Jump to content

Talk:Kenneth Clarke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mosley

[edit]

Can I query some of the claims in this para:

He first gained notoriety in this post when he invited the fascist leader Oswald Mosley to speak, twice. This forced some Jewish students, including his future succesor at the Home Office, Michael Howard to resign in protest at the seeming anti-semitism of Mosley's two invitations. This almost certainly led to Clarke's surprise defeat for the presidency of the Cambridge Union Society by Michael Howard, although Clarke was eventually elected President of the Union one year later. It is not, however, Mosley's anti-semitism that made a mark on Ken Clarke, but his ground breaking advocacy of a European Union. Mosley was the first politician of any standing to call for British participation in building up a federal state, and his call for Europe a Nation has found echoes in much of Clarke's rhetoric.

This seems a bit like Eurosceptic POV. Mosley did indeed call for "Europe a Nation" but as students of both fascism and European Union know, Mosley's idea was more like a development of pre-war Strasserite theories on European civilisation than a precursor to Jean Monnet and the European Coal and Steel Community. I haven't heard Clarke calling for a single nation across Europe; he is far more comfortably placed among those moderate politicians of both left and right who believe that European integration with all its attendant problems is good at preventing war and promoting trade.

Furthermore I note that this section was added by an anon user who has made some interesting edits to other articles, q.v.. Dbiv 20:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agree that this doesn't look like NPOV. Invitation of someone to speak at a meeting doesn't automatically imply agreement with their views. Just because Mosley spoke at a meeting chaired by Ken Clarke doesn't mean that Ken Clarke agreed with him. Mpntod 18:53, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Minister for Justice?

[edit]

RE: Legal aid 'to be limited to those with under £1,000 in assets' to cut costs 

Mail On Sunday   14th November 2010

"Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has warned 'those who need it most' will be eligible for legal aidState help with civil legal costs will be restricted to people with assets including homes worth less than £1,000 under cost-cutting measures <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329355/Legal-aid-limited-1-000-assets-cut-costs.html#ixzz15FdlE9zM>. Was this actually in his original Manifesto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.98.61 (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg Group

[edit]

Someone removed the bit about membership of the Bilderberg Group. I'll present a little evidence:

He definitely flew to Milan, Italy on June 3, 2004. [1]
According to our own article, The Bilderberg Group met in nearby Stressa from June 3 to June 6.

I doubt this is a coincidence. In conjunction with the fact that Clarke is named by the BBC as a member [2], I rest my case. Evercat 12:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the Bilderberg Group because it's barely relevant to Kenneth Clarke's career and not particularly interesting. So what if he goes to talk to other European politicians to talk in private about the future of politics? Hardly a big surprise. However putting it there is a bit POV as it only encourages the loopy conspiracy theorists who think Bilderberg is an attempt to take over the world etc. I see no reason to indulge this paranoia. Dbiv 18:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're reading rather more into it than you need to - it's just 8 words noting his membership. What goes on in the meetings I have no idea, though you can hardly claim that secret meetings between the most influential people in the world are not important or notable. I'm restoring it to the top, since I don't see that it belongs in the "Opposition" section. Evercat 21:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I can live with the current wording. Evercat 21:37, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bilderberg Attendee Categorization

[edit]

After I added Clarke to the category category:Bilderberg Attendees my edit was promptly reversed (diff) on the basis that the BBC News reference was 'not definitive' that he attended meetings (despite the BBC News article clearly and unambiguously stating that the Bilderberg Group includes Clarke). I have added a second published reference with quotes from the sources and re-added the category. Should anyone still object there are several other newspaper sources stating he has attended Bilderberg Conferences but I feel that two published reliable sources are sufficient in order to support this categorization.—Teahot (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear Teahot, I have no issue with BG refs. I do have an issue with sloppy refs. That BBC 2004 article only mentions Clarke thus: "The group, which includes luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and former UK chancellor Kenneth Clarke,..". That's it - nothing substantive. Nothing about attending any meeting. The previous Clarke edit said he was a member of BG. I changed it this morning because BG does not have a published membership. It is understood to be invitation only.
I left the modified BG mention in the article requesting a proper citation. Now we have his MP's interests cited the article is accurate. It was not accurate earlier. There are no "despites" about it - the BBC article is crap as a source and should probably be removed. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Duffy's article for the BBC is a summary piece and some layman readers may find it useful as a source rather than relying only on dry references in the Register of Members' Interests. I note that you have added the year, though you should note that Clarke has attended Bilderberg meetings in 1993, 1998 and 2006-2009 and it might be better to remove the year in this article unless you want the same information duplicated. Supporting sources have been included at List of Bilderberg participants though these are primarily his own declarations in the aforementioned Register of Members' Interests.
I am puzzled by your quotes around the word despites as I do not think I used the term despite or (perhaps you meant) dispute in my comments or edit summaries though perhaps you are quoting from somewhere else?—Teahot (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only concerned with facts. If sourced material exists for other years that's fine. The one I read only covered 2008. The other link (not the BBC one) doesn't go anywhere. In your 10:55 edit you used "despite" here: ".....meetings (despite the BBC News article clearly and unambiguously stating that the Bilderberg Group includes Clarke). leaky_caldron (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now added the other years attended. Rather than adding a x-ref for each year to the Members' Register of Interests I have included a general reference as it is easy for a reader to check once they are at the right part of the parliament.uk site. Note that some newspapers implied that Clarke was attending in 2009 but it was later reported in the Guardian that his office says he was in his constituency on those days (Guardian, 19 May, "Our man at Bilderberg: Let's salt the slug in 2010", quote:And one little correction: for the record, Kenneth Clarke's office has said he was "in his constituency" at the weekend, not at the Astir Palace doing sambuca shots with the CEO of Airbus. Just in case he remembers differently when asked again.). Consequently I have corrected List of Bilderberg participants in line with the latest information.—Teahot (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit marker

[edit]

I have had a go at revising the prose of this page. Perhaps most visible is making bullet lists for the corporate and media work and separating those two which were bizarrely mixed together (deputy chairmanships and the BBC jazz gig). Don't think I changed anything factually except for tense (he'll have to have dropped the jobs now he's Lord Chancellor) & hope all are happy with it. Iph (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Clarke acknowledges Bilderberg Attendance

[edit]

Google YouTube Kenneth Clarke Bilderberg and you will find many videos confirming the attendance of Kenneth Clarke to Bilderberg meetings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0LR4N-rsCXc

The above shows how previous Wikipedia edits to discredit editors which made the above claims were wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.244.181 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this article is disputed. The involvement of Kenneth Clarke in Bilderberg Meetings needs to be included

[edit]

The neutrality of this article is disputed. The involvement of Kenneth Clarke in Bilderberg Meetings needs to be included. Previous edits showed bias reporting, as all references to Bilderberg were removed from the main article.

Proof of Kenneth Clarke involvement in Bilderberg:

MP's Discuss Bilderberg in the House of Commons http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0LR4N-rsCXc

Ben Fellows

[edit]

Ben Fellows who accused Clarke of sexual assault was cleared of Contempt for Court Clarke accuser cleared(Coachtripfan (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kenneth Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the allegations that he raped a teenage boy? (5.81.222.127 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Because the media have not taken them seriously and they are completely implausible? -- Alarics (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they're implausible? The article on Edward Heath mentions he was accused of raping a boy. As it has been widely reported it should be in Clarke's article. (5.81.222.127 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
This seems to be the matter under discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: For the avoidance of doubt, the court did not say that there was any foundation to the claim. The fact that the defendant was cleared of perverting the course of justice could have been for many reasons - it did not in any way support the allegations made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless this has been widely reported by the BBC and broadsheet newspapers so it should be mentioned. (5.81.222.127 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
The allegation was NOT that he "raped a teenage boy". Even the complainant, described in court as a "fantasist", said "it was no more than a minor groping". The police would have investigated Clarke if they thought there was anything to it. Roger Cook, for whom the complainant claimed to be working, said he had never even heard of him. Even David Hencke of Exaro, who are usually happy to publish all sorts of allegations, has explained that this one is nonsense and described it as a "smear": See this Exaro page. I don't think Wikipedia should be giving any further credence to this scurrilous tabloid fantasy. -- Alarics (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke DID ridicule three leadership candidates

[edit]

There was no speculation. I used direct quotes and those were widely reported by many highly-respected news media. I have added that section again. It is valid and fully cited. I have since updated it, adding a citation including the video clip of Clarke's comments at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/ken-clarke-caught-on-camera-ridiculing-conservative-leadership-c/ Peter K Burian (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And he was apparently unaware that the cameras were on ... www.independent.co.uk › - apparently unaware he was being recorded.

www.theguardian.com › Politics › Kenneth Clarke apparently unaware that the camera was rolling.

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Tory-big-beast-Ken-Clarke-brands-Michael-Gove-... apparently believing he was not being recorded.

huntnews.in/p/detail/2637202843560285?uc_param_str... apparently unaware he was being recorded.

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Tory-big-beast-Ken-Clarke-brands-Michael-Gove-... 

apparently believing he. And many other confirmations that he was apparently unaware that the cameras were on. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silk

[edit]

It would be interesting to know how "genuine" his QC-ship actually is. I've been flicking through his memoirs recently and he doesn't mention the promotion at all. It used to be not uncommon for barrister-MPs to be made an honorary QC ("false silk" as it was sometimes derisively known), although the practice is now discontinued. Michael Howard is actually a "genuine" QC and practised as such before getting into Parliament relatively late in his forties; Thatcher was only ever a practising barrister for a few years in the late 1950s (she was called after her kids were born) so she never qualified even for the honorific, although one suspects that like Tony Blair she would have been a very successful barrister if she had stuck at it.

Clarke had been a barrister for 16-17 years by 1980, a usual period for taking silk, but five of those had been spent in government. He seems to have done hack work in criminal and personal injury law, and he writes about his exhausting 3-way commute between Parliament (in the evenings, in those days), his seat in the East Midlands at the weekend and his "day job" in Birmingham, usually mugging up tomorrow's cases on the late train up each night. He only mentions his rank when he mentions that his chambers approached him in 1997 to rejoin them, but he felt that he would have needed a very good junior to update him on the changes in the law since he had last practised.

In those days silk was much more a question of the "tap on the shoulder, old boy" from one's seniors rather than today's formal application process. I get the impression that Clarke was probably a competent rather than an outstanding barrister, but I may be wrong. Maybe, although his promotion wasn't purely honorary, his successful ministerial career was another reason why he got picked. I'm not trying to score points either for or against Clarke here - I'm genuinely interested.

It's so long ago now that we are unlikely to know unless Clarke himself has spoken on the matter, and my view FWIW is that his silence is probably a give-away. There were a couple of instant biogs written of him circa 1993, when he seemed a likely successor to Major, but my copies are buried deep in the attic. Maybe one of them might shed some light.Paulturtle (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In his biograpghy he does mention that as a promoter of British industry when he was Minister Without Portfolio, instead of using that rather unassuming title he made use of the fact he was a legal counsel to Her Majesty, i.e. a QC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.E. Nightingale (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances on Question Time

[edit]

It was said on the Radio Four programme More or Less in May 2018 that Kenneth Clarke holds the record for most appearances on Question Time, having appeared 58 times. This could go in this article. Vorbee (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

parliamentary secretary vs parliamentary under-secretary

[edit]

In 1981, in the Dept of Transport, Clarke moved from the former to the latter.

According to the two wiki links, both positions are the 3rd tier of govt, below Min of State and above PPS.

So can we please clarify what this means. How did his role change, was it a promotion?

Not just here, but in the two links.

All the best. Ganpati23 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the relevant pages, the head of the department (Norman Fowler) in 1979-81 was "Minister of Transport" but not a full member of the Cabinet. In 1981 he was upgraded to "Secretary of State for Transport" and made a full member of Cabinet. Maybe that's why Clarke's title was amended.Paulturtle (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be right. As Rodney Brazier explains in 'Ministers of the Crown' (p 13), "[w]henever a Secretary of State was allocated a Parliamentary Secretary, the junior colleague was styled the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State". FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent

[edit]

Stop changing him to independent. There has been no official confirmation that he has been thrown out of the party. 184.102.100.31 (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources seem to indicate is that he has been thrown out of the Parliamentary party and told he cannot stand as a Con candidate, but not (yet) that he has had his party membership rescinded. I agree that it is not (yet) correct to call him "Independent". So far as I know he still sits on the Con benches, but I'm sure the position will develop further in coming days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_Clarke&oldid=1206929324"