Friday 10 September 2010

Big Beast gets his claws out for Blair

Ken Clarke isn’t the sort to let a challenge pass without saying something.

So when I read in Tony Blair’s memoirs that the former PM claimed to have whipped Clarke in debates over crime back in the 90s, I knew there would be come-back.

Then in The Telegraph on Monday Blair had another swing – this time at the Justice Secretary’s prisons policy.

Blair said he “abhors” Clarke’s suggestion that money might be saved by locking up fewer people and focusing on rehabilitation.

Talking exclusively to Lobbydog Clarke said: “Frankly I was unimpressed and I flatly reject his criticism.

“I actually think he’s had a hard time of things recently and he’s become a very unpopular figure and he was trying to say something to avoid talking about Iraq and also to create controversy about his book.”

The pair sparred in the House of Commons when Clarke was Home Secretary in John Major’s government and Blair was Labour’s home affairs spokesman.

Clarke added: “Tony was my shadow back then in the early 90s and was left dealing with crime issues. He was good at slogans but never came up with any policy.

“‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ was his famous one. But to be honest I’ve never met anyone that doesn’t agree with that – it was like many of Tony’s slogans, a platitude.”

You can read the full story in tomorrow’s Nottingham Post, I’ll link in from Lobbydog too.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Tony Blair would have more in common with Michael Howard than with Ken Clarke.

Anyway, who on earth gives a stuff what Blair thinks about anything.

He's yesterday's man, off earning untold millions while sponging off the state by taking advantage of body guards lest one of the several billion that hates his guts manages to get him.

I really think we should stop his protection outside of the UK, specially when he is travelling to makeeven more money. Why should we pay for it?

As for his donation... wouldn't it have been a bigger gesture if he had done it annonymously. Then he and God, and the recipents would be the only ones who would know. Hmmmm.

Post a Comment