

Er think Clarke was speaking about Labour. While you madasafish seem to be speaking for all us voters. Thanks so much but you didn't ask me...

Rupert Read
03 September 2008 at 18:07

'Labour is destined for disaster'... Yep, that is certainly how it looks here in Clarke's Norwich. If the local election result here this May were repeated at the General Election, we would win the seat, and Clarke would be fourth...

C'llr. Rupert Read, one of the 13 Green Party City Councillors in Norwich.

john frost
03 September 2008 at 18:19

An excellent post from Mr. Clarke very thought provoking.. Pleas can we have more of this quality.

Little Tyke
03 September 2008 at 18:24

Labour is "destined to disaster" and "utter destruction" - that's just what I like to hear!

Nothing less will do. I want to see New Labour wiped out, eradicated, sent into oblivion, for EVER!

Never has a British government done so much harm to this country in living memory.

bobed
03 September 2008 at 19:02

What exactly should the new course of action be? More housing market bailouts? Rescuing the feckless? More tax? Less tax? What? WHAT?

ShirkingFromHome
03 September 2008 at 19:03

Not good enough. You were a cabinet member once. You are one of the very same ferrets in the very same party sack you talk about.

What is this "stop obsessing about the past and to start obsessing about the future."? How about thinking, behaving and governing properly. An apology from your commander in chief Brown would be good. No more boom and bust eh?

"Obsessing" is for obsessives. I don't want obsessives in power thanks. Take a running jump.

Hats, rings and stalking horses come to mind.

Why not go to the country? I am listening and neither like what I hear nor respect the people who, apparently, are my servants. Is your party listening or just getting on with the 'job' of keeping themselves in power, using my tax money as a large expense slush fund and feathering their own post-election oblivion employment nests?

Stop playing a game and get on with governing.

Fail.

madasafish
03 September 2008 at 19:07

Well if Robert Powell wants to vote Labour, '

.....

I.m sure he will be in a small minority of people supporting a failed leader of a failed party with policies made up on the spur of the moment.

BillB
03 September 2008 at 19:17

A well balanced article which clearly states the present position. Sadly, only the last half sentence will be quoted by those who spend their lives looking a ways to knock all the good Labour has achieved.

What short memories some people have. Be careful what you vote for, I remember 15% inflation and boom and bust all the time with governments who did not believe in society.

ShirkingFromHome
03 September 2008 at 19:32

I remember a certain Chancellor saying no more boom and bust . 15% or 4.5% - It doesn't feel like 4.5% here. Who compiles the stats anyway. How independent are they really?

Keir H
03 September 2008 at 20:15

Absolute bonkers: all this Blairite gibberish nonsense. With this kind of article who needs CC back in the Cabinet, let’s move on and support GB.

PS Stop selling taxpayers assets or sack John Hutton.

ProperTory
03 September 2008 at 20:35

Sorry Charles, we aren't going to vote Labour back in and there's little that you or any other Labour politician can do about it. It has taken 13 years for your lot to achieve the following: A virtual collapse of the criminal justice system. Savings lower than at any point in 25 years and final salary pension schemes destroyed as a principle. Stealth taxes instead of honest direct taxation. No overall growth in the stockmarket in 10 years. Public & private debt at record levels. Armed Forces under-funded and with a nihilistic culture in which they are obliged to be nice to their enemies! Hospitals in a parlous state of cleanliness. Survival after serious illnesses among the lowest rates in the developed world. Thousands of newly-trained Doctors unable to obtain a first post while 3rd world sources are stripped of theirs. 25% of children unable to read at the age of 11. Grade inflation giving an illusion of academic improvement. An unplanned dash for growth but without the infrastructure to accommodate 5 million extra people and with a deliberate attempt to destroy the cultural and ethnic composition of the UK. Direct lies published in Labour manifesto to avoid a referendum on the European Constitution. Big Government now a new elite. Civil liberties eroded with innocent people obliged to provide DNA samples and carry ID cards. Genuine restrictions on free speech and public criticism. In short we have experienced nothing short of a real decline of civilisation brought about by the Labour Party. Their behaviour in Government has been contemptuous of those who have elected them and they deserve never to be elected again. When the time comes, my vote will be sweet.

PeterHCT
03 September 2008 at 21:45

Just in terms of where Labour now stand, was Ed Balls the Chief Economist at the Treasury when interest rates were fudged downward by excluding housing costs from the inflation definition? Hence the wilful architect of the house-price bubble?

If so, he deserves to be swinging from the nearest lamp-post, never mind losing elections. Just as an example and to makes things clear. These people need to understand that they serve the electors, not the other way around.

PeterHCT
03 September 2008 at 21:47

Just in terms of where Labour now stand, was Ed Balls the Chief Economist at the Treasury when interest rates were fudged downward by excluding housing costs from the inflation definition? Hence the wilful architect of the house-price bubble? Quite unforgivable.

If so, he deserves to be swinging from the nearest lamp-post, never mind losing elections. Just as an example and to makes things clear. These people need to understand that they serve the electors, not the other way around.

Labour richly deserves and needs time out. Along time.

Roland Baker
03 September 2008 at 21:58

Why did Charles Clarke resign as Home Secretary and what right does that give him to regard Miliband, last seen impersonating a foreign secretary, as traduced? Miliband comes out of hiding to keep up his public profile if he thinks he can snatch someone's job. Beyond that, his track record in office suggests he just couldn't give a toss. He is still on the coat tails of Bush and has not yet foreign-secretarially joined the EU so nobody will co-operate with him.

"Blair believed that private... alternatives would spread within education and health unless the quality of public services ...was significantly improved". What planet is Charles Clarke on? Who contracted with whom for the SATS tests and now the Education Maintenance Grant never mind privatising hospital cleaning to maximise hospital acquired infection. Do those private contractors not have to pay dividends to their shareholders? Is it not a fact that Scotland and Wales have no problem with their Education Maintenance Grant administration because they did not privatise it?

I think empowering me and giving me more user choice will make me refrain from voting Labour if I have to read any more of this drivel from Charles Clarke. Drivel I might add, which his track record as Home Secretary poorly qualifies him to write. It is not Charles Clarke's "20/20 vision" that will save Labour now.

npgdavies
03 September 2008 at 22:10

There's a major flaw in this article. Blair was not an outstanding Labour prime minister. He took us into a war in Iraq on a falsehood. His tongue was a weapon of mass destruction, and it took less than 45 minutes to mobilise.

His record on public services was (and is) useless.

"In fact, Blair believed that divisive private alternatives would spread within education and health unless the quality of public services and public life was significantly improved."

This Labour government has actively encouraged the divisive spread of private sector alternatives. It has actively hindered existing providers from adapting local services to meet local needs.

This country needs a long period free from this discredited, mendacious, incompetent, financially and intellectually bankrupt government.

PeterHCT
03 September 2008 at 23:47

On the other hand, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at Labour's predicament.

writeon
04 September 2008 at 09:04

Wow, what a lot of vindictive comments! The New Labour government are really responsible for the current situation in Britain, that 'honour' lies with successive governments going back thirty years.

Labour are just unlucky to be the poor sods left to carry the can, or given the blame when the financial house of cards begins to fall.

Those people who believe that the Tories will somehow pursue radically different policies to Labour and almost magically revive Britain's economic and social decline, are delusional and they are going to be extremely disappointed.

New Labour represented the efficient and acceptable face of Thatherism, where the worst and most counter-productive and costly aspects of her policies were smoothed off, but the fundamental structure of her economic 'reforms' were left alone.

The problem with Britain isn't about which one of the two monopoly parties is in power, it's the underlying paradigm or model for society which is at fault. An unsustainable, destructive and ruinous, rightist, 'free-market' utopianism, that's led to disaster wherever it's been tried.

Origen
04 September 2008 at 10:30

Charles Clark would not have us blasphemising Blairism or taking it in vain.

Blairism - the totemic word, the Pandora's box word, the word which has all the ills of New Britain distilled in it.

"Labour is destined to disaster if we go on as we are" "Labour's current course will lead to utter destruction at the next general election." prophesises Charles Clark, without being more descriptive about the course he has in mind.

Course is yet another totemic word - where the wrong course is to be understood as any course that would not see Mr Clark and his allies restored to their previous positions of influence and power.

The Norwich MP's also warns us of: "a determination that we will not permit that to happen".

Who is 'we'? Who is hiding inside this totemic pronoun, how and on what authority will this powerful 'we' forbid it?

Should the rest of us be afraid?

hsbkc
04 September 2008 at 10:37

Clarke, like most in his disgraceful party and Government is disingenuous, devoid of honesty and frankly blinkered by his own sophistry. The Blair project has brought this country to it's knees, both morally and financially. This is the government that has brought a surveillance society to us, stripped us of century old freedoms, brought us in the target view of terrorists worldwide with their lies about Iraq and now wish to pretend that Brown's one year tenure of No 10 is the reason why they are in the toilet. I say again, the man like his party and Government is a disgrace.

Gobannian
04 September 2008 at 10:51

It's too late to start worrying now about Labour facing destruction. It's been destroyed already by Blair and his hangers-on, which includes Brown. Nothing has been kept of the good thngs which Labour represented. Everything has been changed except the name, which has been kept the same in order to protect the guilty.

George Garrett
04 September 2008 at 11:24

movedtocomment.

The vote here looks like 14 Tory rants to 4 labour realists. Mr Cameron's statement that he'll end 'Yah-boo' politics soon fell around his ears and it certainly hasn't encourage sensible comment from the media brainwashed sheep that 'Yah-boo' in his wake.

Leedsnil
04 September 2008 at 11:49

Blair 'was an outstanding prime minister'. Oh, he stood out alright. The blood of 600,000 dead on his hands. Some legacy.

redharry
04 September 2008 at 12:04

Fungus the Bogeyman should go back to his swamp. This is just yet another example of what happens when thieves fall out. HMS New Labour is heading towards iceberg and the crew are fighting over control of the steering wheel while all agreeing that no other course can be taken.

http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9904/01/onion/titanic.html

'The Onion, April 16, 1912

World's Largest Metaphor Hits Ice-berg

Titanic, Representation of Man's Hubris, Sinks in North Atlantic

1,500 Dead in Symbolic Tragedy'

PeterHCT
04 September 2008 at 12:57

Ah, George Garrett - so sensible, so detached and dispassionate. To be against Brown and [New] Labour' is to be Tory. Tories rant, Labour are realist. Pigs airborne and awaiting instructions.

Remember the Wilson/Healey/Callaghan era? Sterling crises? Or not that old?

There is just possibly a valid point that the problem may not be Labour, conceptually, per se so much as the burnt-out state of its minsters and the visible legacy of personal and public debt and unquantified PPP/PFI committments. At this stage of the game, the electorate will be rightly sceptical of such a thought.

We await the memoirs.

pm_ v
04 September 2008 at 14:49

An interesting article, but what a missed opportunity. After demanding that Labour should "obsess" about the future, and put the past behind it, because it is gone, and will not come again, Mr Clarke devotes most of the remainider to rosy reminiscences of the past.

Tony Blair often gloried in the achievements of his Chancellor and his management of the economy. If voters gave Brown and Blair credit for the glory years, it is logical that they will hold them responsible for any subsequent recession.

Claiming to have ended boom and bust economics looks like the mistake which will cost Labour most dearly at the next election, as negative equity and recession become familiar phrases to us all again.

Mr Brown lacks the confidence and the charisma of Blair, and is therefore doomed, irrespective of his personal virtues, given the likely climate at the next election. I think Mr Clarke is right, and I admire him for standing up and speaking hometruths. He has principles, although I don't always agree with his views.

That said, he is an outstanding constituency MP, and I will be voting for him, (sorry Rupert) come the next election!

itstrueekse
04 September 2008 at 15:15

And his suit is dreadful!

writeon
04 September 2008 at 16:52

In the post-political era, personality is paramount, or as the Americans call it - character.

Gordon Brown may well have been a competent chancellor, but he just isn't a leader type. He doesn't have a winning character and selling his personality is hard work. He's also simply unlucky. The collapse of the rightist economic model for society, isn't really his fault or Labour's. However, their over-reliance on the financial sector and the property bubble, which have only given the impression of prosperity, has been both naive, foolish and imprudent.

But is there an alternative to Brown? Is there anybody in the New Labour leadership that looks like a winner? The answer is negative. Labour has developed a party culture which is undemocratic, deadly and soul-destroying.

So much power has been concentrated in the Leader/PM that removing an unlukcy or bad leader is virtually impossible as long as he wishes to stay in power.

Can Labour do anything then? The answer is, unfortunately, no. Labour in it's current configeration looks doomed, just like the Tories who never really recovered from Thatcherism.

A revived Labour Party should attempt to ditch personality politics and rebuild the party again based on politics and democracy, trying to create a strong, membership-based party, with policies at its core rather than personalities. Because the current model only functions if one has an 'outstanding' leader like Blair and the economic climate is benign.

The political system we have now reminds me of a form of 'monarchy' with a Westminster functioning like the royal court and the media representing the church. That's why the personality of the 'king' is so important in such a system, and why a bad king is so diasterous.

stonehenge
04 September 2008 at 18:18

I seem to remember Brown promising to listen and learn on the voters message after his humiliation at the recent by-elections. I think he forgot!.

Clarke doesn't understand his own party. They cannot change as they have an agenda to complete, which is to totally give this country and Soveriegnty away to the EU.

Do we really live in a democracy when we have a Scottish ,hugely unpopular unelected PM ,giving our country away without giving us the promised vote that he knows he would lose?.

Labour are a disgrace.

willoyen
04 September 2008 at 19:17

‘Everyone in Labour needs to stop obsessing about the past and to start obsessing about the future.’

I agree! Let’s forget the past and vote labour! We’ll have a rosy future.

‘Blair stood for a liberal interventionist strategy’ oh, is that what is was? Liberal in the sense of ‘free’: free to bomb the hell out of who you like according to how you freely twist the circumstances (Serbia); 'liberal', i.e. unconstrained by such irrelevant annoyances as law ( Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). This is a new coinage, for old crimes, worthy of Blair himself. Hmm. I love it: liberal intervention! rather like Hitler’s coinage “humanitarian war”, a favourite of Blair's Let’s go to sleep, chaps, we’ve done no wrong! Move on!

‘Liberal interventionism must be underpinned by military force’ - it gets funnier, and funnier; and this is from the education secretary who said universities shouldn’t waste money teaching history or classics.

‘but its moral authority was undermined by the glacial progress in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction’ not quite sure what this means. Must be a Blairite speaking.

‘The rise of terrorist atrocities, including London in 2005’, yes, I was glad last June that Blair babe Smith’s heart was bleeding for the ‘victims’. Victims of labour’s liberal intervention, no less.

‘the achievement of the Blair-Brown leadership’ oh! Mr brown is back!

‘[Blair’s] disagreement with his chancellor made [the euro link] impossible when joining would have been feasible’. Sad. He was too busy manufacturing lies for another liberal intervention.

‘This approach challenged some vested interests’ good heavens! But it advanced others, surely! ( how much are titles going for these days?)

‘There is no coherent Blairite ideology’ true. After all, Blair himself never uttered a single sentence that didn’t change course half way, according to how he calculated profit and loss.

No wonder the whole political class is held in loathing and contempt.

writeon
04 September 2008 at 19:43

I found this too on my travels around the UK, the entire political class is held in loathing and contempt. The wide range of different people I talked to in pubs, clubs, cafes, shops, markets, flats and mansions; were all pretty much in agreement.

But is this widespread feeling reflected in the British media or Westminster? No way. Hasn't Westminster degenerated into irrelevancy? Who really runs the country? It certainly isn't the politicians in Westminster. Anyway what do we mean by 'running the country'?

Do we even really need politicians anymore? What are they for? As the parties are apparently merging on most substantive issues why bother with elections? Is politics actually dead in the UK? Is this why elections increasingly resemble beauty contests? Is it possible to have politics without competing ideologies? If there is no real political competition anymore can one really argue that one is living in a democracy? Have we, in fact, moved into the post-democratic era without debate or discussion? It would appear we have.

willoyen
05 September 2008 at 07:37

Hi writeon

>Do we even really need politicians anymore? What are they for?

I suppose these are the very questions they (of whatever stripe) ask about us, the people. It is us, actually, who are held in loathing. And I am sure it is conscious and deliberate on the part of leaders and their subservient institutions, the media etc. You can almost hear Bush or Clinton saying: look! you’re a leader now, Blair. Forget all that garbage about democracy, public opinion! Policies, elections are really marginal events in the contest to get and keep power in line with the forces in the world which really give orders. And deceit and manipulation are keys to the whole culture. I just heard on the BBC (world service) that the Americans have dropped demands for more compensation from Libyans for Lockerbie. And the Libyans have dropped claims for “the retaliatory strike” on them by the US. Why “retaliatory”? Why did the BBC editors put that word in? Why not just “strike”? There you are, an example, fresh out of the oven today. Most people will half hear that and reasonably get the impression, intended by the BBC’s FCO masters, that the US bombed Libya in retaliation for Lockerbie (sotto voce: ‘and were therefore in the right’.) But Lockerbie happened in 1988, 2 years later. It’s deliberate. Events are edited into a scenario which fits into the interests of the day. Some BBC editor has done his bit for the war on truth. Not by lying, but by subtle, insidious untruth, and ruthless disregard for us, the listeners/subjects.

Oh, and the bombing of Tripoli was timed to appear on US prime-time tv. A NYT Tripoli-based reporter was sacked for saying so.

George Garrett
05 September 2008 at 09:36

George Garrett

Well hello, Peter HCT, Sir! I read you with interest. Yes, I'm old enough. Listen to some sense. At least Mr. Wilson left us with the Open University and was right about the UK being the tool room of the world. But your revered Mrs. Thatcher destroyed Britains industrial base and left us with very disrespectful words "On your bike!" Which I'm sure will go down as the focal point which began the break-up of family life is this country. Mr. Cameron sets the blame at Labours door, but then he's still wet behind the ears.

"Write on" is one sensible voice amongst this crowing rabble. Labour stood for (and still does) the party for blue and white collar wage earners. And if a reccession were to bite, those sitting pretty, fortunate to have high salaries living up to their false wealth; and, who falsely believe themselves to be Tory - should realise there is no Tory Magic Wand to be waved.

The bike riding, dog-sled, photo opportunist, Mr. Cameron, and his clones have no polices of any depth what-so-ever. Dispassionate? Don't you believe it Sir Peter, you might own the press, and you might believe "Greed" is a good Tory word: Your heroic leader, Lady Thatcher replaced Britain's "Family Life" and replaced it with "Money worship" Tory self-destruct policies over 18 years led to total public rejection as they gave Tory Blair a landslide mandate to recue the money starved NHS and ordinary schools in the UK. Notice I said "Self destruct"

Mr. Brown on the other hand tells you today that he battles on against a "Global crisis" and how ever you or Charles Clark try to gain advantage from it: that is the plain truth. So don't rejoice too soon old boy - I'm old enough to remember Neil Kinock are you? Labour pigs may be airbourne you can't be sure your over fed pigs will ever leave the ground. Sorry but the conertation was yours.

MarkBin
05 September 2008 at 10:20

Charles Clarke said - "Liberal interventionism must be underpinned by military force, but its moral authority was undermined by the glacial progress in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction..."

I don't understand this claim. Can someone explain it to me, please? Is it a lie?

Krisco
05 September 2008 at 10:42

“Tony Blair was an outstanding Labour prime minister….His legacy, on the basis of what we inherited in 1997, is historically important…….”

writes Clarke.

Yes, historically important, because Blair was a corrupt and crooked con-man who lied to parliament, the country and the UN, who concocted the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and fabricated the dossiers or plagiarised them, who took us to an illegal war which resulted in the deaths of nearly a million Iraqis – not to mention the displacement of the survivors, maimed and all – and nearly a thousand of our own soldiers. The above is and will hopefully remain his everlasting legacy, lest we forget!

Cretin Clarke goes on:

“It led him to work with the power of the United States rather than join the anti-American claque, even when George W Bush demonstrated crippling incompetence”

And Blair followed Bush everyhere with the words, “ I am right behind you George! “ This brain-dead sycophancy [which Clarke conveniently overlooks] was crystallised in the now [in]famous “Yo, Blair” moment when Israel raped Lebanon in 2006. So how incompetent was this so-called “out-standing” prime minister? And what does that make Clarke but an idiotic, sycophantic, moronic, poodle’s poodle!!

Krisco

MarkBin
05 September 2008 at 11:28

Krisco

Well said. I, for one, will never let Labour party move on until the crime of the century (so far) is tried in a court of law. Has anyone considered civil court action against Blair?

Glock On The Floor
05 September 2008 at 11:50

He's a card, that Charlie Chuckles.

"..led him (Blair) to work with the power of the United States ... even when George W Bush demonstrated crippling incompetence or opposed British policy."

Working with a foreign power to oppose British policy is treason but it's a thigh slapper the way Chuckles tells it.

"...general support on the former Yugoslavia..". Until it turned out there weren't any mass graves and NATO's justification for attacking Serbia was a lie.

"...and Afghanistan." Ah yes, Afghanistan. As Chuckles' hero Tony Blair said in his intro to the case for attacking Afghanistan "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law." So just what were they going to judicially do with him when they found him?? Split my sides over that one.

Iraq wasn't just "fierce criticism", it was the end of the United Nations. I laughed till I cried over that.

Blair's "constitutional reform" has been to convince the electorate that "democracy" in Britain is so unrepresentative it isn't worth turning out to vote.

CC's funniest line isn't in this article but it gives an insight into the wit of the man. On the night of 7 July 05 he said on TV that Londoners should go to work normally the next day as he'd not had any intelligence there'd be another attack. Just what "intelligence" had he had the previous day then??

ROFLMAO

tommacf77
05 September 2008 at 12:45

"We should recognise that Tony Blair was an outstanding Labour prime minister who has now departed the British political scene and has no future part to play. "

No Charles, he was an outstanding neoliberal Prime Minister who took the Washington Consensus forward in myraid ways.

One of the unwritten planks of that document is that the whole world must join-up, and if necessary be forced to do so. It's called the New Liberal Imperialism.

To this end Iraq was attacked in flagrant breach of the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia, and against the wishes of the UN and most of Europe.

Sadly, none of the changes you may wish to see, or those likely to be made by a Cameron Government, will alter any of this: we are stuck with it because, as yet, most people are unable to join the dots.

It's called Manufacturing Consent, and the media is very good at it.

Frederic Stansfield
05 September 2008 at 13:05

Charles Clarke's article contains a fundamental misunderstanding of popular views when he describes Labour's "economic success".

The Labour Government from 1997 provided short-term prosperity, and low taxes, using procedds from the one-off windfall of North Sea Gas, as well as the sale of other assets and large-scale borrowing. In this they were following exonomic examples from the days of Thatcher. Instead of building up a Sovereign Wealth Fund like Norway and other producers, money was wasted on political initiatives that were immediately attractive. Much money was spent inefficiently, or diverted to vested interests. Not least Brown's reference to Neoclassical Endogenous Growth Theory was wrong not only for the inappropriate use of technical economic terminology, but because the idea that ANY spending would multiply into economic growth gave little incentive for the targetting of expenditure where it would maximise return on investment..

Now that the international economic climate is harsh, and Britains' capital assets are depleted, electors have realised what has been done to them financially. They are not going to come back to Labour until it changes its policies, until, like Cameron's Tories, it brings in new politicians uncontaminated by the past, and until it has revamped its organisation to respond simply and honestly to electors nationwide rather than to the Westminster establishment.

Amongst the three largest parties voters have little option but to hope that the Tories have reformed under Cameron. The Green Party are the only serious party who currently appear to be offering a radical alternative to the failures of liberal capitalism - whether or not they are right. This is surprising because there seems to be general consensus amongst economists that the international financial system contains serious flaws that need to be addressed urgently (by democratic means and international consensus). Therefore it is particularly interesting to read Councillor Rupert Read's comments about Green strength in Norwich, where Clarke is an MP.

Krisco
05 September 2008 at 13:32

In my previous submission above, I forgot to mention one other important aspect of Blair’s legacy. By the interventionist policies so lauded by Clarke, Blair made this country waste over £50 billion [and still counting] due to his ill-advised ventures in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan and cost us our standing/voice in the eyes of Europe [thanks to the ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’ jibe by those thugs Cheney and Rumsfeld], never mind the world. Does this not explain the current mess our economy is in? Some legacy!

Krisco

Roland Baker
05 September 2008 at 14:31

Further to my posting above, I refer to criticism elsewhere in the New Statesman of the conditions in which Asylum seekers are kept .

Would Charles Clarke like to write an article on his track record on this matter when he was Home Secretary and say how the current findings by Sir Al Aynsley-Green are in no way the fault of Charles Clarke's failure to address the issue?

If not, would Charles Clarke kindly retire to Nether Wallop and shut up.

BritishAirman
05 September 2008 at 16:05

Charles Clarke is as concerned about Labour's position as David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was, when Mr. Miliband gave interviews to both the Guardian Newspaper and the BBC. Rumblings within Whitehall at the dissatisfaction of Gordon Brown have required a heavyweight from outside the Cabinet to intervene in this restless period for Labour. For those of us who care about socialism, however dilute that may now be, Charles Clarke should be applauded for his steadfastness in the manner by which he delivered his dire warning. For me, personally, both Mr. Clarke and David Blunkett are politicians that should be exercising their political weight within government and not from the backbenches. Mr. Clarke simply seeks what many require: 'Asking Gordon Brown to stand down with honour "unless" he is able to resurrect the Government's popularity over the coming months.'

Whilst Charles Clarke has said that a turnaround is "entirely possible" the fact that he has delivered his political ultimatum in the middle of Brown's "economic re-launch" suggests, in truth, he must think the game is up for Gordon Brown. Many people, particularly Labour voters, certainly feel the same way.

Clarke's intervention is not just a plea but a direct threat. As the former Home Office minister says:

… "Labour is destined to disaster if we go on as we are"

Whilst, at the same turn Mr. Clarke warns the Prime Minister that:

… "we will not permit that to happen"

Mr. Clarke is a man of fairly robust standards. His intervention in the ongoing saga of Number 10 is really more brutal than one would have expected from the former Cabinet minister. Charles Clarke believes that unless Brown goes of his own accord, he faces the very real prospect of being forced from Downing Street.

But, the question many Labour people would like to know is whether Clarke's broadside is part of an organised plot to unseat Mr. Brown. As it happens, Mr. Clarke was one of the few Labour MPs who resisted the former Chancellor's elevation to party leader last year. In hindsight it would have been better for the party and for the country had there been a proper party-leader election. Brown doesn't have exactly the same kind of endorsement that Blair did when he came to office, or any other Labour Prime Minister for that matter. Public support should be the test by which any leader is accepted and appointed.

A change is needed within Number 10, before it is too late. Brown is not the man in leading the Labour party moving forward.

http://markdowe.wordpress.com/

cat osb
05 September 2008 at 17:45

Labour is destined for disaster whether or not they 'permit that to happen'.

Yes, folks, there are real people with real votes out there!

And something called a general election looms...

Not even Labour's authoritarian tendency can prevent that.

Their 'brand' is now so tainted and distrusted that no amount of leadership reorganisation will prevent them losing the next election.

Everyone but them see this.

Still at least we will have the lasting legacy of a long line of libertarian home secretaries to look back upon fondly. I write their names with pride: Blunkett, Reid, Clarke & Smith.

writeon
05 September 2008 at 19:05

I seem to remember sharing a joint with a guy called Charlie Clark years ago. He needed to cut down on the chips, but he seemed alright. We talked about revolutionary politics and the Labour Party. We seemed to agree that Harold Wilson's Labour government was about as far to the left as was 'allowed' within the framework of the current system, so we'd all better make the best of it, because this was a good as it gets.

Youth, it seems so long ago. If old Charlie met new Charles, would they even recognize each other. Old Charlie would, my guess, have contempt for new Charles. Charlie, the student leader seemed to have loads of real mates, new Charles seems so damn lonely. Is selling ones' soul really worth it? Are the trappings of 'succcess' worth it? There seems to be a price one pays for being drawn into the circle of power, and it's the price of ones' integrity and ideals. Leave them outside the circle and bow low to entrenched power, everything one dispised as a callow youth. Charlie, what happened to you?

Roland Baker
05 September 2008 at 21:30

British Airman, third post up from here and my earlier posts above:

"Mr. Clarke is a man of fairly robust standards."

Mr Clarke did not resign as Home Secretary because he had robust standards. He resigned because the Prison Service was a shambles in failing to deport foreign convicts. His department was not fit for purpose mainly because he had done nothing to make it fit for purpose. Now we are reaping the harvest of Sir Al Aynsley-Green's report into Charles Clarke's failure to address Asylum issues when he was at the Home Office.

Plenty of us would have liked an election before Gordon Brown's coronation but John McDonnell could not get the nominations and only John Cruddas was otherwise really qualified as he proved during the Deputy Leadership elections. Charles Clarke had no support for his request for an election. He got no nominations. His 20/20 vision site has been abandoned.

He has no credentials to chuck brickbats now unless he can account for his own failures. If he can't, would he kindly retire to Nether Wallop and shut up.

BegbiesEvilTwin
06 September 2008 at 00:20

Sue Matthias (acting editor): Sue, I realise you have probably had a hellish time covering such a lengthy gap while the new editor gets his feet under the table. But...please, for god's sake, this is just another third rate article from a failed player in the Labour leadership.

I'm dyslexic and I can knock out better stuff than this. Literally.

George Garrett
07 September 2008 at 12:24

movedtocomment

I have supported labour for a very long time because tradional labour roots, unlike others parties are (and should remain) the saviour of blue and white collar wage earners and pensioners. To save this labour party will not be achieved by working himself to death. No that won't do it. Gordon Brown has to be tough, very tough. Two things must be done to close the rich - poor divide. Yes, a big majority of people not only want to see that: but absolutely need to see this insult to ordinary folk being put right_ starting with the very next speach.

One, prove he's listening: by slapping a windfall tax on the power companies, supermarkets, and the massive transfer fee paying rich football clubs, and the wealthy players, anyone made big profits over the last ten years whilst ordiary folk suffer have seen their incomes fall.

Two, he ,(Mr. Brown), should grab the tax system by the scruff of the neck, with the specific aim of making a basic living wage tax free, overtime working tax free. Further more there should be a higher tax band, which allow the entrepreneurs to enjoy a good income up to a point where their good fortune has to make a very substantial contribution to redress the balance. This to apply to all their sources of income.

Failure to do this and to do it now could hand the trade unions over to the Tories promising any short term gimmic solutions to get back into power.

But should Mr. Brown go for a big trim of the rich devide gap and ram it home in this pre-election period, then millions of voters would get behind him and consider very carefully where they place their vote.

This is your moment, your greatest opportunity, the only one you'll get. Don't delay for an Autmn Statement: Nail your colours to the mast now.

ANTISTATE
08 September 2008 at 19:46

Tony Blair was a sort of neo-Thatcher who adopted the economic and foreign affairs policy of the ULTRA RIGHT going where even SHE dared not go distroying the NHS public education and getting involved in 3 illegal wars 2 of which are still going on and there is no sign of an end to it.

The rich are getting richer , the poor are getting poorer

there is more sleeze than ever before and civil liberties are under attack more than ever before

The I Irony of the tearm Blairite being one of abuse is that Gordon is also a blairite its mot the man its the policies

Most Labour MPs support the policies

as long as that remains the case New Labour can change their leader every week and it wont make any difference

Some of us new all of this in 1997

ANTISTATE
08 September 2008 at 19:49

Yes I know it should be Knew but with most message boards you can edit out the typos after posting

saltyseadog
09 September 2008 at 12:47

George Garrett (re) movedtocomment.

I visit this site often and until now have just read the articles and comments. This is the first time I have been moved to post a comment after reading the above mentioned post of yours. I have to say that I agree with every word in it about how the Labour Party must change to regain the confidence of their core support.

I am an ex trawlerman and have voted Labour in every election since I was 18 in 1968 but not any more, not unless I see some severe changes along the lines mentioned. I realised shortly after winning in 1997 that Tony Blair was well named Tory Blair and expected so much more from Gordon Brown. I now see that without a radical shift to the type of policies you mention there is no saving the Labour Party.

I am old enough and wise enough to know that it isn't just me either that will be voting tactically at the next election and unless there are similar changes to those mentioned the Labour Party will be destroyed at the next election. The middle classes who gave Blair his landslide will revert to there usual vote for the Tory Party and the Labour core voters like myself will end our association until we feel that we have a party which is on our side again.

PeterHCT
09 September 2008 at 18:20

"conertation" George Garret? Chambers casts no light. ITWSYBT. Be so good as to translate, please.

explodingbadger
10 September 2008 at 01:23

Please tell the dead and maimed Iraqis and Afganis that the war in their countries were "a liberal interventionist strategy".

I will never vote labour again.