91Èȱ¬

It's hard to know exactly what Charles Clarke is trying to achieve here. If he was trying to create a real story or even hasten Blair's departure the timing was all wrong. The effect is rather of a sacked minister taking petty pot-shots at the guy who took his job.

It's interesting how Charles Clarke reappears out of the woodwork. I never rated him as a home secretary, and consider the man to have a level of arrogance beyond what you would normally expect from an MP. Have you noticed that now he is out of the way, the attention given to ID cards has suddenly evaporated. Perhaps MR Clarke wants back in the limelight again.

He has not taken the opportunity to stick the knife into Blair and has reserved the sharpest criticism for Reid. Its timidity strikes me more as an advertisement for future employment with a Brown regime than anything else.

Keeping up the Geoffrey Howe theme TB must feel like he's been "savaged by a dead sheep."

We all know the 91Èȱ¬ Office fell into disrepair under Straw & Blunkett but CC was too cowardly to name them.

He did have the good grace to tell us TB's administration (sick joke) had run out of steam. Hold the front page.

Memo for DC - Make sure the Ministers you appoint spend 8 hours a day at their desks dealing with their departments and don't go chasing skirt at every opportunity.

It is sad that the only time politicians who have served as Ministers speak anything approaching the truth is when they leave cabinet.

I am also minded to recall John Denham, another former HO Minister, who has only recovered some sense about HO and Policiing since leaving his office. Almost every time I hear Mr Denham speak I wonder where that voice was when he was in QAG. The answer is that it was suppressed by number 10 and spin and the urge to make a better election not a better country.

Charles Clarke was a 'better' SoS than David Blunkett in many ways and, had he stayed in post, he might have actually sorted out a Department that is too unwieldy to be properly effective, but which is actually more a victim of Ministerial reaction to headline than it is of disorganisation and 'crisis'.

John Reid is a SoS who will remain subject to the whims of the media and his style means he is all talk and no action. The only things he will 'do' will be designed to bully to get favourable headlines.

Until politicians can break free of the tabloid press there will be more ridiculous, badly thought out, costly legislation inspired by the US, pandering to the very worst instincts in society.

People get the HO they deserve. One can only hope Mr Blair and same thinking fellow politicians (on both sides of the political divide) eventually get the same.

"I used to describe myself as... tough but not populist."

Isn't that the equivalent of saying "I'd describe myself as a bully, but not very friendly"? I'm left wondering which, out of "tough" and "not populist", we're supposed to admire. I hope he stays on the backbenches where he belongs.

What is Clarke hoping to acheive by the huff & puff of his interview?
He is visibly not the most adroit mover, even on a bicycle, but the clumsy orchestration of his recent manoeuvres smacks more of sour grapes than altruism. He is decorating the office after leaving it!

I used to dislike Charles Clarke when his role was an apologist for New Labour but he earned my respect as someone who is sincere. John Reid was the first real apologist for New Labour and I had similar feelings about him, however now John Reid has lowered himself by his 'it's not my fault' attitude. There is nothing lower a manager can do than to berate his team in public. Charles Clarke has remained high in my estimation by his handling of his sacking - you could see the anger on his face when it happened. His measured response is equally creditable. I am sure David Cameron and his team are glad that people like Charles Clarke i.e. those few Labour politicians left with any integrity are currently out of favour in the party.

Not many people have pointed out that if Blair was vindicated on any of his decisions in the cabinet reshuffel it was the sacking of Clark. At the time I was a little unsure if it was the right decision but we then saw the scandals at the home office continue on for another month or so - it simply would have been totally unsustainable for him to continue and would have sunk the rest of the government with him.

Its about time that someone drew attention to "Dr" Reid and his approach to politics.
Charles Clarke has always come across as a reasonable man. I do hope he recovers from being Blairs fall guy. He deserved better.
Reid is patronising when interviewed and seems arrogant at all times. He progress seems to be based on the downfall or expense of others - His new dept for example. One questions his fitness for purpose.

I am quite glad that Charles Clarke has spoken out like this, because although he was sacked for a very valid reason, I did feel a little bit sorry for him. If Charles Clarke is to be believed (and what reason has he got for lying) then this is very interesting and as you say, it is just a shame that this world cup is taking place- operation world cup saved Blair- what a shame!!!

Clarke = Howe in his damning appraisal of the PM. It also illustrates the media led spin campaign being fought by Reid about the 91Èȱ¬ Office. Reid said the HO is "not fit for purpose" after about 30mins in the job, Clarke disagrees. Reid is merely making sure we all know things in the HO are truly apalling so that when things get a bit better he a Blair can claim all the credit

Charles Clarke not quite Geoffrey Howe then. He didn't really have the guts for that I would suggest.

I think rather that this contribution does not add to the call for Blair to go sooner rather than later, but it's a yet another proof that the party is no longer capable of being a 'Broad Church' vehicle for left, left of centre, and the new labourites.

That said, perhaps we in the party should forget all about calling for the transition from tweedle dee to tweedle dum but be far more honest and admit that it is time for the a party to split up. It really is two parties. Funny enough it is clearly not full of lefties, they have almost all gone already, but it is comprised of left of centre and right of centre (very similar to the Lib Dems) and I contend that it's no longer large enough for such diverse opinion.

Nick

Just listened to Charles Clarke in "On the ropes" and it's clear that you're right - he's NOT going to be Blair's nemesis (more's the pity). He was always a more thoughtful politician than most but still comes over as evasive and unclear about what Labour's actually for. The only thing that was clear is that he's very lukewarm about Gordon Brown.

Roll on a hung parliament, the only way we'll ever get real change in the way politics is undertaken in the UK. Clarke was still talking about Labour's "mandate" - with 36% of votes cast and 25% support from the electorate as a whole.

The Labour Party are desperately trying to get the message out that this isn't a "Geoffrey Howe" moment, but in the present day with the media being the shaper of the message, the effect is just a devastating.

Sadly, the "shame" that Howe heaped on Thatcher just washes of New Labour backs and the effect is likley to be the same here as Tony and friends try to encourage us all to "move on".

However, that one of New Labour's own is prepared to dump on his own from such a great height is indicative of just how incompetent, how venal, how back-sliding and how plain failed this Government now is.

It doesn't so much remind me of Major in 93 as Callaghan in 79. They deserve to be toast.

Nick there has been much discussion about Clarkes motives for breaking his silence. One suggestion raised was that it is in part to cosy himself nearer to Gordon Brown for the future. I can see from Clarkes perspective the logic in this but surely for the chancellor this can never happen? Any return of Clarke to frontbench/high visibility politics would surely be like handing the conservatives a shed load of free political points. How long will it take them to bring any argument in which he is involved back to this issue(and even if they can't in the commons they certainly can in the media).
Clarke is an intelligent and articulate public servant and I would have no particular desire to see him leave the political arena but with a high profile dismissal concerning a conservative hot-button issue like immigration surely his usefulness as a front bench politician is gone?

Well, Nick ...

It's interesting that only a few months after you and others conspired to kill off Charles Clarke and label him as a failure and a liabillity, you are now resurrecting him as a politician gifted with remarkable insight and judgement about all aspects of government!

Now come on - which is he?! Or does that depend on how he suits your agenda?

Have just listened to On The Ropes, and have to say Clarke came across very well to me.(And I stopped voting Labour at least 3 elections ago).
I listened particularly closely when he was asked about Brown being next leader, and I have to say that I felt he was very careful NOT to say anything which would rule out the possibility of a Clarke challenge. He said he'd be "quite happy" for Brown to become leader, and that he "expected" Brown to become leader, but it wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement. He also said he expected there WOULD be a leadership election.
I would be interested in your view. After all, John Humphrys did say Clarke has been tipped as a potential leader in the past.
Clarke also referred constantly to Labour and not New Labour.
He does have one advantage for me - I find I cringe every time I hear Blair and Brown these days; just can't stand their voices. Clarke's voice doesn't do that (although I imagine the image makers would dispair of his appearance;unfairly in my view. I want an effective PM, not a pretty one.)
Please do post again with your thoughts on the leadership possibilities.

I am afraid its all water of a ducks back to this government who really have no sense of shame. That being said Charles Clarke carries much responsibility for home office policy on the prosecution of crime. This is not being done throughout the country. Unlimited cautions- fixed penalities- no keeping of criminal records-massive undercharging of serious crime by the CPS to ensure a plea of any sort and now empty crown courts run by inept CPS solicitors and disillusioned judges. Why is no one interested in this rather than the carping of a former inept minister.

Actually, although I may be completely wrong, I think Clarke meant to do this statement at this time of the year. He obviously had a lot on his chest and needed to get rid of it, but I don't think his aim was to bring down Blair or even Reid. I think it's fair to suppose that he knew that by making this statement, he was able to set the record straight on a matter that was dear to him, yet without too much damaging his party, which after all he is still a very loyal supporter of.

Charles Clarke was sacked, and is irritated by his former employers. He simply came across as a disgruntled ex-Secretary of State who has thrown his toys out of the cot. His behaviour since Blair "sacked him" (We have to remember that TB did actually offer him another Cabinet job) has been eminently childish.

The one thing Charles Clarke shares with Geoffrey Howe is the deadness of his sheep impression. The deadliest criticism he can level is that Blair has 'lost direction'. Apart from disputing that this properly existed in the first place; it is a bit like saying the same of a weathercock once the wind stops blowing. There is another similarity with Howe come to think of it - his tone of voice - pitched at quiet reasonableness on a 'medium is the message' basis. The tone should not be confused with the content. He used it when he was dutifully arguing the patently absurd case regarding ID card implementation; when he described the fact that a passport could only be obtained on production of an ID card as somehow proving that the cards were still a 'voluntary' arrangement. Given the prison situation he had to go and subsequently he has had to swallow the bitter gall of Blair lightly admitting that a change of minister has little impact upon the 91Èȱ¬ Office success or failure

You're enjoying all this aren't you Nick.

Christmas has come early for the media, with Mr Clarke acting as Santa.

Who cares about Parliament now when we have the Beeb, Daily Mail et al to debate the great issues of the day?

I think there is a delicious irony that New Labour which embraced spin so avidly is now being hacked to death by the spinners.

Meanwhile the disgusting bulging prisons remain "universities of crime."

The only windbag worth watching is a world cup football. Charles Clarke was a failure, Tony Blair is a failure, John Reid is a failure, David Cameron is a failure. All politicians careers end in failure.

Clearly this one has brought the Blair-haters out in force ("this government knows no shame" and similar nonsense) . I wonder if any of them are old enough to remember the mess, bribery and incompetence (ERM anyone) of the Tories... More on topic, it's hard to see where Mr Clarke is going with this one. Does he want to damage the PM and thereby make things easier for the Tories? Does he really think that attacking John Reid is really going to lead to his own rehabilitation and a job in a Brown cabinet? Hard to say. It's a shame that its come now, just when the David "look at the size of my solar panels, love me, love me" Cameron show is beginning to flag (refer to the kebabbing he received at the hands of John Humphries the other morning). Better for Clakre would have been to agree with Reid and say that the whole HO thing needs an overhaul (which it does). All this does is keep the ructions in the Labour Party on the front page.

Charles Clarke provides an interesting version of events and a reminder that perception is subjective matter. I'm fond of pleonasm, but a posit must have clarity - his lacked any.

I find it curious to read so many citations of political history. I'm not interested in the assuagement of Tony Blair, his exit must perforce be swift.

Mr Reid will be a subject of the future - a notion he should keep in mind.

I find some of these comments surprising. This morning, Radio 4 not only paraded Charles Clarke, but also Frank Dobson – yet another instance of sitting at the breakfast table saying ‘whose voice is that?…..you know, he was really slimy and horrible….wasn’t he Health Secretary?’

Same with Clarke. And they’ve both got beards. Someone said above that they couldn’t bear to listen to Blair and Brown – I can’t bear to listen to any of them. They all reek of the corrupted machine, the debacle of the New Labour vision.

I think Jurgen Klinsmann should take over the Labour Party. He seems good at clearing the decks and providing the so-needed fresh air. True, he used to dive a bit, but that’s par for the course with all politicians.

And he’s even pretty, would go down a treat with the focus groups.

I can't see how Clarke can suggest that the HO is 'fit for purpose' - I can't remember a time when it ever was (certainly not under the Tories). I agree that the 91Èȱ¬ Secretary may be ill-advised to condone his department so rapidly, but eggs-is-eggs: the department fails so often that it is surely unfit for purpose. Just add it to the list... DOH, Education, Enviornment... in reality, we have a government that is not fit for purpose. The only problem is, I can't foresee one that is.

Charles Clarke always struck me as a man of integrity. He did not engage in the bullying tactics and populism of John Reid, and there was a sense that he wanted to do the job, not get his name in the paper.

I do hope that he constructively damages Tony Blair. Mr Blair's place in history is written and it is spelt I-R-A-Q. His desperate attempts to hang on to office and leave a different legacy would be merely pathetic if they did not seem likely to damage Education, Justice beyond repair.

Tony Blair is dead in the water. Only Tony Blair thinks otherwise.

I think people need to consider what qualities make a good 91Èȱ¬ Secretary.

Once they have done this they will realise that of all the New Labour politicans that have done the job only Clarke has the required qualities.

It is a sad truth of British politics that independently wealthy, liberal conservatives make the best 91Èȱ¬ Secretaries. They don't give a stuff about public opinion and are sufficently well educated to know that principles are important.

I think Charles Clarke made this point very well which was that John Reid is not fit for purpose.

It does look like a Geoffrey Howe moment to me, but Clarke knows that too viputerative an attack would annoy all but the extreme of the PLP.

Orderly transition and all that, no overt warfare. Whatever is happening under the surface, there are few suicide bombers in the game, unlike in the final weeks of Mrs. Thatcher's rule. People still see a future in power, the succession seems clear, nobody will be thanked for being seen to destabilise things more than they already are.

Just a gentle suggestion that TB should move to one side if it's in the best interests of the party, not before.

That looks like a big hint to me.

If Charles Clarke became Labour party leader then I would vote for him/them. Which is worrying, because I am very definately a Tory...

Even during the scandal it came across to me that he always acted with integrity. When he discovered the problem, he 'fessed up to it to the PM. When it became public he offered his resination. He then set about trying to do something about it without the look-at-me-I'm-doing-something attitude of other politicians. And when he got sacked despite Tony's 'support', he refused the 'appology' job they offered him.

His considered return after a period of cooling down seems also to ring of integrity to me, not hurt by my own loathing of DoKtor! Reid. It gives the impression of a man who wont see his old department rubbished by some git just after headlines.
All in all, I agree with the regret that such a level of honesty only emerges after departure from government office.

It would be nice if we could believe in the integrity of our ministers... or even that running the country well was more important to them than remaining in power.

I was interested to see today that a Downing St spokesman said the Prome Minister "had a duty" to sack the 91Èȱ¬ Secretary. If this is the case, why did it take him until the Friday to do this?

I take it duty comes second to hurting your local election results still further.

Blood on the steps of the Forum?
Et Tu Brute?
Trajan throwing rubble into Nero's Golden Palace?
With "friends" like these who needs enemies.
Has TB forgotten his history lessons.

Third term Government - Blair has had a relatively easy ride so far, yet the public mood is changing. He should as has been advised here, remember his history - or at least the previous Conservative Government he always makes great pleasure in detailing his 1997 Landslide over...

When ministers resigned from Margaret Thatcher's cabinet, you felt they had a genuine grievance as a result of a disagreement on a point of principle, and their resignation was a matter of honour. None of that holds true for Tony Blair's ministers like Blunkett, Clarke et al. There was no principle at stake, nor a shred of honour or decency involved. That in a nutshell is the difference between the Thatcher and Blair eras.

In response to post 38: Does anyone else thing that Clare Short helps Blair immensely? Every time I hear spouting off she gives the impression of being bitter and twisted, and not having thought through the arguments of whatever she says. She didn't have the principles to quit with Robin Cook either. I can't help it, but everytime I hear her insulting Blair I warm to him somewhat.

Was the Charles Clarke intervention ever going to be a Geoffrey Howe moment? It was only spun that way by Matthew d'Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph, not by Charles Clarke himself.

It's interesting to read the various reactions Charles Clarke provokes in Newspapers and on Internet blogs etc. I personally always felt he was one of the better Labour Cabinet Ministers in that he displayed intelligence and a willingness to engage in debate. I think throughout the foreigner prisoner crisis he handled himself with integrity as 'post 37' has already said.

I think Clarke is perfectly entitled to express his views as a former 91Èȱ¬ Secretary. I'm of the view he was badly treated by Blair who was more concerned about newspaper headlines and short-termism rather than long term planning. Also Clarke's downfall open's up a wider question about the whole doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility. Should Cabinet Ministers still be held accountable for huge Ministries that employ thousands of people? If Clarke was sacked for the foreigner prisoner crisis, why was Beckett promoted for the shambles in DEFRA in concern of the farmer’s payment? Why has nobody been held to account for the shambles of tax credit? But I have far more respect for Charles Clarke than a number of politicians for the way he handled himself during the foreigner prisoner crisis. At least Clarke was willing to appear on Newsnight etc, how many times has the Chancellor appeared before Paxman?

Clarke's analysis of Reid's performance in the 91Èȱ¬ Office was spot on. John Reid has been nothing but hot air thus far, it's all very well saying that he is the 'enforcer' but I personally have little faith in him.

I find it laughable that David Blunkett criticised Charles Clarke for speaking out especially when Blunkett published a book criticising half the Cabinet whilst still in the Cabinet and 700 foreigner prisoners were released under Blunkett’s watch.

Staff are 'fleeing 91Èȱ¬ Office' as morale collapses

Interesting that a former civil servant feels that Charles Clarke should still be in his post as 91Èȱ¬ Secretary.