I Could Have Been A Contender!

Back in February 2008 Charles Jug Ears Clarke, Noted Pie Stuffer, had lunch with Petronella Wyatt, and over smoked salmon and scrambled eggs followed by Steak Tartare, vented his considerable spleen on the subject of The Great Leader. I shall put the wisdom of Charlie as reported by Petronella in BLUE. (You can check this out HERE )

Then I shall cut that outpouring with the February 2009 interview with Mary Riddell in the Telegraph, in RED. Just for fun!

The Prime Minister cannot bear anyone who challenges him.

We go back a very long way, Gordon and I. I like and respect him. But we've had a lot of disagreements about the way politics should be done.

People want the security of confidence about where we are going. They are fed up with a stop-go, chop-and-change approach, taking up things and then dropping them. Voters don't know where Labour stands.

The grand story is very clear. Thirty years of Thatcher/Reagan, tempered by Clinton/Blair, are over. What are we saying for the future?

I have to start a debate about all this because it is only two and a half years until the next General Election, and it is imperative that there is a discussion of Labour's future before it has no future and is obliterated.

I've talked to some of the people round him, but Gordon and I haven't had a serious
talk this year.

At first, I had thought it unlikely he would give me a Government job. But then, when he became Prime Minister, he said that he had nothing personal against me and he asked me to be a special envoy to him in certain roles. I wrote to him about what such a role might entail and got no response. So, after about six weeks, I said 'no'. I told him my natural role was as a minister and not as his envoy.

I was talking about a role in government, and that remains the case. He's perfectly entitled to say there isn't a role for me, which I respect completely.

Someone has to bring the subject up. We are conveying a sense of drift and uncertainty. Only Gordon can change this - if he is capable of doing so. Unfortunately, he hasn't the confidence of the country because of the things he has done.

I felt after party conference – in fact almost during it – that Gordon played an absolutely
outstanding role in terms of the economic situation we faced.

Those in Labour trying to undermine Blair were disloyal and unacceptable. Gordon should have stopped it. When I raised this, he claimed that he couldn't. Yes, it would have been better for Gordon as a person to have had to fight a serious contest.

I doubt if I'd have got the nominations to run if there had been a vacancy, and my guess is that's still the case. But that wasn't my point. We needed the best set of circumstances to maximise our performance in the next election, and that was why I was raising the debates.

He is a man who has to control. In a Prime Minister, this is not a good thing. I remember the picture of a batty Margaret Thatcher walking in St James's Park, picking up litter because she
was on her litter crusade. She wanted the image to show that she personally could sort out all the litter in the country. But you can't. Gordon still feels he has to do everything. It's in his personal
history.

I'd said so many things which were [unfortunate]. I criticise myself for it. I used language unwisely. I was too sharp in the words I used about Gordon. People felt, and I do understand why, that style wasn't appropriate. I've always seen myself as a more inclusive politician than that. I defined myself as sharper and more personal, and I do regret that.

Sadly, as far as I have learned, his relationship with the Treasury has not improved at all. The
senior Civil Service, as a whole, is very pessimistic about the way he is running the country. This is something else he must address.

The art of politics is about fast reactions. When something comes along, you have to respond very quickly or it runs away from you. You saw it with David Cameron over MPs' expenses when he was out, very fast, dealing with the situation. Gordon must stop being a ditherer. He lacks courage. He looks at his papers, dithers and isn't sure.

I'm absolutely sincere that the way Gordon handled the economy last October and November was exemplary.

There is a very big problem in Gordon's mind. He is always thinking about Tony Blair. It's a
strange, tormented thing. He is tormented by the idea of Blair. It's almost a love-hate thing.
He wants to be anti-Blair, rather than post-Blair. He wants to revisit things that Blair did, like casinos and cannabis.

It's hard for anyone to change, especially at 56. This is the one million dollar question.
The answer is: he has to change.

Not a particular phrase, no; but I felt my language was intemperate.

Gordon can only make the Cabinet seem heavyweight by changing the people he puts in it.

It's good that people like Peter Mandelson and Alan Milburn are working with him. I can't say much more. That question is not a matter for me. Gordon has to decide if he wants to make anything happen.

I think it most unlikely that Brown will offer me a Cabinet post, whatever I do. As I said, he doesn't like challenge within his government. I would say what I think, which he would hate.

I'd love to do transport, or anything around the environment.

Now, the point is, would anyone take the two faced fat cunt back into the tent? It's not impossible to imagine Gordon doing this, his decision making is crap and he brought Voldemort back, and is said to be thinking of bringing Blind Pew back. However, who on earth would ever be able to trust a thing he said?

The Penguin