Ken Clarke - The Last Throw Of The Dice

[Sledgehead]

Oh dear, yet more saddos of the conspiracy tendancy. Bilderberg group, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. Grow up and get a life. Preferably away for this website.

The problem with this statement is that Bilderberg does exist and you aren't invited to hear what they decide.

The Tories are crap because they have awful policies rooted in the 1950s, and with no relevance to today, particularly on social issues).

I haven't read the Spectator article, but if you mean 1950s as in respect for elders and the police, neither a borrower nor a lender be, two parent families etc, maybe it would be nice if such policies did have more relevance now. No?

Economically, they are still rightly blamed for the ERM fiasco, and for the division, inequality and sheer nastiness they created during their reign.

And this site proves how economically united the country is now doesn't it, eh? People justifying the wrecking of second homes, cheering for a house price crash.

They screweed trhe country and the current Labour government have been too cowardly to make much difference.

In the last eight years (all New Labour rule) consumer debt has doubled from half a trillion to 1.1 trillion. That's screwing the country.

Nevertheless, the one thing the country is NOT crying out for is a more right wing government.

Who says they'll even get one if they vote against Tory Blair? Do you even have a clear idea whayt you mean by "right wing". Are you suggesting Ken is about to ditch his Hush Puppies for Jack Boots? Alarmist clap trap. I suggest you go to the Political Compass site and take the test. Then look at where certain politicians lie on the compass. You might be surprised where we are now with our great leader. You use words like "right wing" when you are trying to imply "authoritariansim." You use "class divide" when you are trying to imply "rich and poor." Sounds like it isn't just a few Tories in the Spectator who are stuck in the 1950s

Just remember, Labour, some of them (Gordon Brown included) are at least trying, far too slowly, to make this country just slighly more equal, slightly nicer even.

So explain SIPPS. So explain this :

and this :

'Poverty gap' widens under Labour , BBC June 2003

Children who live in the poorest UK households have less of a chance of escaping poverty than when Labour came to power, a report concludes.

The research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies says the total poverty gap - the total income by which families fall short of the poverty line - has increased under Labour.

So explain why the rich are opting for gated communities. So explain why we talk of "chav scum". So explain why Britains are blowing themselves up in the capital.

The Tories need to carry on wearing hair shirts for at least another generation to atone for the damage they visited on this country.

Be more specific

To quote Teresa May, they are the nasty party. And don't foget who originally relaxed credit rules, flogged off our services, introduced the market into every aspect of our lives, reduced taxes for the rich, squandered £18 billion North Sea Oil money on unemployment benefit, sold off council houses and knew the price of everything but the value of nothing...

And just how has 3 labour terms corrected this?

Vote Ken Clarke if you want to, but nothing could ever persuade me to support that mendacious, vulgar, greedy shower in the Conservative party

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd rather vote for a PM whose property empire now stands at over £4m, with a wife who goes on talk shows to money grab to plug the mortgage gap.

Edited September 2, 2005 by Sledgehead

[patprimer74]

Neil Kinnock - tosser - grade 1 - no chance of ever being elected Prime Minister.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tosser - grade 1 - he may be, in your opinion. But he knocked Labour into shape making it electable and, in the process, making the Tories unelectable. Three landslide victories - just in case you've conveniently forgotten - and still no sign of the Tories resurfacing. Kinnock damaged the Conservatives more seriously and permanently than anyone else. Even more than Mad Maggie - and that's really something! What greater service could a politician provide to his country? Peerage? He should have been canonised!

Choosing a new leader for the Tories is about as useful as appointing a replacement captain for the Titanic!

Glug...glug...glug...

p

[murpaul]

Choosing a new leader for the Tories is about as useful as appointing a replacement captain for the Titanic!

Glug...glug...glug...

p

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll bet they were saying that about the Tories in 1946.

[Clouseau]

He's yesterday's man - like Howard

[patprimer74]

I'll bet they were saying that about the Tories in 1946.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think they were. But, that time, the Tories were only hammered in one election, 1945 - at the next one, in 1950, they almost regained power. This time, they've lost one by a landslide, a second by a landslide and a third by a mile!

The trouble is that the activists they gained in the late 1940's are still there and hardly anyone has joined them since! I don't think Ken Clarke is too old; he's much too young for the membership - they think he's just a whipper-snapper. God bless 'em.

p

[Harry Sacks]

Kenneth Clarke’s work for British American Tobacco should disqualify him from office.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 23rd August 2005

If someone told you that the Conservatives would form the next government, then asked you who you would like to see as their leader, what answer would you give? I suspect that most Guardian readers would choose Kenneth Clarke. Opposed to the invasion of Iraq, sympathetic to the European Union, liberal, avuncular, Clarke is the obvious antidote to the swivel-eyed ideologues who have run the party for much of the past 30 years. You were doubtless glad to hear that he will declare his candidacy over the next few weeks and that, if he joins forces with David Cameron, he could win.

There’s just one small problem. To see him as a credible candidate, you must forget what he has been doing for the past seven years. Since 1998, he has been deputy chairman of British American Tobacco (BAT).(1) It seems to me that this renders him unfit for public office.

Let us begin by examining BAT’s contribution to public health. Smoking, according to the World Health Organisation, “is currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide … half the people that smoke today – that is about 650 million people – will eventually be killed by tobacco.”(2) BAT sells one sixth of the world’s cigarettes.(3) Were responsibility to be divided according to market share, we could accuse it of causing the deaths of 100 million people.

In the rich nations this is a declining problem. In the United States, smokers have fallen to 22% of the adult population – the lowest rate since the second world war.(4) In Australia, according to a study published last month, smoking, on current trends, will be extinct by 2030.(5) So BAT’s growth relies on poorer nations: Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Nigeria.(6) Last year its profits rose by 20%.(7)

There are two obstacles to its further expansion in developing countries. The first is the international attempt, led by the World Health Organisation, to help those countries resist the pressure to deregulate tobacco sales. In 2002, the Guardian revealed that BAT had been paying a middleman up to £250,000 a year to lobby countries to reject international attempts to put stronger health warnings on cigarette packs, reduce the levels of tar and nicotine in cigarettes and increase tobacco taxes.(8) On Sunday, the Observer revealed that Kenneth Clarke attended a meeting in Geneva in 1999, at which BAT discussed with its competitors how they might resist the advertising bans proposed in a draft international treaty.(9)

The second is the attempt by national governments to discourage smoking, in particular by imposing taxes on cigarettes. Over the past five years, BAT documents have been uncovered which appear to implicate the company in smuggling.

At first it looked as if BAT’s involvement was indirect. The papers discovered in the company’s archives by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists suggested that it supplied cigarettes to wholesalers in the expectation that they would find their way onto the black market.(10) In some countries, they indicate, it knowingly advertised the smuggled brands.(11) But in 2001 the journalists discovered a series of letters which suggested that BAT subsidiaries were organising smuggling operations. One set of papers shows that cigarettes were dispatched to BAT’s agents on the Caribbean island of Aruba, then shipped by BAT’s exclusive distributors to the South American mainland, then smuggled by middlemen into Venezuela and Colombia.(12) Until 1997, proceeds from this operation appear to have been collected by a BAT branch based in Surrey.(13) After that they were channelled into a subsidiary based in Geneva. By 1998, the year in which Clarke joined the company, the documents suggest that 8 billion BAT cigarettes a year were leaving Aruba, harvesting an annual $200m for the Geneva operation.(14)

When the first smuggling allegations were published, in early 2000, Clarke responded that “British American Tobacco is a good corporate citizen which maintains high ethical standards. We reject allegations that we have “condoned tax evasion and exploited smuggling”.”(15) But he went on to admit that “businesses such as ours who are engaged in international trade are faced with a dilemma. ... we act, completely within the law, on the basis that our brands will be available alongside those of our competitors in the smuggled as well as the legitimate market.”(16)

He told the House of Commons health committee that BAT “is a company of integrity. It is an extremely good corporate citizen.” Claims that it was organising smuggling, he stated, were “quite unfounded … We do not, and we would not, and we would stop any of our employees doing it.”(17) He later admitted that he did not “have any detailed knowledge of the day to day activities” of the Geneva office.(18) He remains vulnerable to the charge that he misled the Commons.(19)

BAT’s relationships with its suppliers bear certain resemblances to its relationships with its consumers. Christian Aid has published two reports detailing the company’s treatment of tobacco farmers in Brazil and Kenya.(20) The farmers are tied to contracts obliging them to buy their chemicals, seed and equipment from BAT’s subsidiaries. The company also determines the price it gives them for the tobacco they produce, and is widely accused of paying far less than the market rate. The result is that many farmers end up owing the company more money than they receive. Partly because of this, some are obliged to employ their children in the fields. Many of the farmers contracted to the company, lacking proper protective clothing, suffer from pesticide-related diseases. A fax from BAT Kenya’s regional director reveals that a Kenyan law forbidding farmers to grow tobacco for more than one company (and therefore to seek higher prices) “was actually drafted by us.”(21) In Brazil, Christian Aid reveals, BAT’s subsidiary was claiming, on the tobacco growers’ behalf, the government credit intended for small farmers.(22)

Such behaviour, Christian Aid alleges, is whitewashed by BAT’s corporate social responsibility programme. The man in charge of it is Kenneth Clarke. He was the director who helped to broker the deal with Nottingham University establishing a centre for corporate social responsibility, sponsored by the company.(23) BAT was one of the last British-based multinationals to leave Burma: it did so, in 2003, only after a sustained public campaign and a direct request from the British government. It remains one of the largest foreign investors in Uzbekistan.(24)

These are the activities which, for the past seven years, Kenneth Clarke, wittingly or otherwise, has assisted. We should remember that he has previously held the posts of health secretary – responsible for reducing the impacts of smoking; home secretary – responsible for upholding the law; and Chancellor of the Exchequer – responsible for ensuring that Customs and Excise is not cheated of its revenues.

I am not suggesting that Clarke has knowingly engaged in illegal activities, or has done anything to offend current criminal law. But it seems to me that in a fair world – a world in which human life was valued by our legislators – he would not now be contemplating the leadership of Her Majesty’s Opposition. He would be behind bars.

References:

1. British American Tobacco, no date. Who We Are: Kenneth Clarke, Deputy Chairman.

http://www.bat.com/OneWeb/sites/uk__3mnfen...=20050818&TMP=1

2. World Health organisation, no date. Why is tobacco a public health priority?

http://www.who.int/tobacco/health_priority/en/index.html

3. Kevin Maguire, 31st January 2000. A tobacco giant and its global reach. The Guardian.

4. US Medicine, 25th July 2005. Smoking among Adults Declines, According to CDC.

http://www.usmedicine.com/dailyNews.cfm?dailyID=243

5. Australian Associated Press, 30th July 2005. Smoking in Australia to end in 30 years. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/07/30/...l?oneclick=true

6. eg Simon Bowers, 29th July 2005. BAT to close more European plants. The Guardian; Simon Bowers, 11th June 2005. Peace pipe. The Guardian.

7. Mark Tran, 1st March 2005. BAT boosts profits by 20%. The Guardian.

8. Kevin Maguire, 22nd March 2002. Tobacco firms paid middle man to lobby ministers. The Guardian.

9. Jamie Doward and Gaby Hinsliff, 21st August 2005. Tory hopeful Clarke ‘must cut tobacco tie’. The Observer.

10. Kevin Maguire and Duncan Campbell, 31st January 2000. Tobacco giant implicated in global smuggling schemes. The Guardian.

11. ibid.

12. Duncan Campbell and Kevin Maguire, 22nd August 2001. Clarke company faces new smuggling claims. The Guardian. The documents can be viewed at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics...,540558,00.html

13. ibid.

14. Duncan Campbell and Kevin Maguire, 22nd August 2001. Clarke company faces new smuggling claims. The Guardian and Duncan Campbell, 22nd August 2001. The multi-million dollar trade route. The Guardian.

15. Kenneth Clarke, 3rd February 2000. Dilemma of a cigarette exporter . The Guardian.

16. ibid.

17. Select Committee on Health, 5 June 2000. Second Report, Minutes of Evidence. Examination of witnesses Wednesday 16 February 2000. Mr M Broughton, Mr K Clarke, Mr C Bates and Mr D Campbell.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-offic.../27/0021605.htm

18. Duncan Campbell and Kevin Maguire, 22nd August 2001. Clarke company faces new smuggling claims. The Guardian.

19. This point was first made by David Leigh, 23rd August 2001. Big Tobacco could get burnt. The Guardian.

20. Christian Aid and DESER, February 2002. Hooked on tobacco.

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/0201bat/; and Christian Aid, 2004. Behind the mask: The real face of corporate social responsibility.

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/040...hindthemask.pdf

21. Christian Aid and DESER, ibid.

22. Christian Aid, ibid.

23. Francis Beckett, 9th July 2003. Conflict of interests. The Guardian.

24. Simon Bowers, 11th June 2005, ibid.

Edited September 2, 2005 by dom

[Rapid Descent]

I am not suggesting that Clarke has knowingly engaged in illegal activities, or has done anything to offend current criminal law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, okay

But it seems to me that in a fair world ... He would be behind bars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Crikey, the moonbat is now recommending we put people who haven't broken the law behind bars? This blokes intelligence knows no beginning.

[Dancing Bear]

i actually thought that Ken Clarke was a pretty principled bloke when he defended the Euro in his own misguided way.

i was also glad he never became leader as i have thought for some time the euro was the wrong way to go and if he ever became PM then that's the way we were headed.

now i scincerely hope he loses the race to be leader of the Tories as he has just done a flip-flop Tony would have been proud of , proving he would be no different to B.Liar in being self-serving, and who would want him to be running the country when he can get an issue as big as Europe wrong - what would he fail to see next?

Edited September 2, 2005 by Dancing Bear

[Marina]

I had a meeting up in the smoke recently (early evening) and parked my car in the little semi-circle by Temple station.

BAT have their office there. As I crossed the road who should leave the BAT office but the man in question.

About 2 weeks before this my younger brother died of lung cancer.

I found it hard not to call out a four letter word that begins with c.

I agree wholeheartedly with whoever said his position at BAT renders him unfit for office. It actually renders him unfit for anything apart from a good kicking.

[dapperdave]

ken clarke would be useless for this country. the BAT thing shouldn't have anything to do with it in my opinion, even though its bordering on immoral to say the least. clarkey got it completely wrong on europe and he's probably too old for the job or at least he will be by the time the election comes around. i'm still undecided about davis and cameron is just a bit weird. its a shame the party is in such a mess really, without a strong opposition its just a license for tony + gordon to f up the country even more.

[North London Rent Girl]

Right, okay

But it seems to me that in a fair world ... He would be behind bars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Crikey, the moonbat is now recommending we put people who haven't broken the law behind bars? This blokes intelligence knows no beginning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're missing his point. He's saying that he's only not breaking the law because our laws are crap - our laws should be better; if they were he would be breaking them! He's talking about the introduction of corporate criminal liability - for killing people, harm to people's health, the environment etc. Bhopal, these people suffering from pesticide exposure, that sort of thing. You've elided the main bit.

"But it seems to me that in a fair world – a world in which human life was valued by our legislators – he would not now be contemplating the leadership of Her Majesty’s Opposition. He would be behind bars."

Ken Clarke, along with Boris Johnson and Michael Portillo (ok, not any more, but I still wouldn't trust him), are the dangerously affable, avuncular face of a really shitty right wing. Can't believe people are thinking of voting Tory. You must all be well under 30. Or so old you're senile.

[dinsdale]

I had a meeting up in the smoke recently (early evening) and parked my car in the little semi-circle by Temple station.

BAT have their office there. As I crossed the road who should leave the BAT office but the man in question.

About 2 weeks before this my younger brother died of lung cancer.

I found it hard not to call out a four letter word that begins with c.

I agree wholeheartedly with whoever said his position at BAT renders him unfit for office. It actually renders him unfit for anything apart from a good kicking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Smoking is LEGAL. Your brother chose to smoke and has paid the price. It might happen to me but if I die from it it's my fault. Why do you need to find a scapegoat?

[dinsdale]

.

Edited September 3, 2005 by dinsdale

[Marina]

Smoking is LEGAL.  Your brother chose to smoke and has paid the price.  It might happen to me but if I die from it it's my fault.  Why do you need to find a scapegoat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I manufactured and spent millions marketing a product that I knew killed people, well I couldn't do that.

Smoking is addictive - and the b@stards at BAT know that - and they and all the other tobacco companies used to spend millions on advertising to sucker people in - knowing they would become addicted and knowing people would die of that addiction.

In a sane world it would be illegal. Feck me, 'health and safety' means people can't bake a cake and sell it at the school bazaar - but manufacturing and marketing a product that says 'Smoking Kills' in letters an inch tall is okay?

Feck you and your scapegoat. I don't want a scapegoat. I want the people who are to BLAME and that includes my brother and the tobacco companies. If I had to apportion the blame it would be 5% my brother and 95% the murdering tobacco companies.

Do me a favour and don't respond to this. When my brother's 10 year old daughter was in hospital recently in a lot of pain with suspected appendicitus I found it hard to bear when she said 'I want Daddy'. Those murdering b@stards bear a lot of the responsibility.

And now they can't advertise here the cynical b@stards are targetting the third world. It is shameful.

And the idea that one of their executives could be prime minister. I hate new labour, but I'd rather have John Prescott as Prime Minister than Clarke.

Edited September 3, 2005 by Marina