Taking the punches
- 26 Apr 06, 01:08 PM
The theme throughout today's Prime Minister's Questions (watch it here) was just how uncomfortable Tony Blair looked. He only really had one thing to say - "yes, it's a mess, we've tried to sort it out, but we didn't manage to sort it out very quickly." In truth he was like a man on the ropes, taking the punches
Earlier today, reader Colin wrote:
Three things puzzle me over this Clarke story Nick.
1. Does this signal that no minister will ever again have to resign for anything that happens in their department?
2. Will the story change if and when we get a 'Willie Horton' moment - ie "They freed the man who went on to rape me"
3. Is it a pure coincidence that John Prescott's affair story comes out on the same day? Truly a good day to bury bad news.
Well, there is much talk of the dead tradition of "an honorable resignation" - in other words resigning because something goes wrong in your department even if you are not directly to blame. No-one I speak to can recall an example of this since Lord Carrington stood down as Margaret Thatcher's foreign secretary when the Falklands were invaded. So the accepted wisdom in Westminster is that you resign if it can be shown that you wilfully misled Parliament or public or if your personal failings as a minister are the cause of a scandal.
Charles Clarke admits that "I failed…we failed…there was systemic failure…it was shocking" but insists he won't resign. Why? Because he's saying - in effect - this failing had been going on for many years. I wasn't told what was going on by civil servants. When I was told I did act but they failed to deliver the policy change. I now want to stay to sort the mess out.
His critics are saying - in effect - once you knew the failure you neither informed the public honestly nor ensured that the failure stopped straight away since 288 prisoners were not considered for deportation after you learnt of the problem.
Who's right? You tell me.
As for the "Willie Horton" moment, it's a gruesome thought but, of course, yes - a re-offence by someone who could have been deported wouldn't change the facts but it would increase the temperature yet further.
And as for whether it's a pure coincidence that the story of John Prescott's affair comes out on the same day, yes. Call me naïve but I have no reason to think it was anything but pure coincidence. I'm told that the Mirror story was a bombshell to Prescott's colleagues and family.
