Charles Clarke ,genuine opinion ,sour grapes, vengence or a play for another job that he can **** up?

Answer 1

The man is a moron...

I'm not qualified to talk apart from: he don't get my vote...

Answer 2

Charles Clarke baffles me. If his claim that Gordon Brown's behaviour is bad for the party, how can his comments make things any better? The worry within New Labour, so it seems, is being perceived by the voting public as being in a state of civil war. Well, don't Clarke's comments give that very impression?

Clarke is a bitter man. He was loyal to Blair but Blair sacked him and he hasn't got over it. At the same time, though, he and the other fattie, Brown, have always hated each other's guts. Clarke can't be after another job for two reasons. First, Blair would be the only one to give him one but he is now a lame duck, so no possibility there! Secondly Brown hates his guts (see above).

So, I think it is a mixture of sour grapes and vengeance.

Answer 3

His first ministerial posting was as Education Secretary when he replaced Estelle Morris and at the time was being called a Blairite and a political bruiser. Then of course in payment for his loyalty and towing the party line he became Home Secretary and went on to do a pretty sh1t job to be honest but still a Blairite. Then when everyone realised what a diabolical Home Secretary he was, he was forced out of his job. Since then he has attacked Blair at every oppotunity and been a whinging git on the back benches proving that there is no loyalty in politics.

His recent little outburst is proof that New Labour are just as bad as the last lot. When Blair took them to power in 1997 they all loved him as he allowed them to jump aboard the gravy train, now it looks like they're going to lose the next election and the prospect of being unemployed and watching Trisha looms ever closer they've shown themselves to be self promoting, self seeking pricks with Clarke being one of the worst examples of all.

Answer 4

As a Minister in Her Majesties Government Charles Clarke was unable to voice his opinion and disatisfaction with the current administration.
One must first understand that the UK has an unwritten constitution, so people who operate within the constitution such as ministers of state are bound by the priniples of constitutional conventions rather than written rules.
A,V Dicey a leading academic and recognised authority on the UK constitution wrote in 1895 that constitutional conventions were "rules felt to be binding on those who opperate within the British constitution."
One such convention is that of Ministerial responsibility, which operates to ensure that ministers speak with 'one pulic voice' as such ministers are not allowed to publicly disagree with cabinet policy.
It has been as a consequence of demonstrative leadership as found with Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair has this convention been abused, because instead of taking the advise of ministers a prime minister can insist on 'his or her' policies and whatever the objections raised within a cabinet meeting once outside in the public veiw all ministers and junior ministers must all sing the same song that they have been told to sing.
This has had two vissable consequences in recent history
1. a growing number ministerial resignations, and discent Charles Clarke being only one example.
2. ill concieved policies that have been forced through by concieted a priminister are failing, such as immigration, foriegn policy, health, education developing the need for scapegoats.
It is this light one may argue that Charles Clarke may well feel bitter because of being hung out to dry because of the failings of the home office which inturn were carrying out the policies it would seem he was against.
However its more likely that since he is no longer a minister of the crown he is no longer bound by the constitutional convention of ministerial responsibility he is telling us what we as the voting public deserve ..........the truth.
The truth is that 10yrs is proving to be enough time to have proved that Tony has been getting it wrong, and should have listened more, a perfect example is the armed conflict in Iraq a subject that saw 1 million people march past the Houses of Parliment and numerous ministerial resignations yet he didn't listen and his remaining ministers were unable to say anything and as Tony Blairs power fades minister resignations will become more frequent as ministers lose confidence in the PM and start to distance themselves from him, makeing it more and more likely that if he had not announced his resignation from office next year he would undoubtably have faced a vote of no confidence and a resulting leadership battle simillar to what happened to BaronessThatcher when she was replaced by the Rt Hon John Major.

Answer 5

He always did seem to have a chip on his shoulder. He never appeared that fond of Tony and clearly doesn't think much of Gordon. I think that following his sacking as Home Secretary he just wants to cause difficulties for the leadership.

Answer 6

I think it the beginning of his own leadership bid. Charles Clarke as leader, now thats a thought ... not sure what I think to this!

Answer 7

Give Corky the points

Answer 8

I think about all of them. Lets face it when Brown gets in and removes some others they will cry as well.

Answer 9

Anyone who gives greedy bast*rd Brown a kicking is fine for me!

Answer 10

They are now all breaking ranks and making their play for the leadership.