Ken Clark - Former UK Cabinet Minister (Conservative) HARDtalk

Now on BBC News, HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk. My guest today

is one of the big these of British

politics. Known as the father of the

house because he is the longest

serving member of the Commons he has

also held more cabinet post than any

other living British politician.

Yet, Ken Clark says we are now in

the maddest situation of his

lifetime and talks of a political

system that is broken. It is one of

the reasons he could not quite bring

himself to retire at the last

election, staying on to fight

against Brexit and for the

Conservative Party. Is it a fight he

can win? Ken Clark welcome to

HARDtalk. You have served under four

prime ministers, Heath, Thatcher,

major and Cameron and yet you say we

are now in the maddest situation.

What do you mean by that? It is so

chaotic and unpredictable. We got

here by accident, nobody planned it.

Nobody thought that Leave would win

the referendum campaign. Nigel

Farage was as amazed as David

Cameron to find he had won. Both

political parties lost their

traditional political support to, or

large parts of it. Activist

organisations do not represent their

votes. Loading patterns call it. An

election produced no result

whatsoever. We win the old mining

tales to make towns but we lose

Kensington. And we lose Canterbury

to the Labour Party.

Let me sum it

up. Anyone who tells you, in my

opinion, if anybody tells you that

they know what is going to happen to

British politics over the next 12

months is deceiving themselves. It

is impossible to predict.

Would you

like to see another UK wide vote,

either on leaving the EU or, indeed,

on the deal when it is done?

I hope

I never lived to see another

referendum held on any subject that

people think should be given any

constitutional or. It is an absurd

way of running a modern and

complicated country. Particularly so

when you have a big broad brush yes,

no question. Should we move, should

we stay? Within that are hundreds of

complex sub questions of things that

will be affected. A stupid three or

four week campaign...

You hate

referendum is so much that you think

it was a mistake to have had one.

Having had that one and acting on it

you would not say it should go back

to the country to either sign off on

the deal ought to have a second vote

on the question?

If the Remainer 's

were to win next time presumably of

we would have to shake hands and

agreed to try best of three. These

are serious issues about the

governance of the country, about the

well-being and prosperity of

children and grandchildren. I

believe in Parliamentary democracy

taking considered and grown-up

decisions.

As an MP you will get a

vote next year. You were the only

Conservative MP to vote against

Article 50, the article that

triggered the UK's exit from the EU.

Will you vote against any deal

whatever it looks like?

I made it

clear that I accept that Parliament

has decided. The referendum was

advisory, in my opinion, that is

what the British constitution says.

Politically people signed up to it

but I did not. The Parliament, by a

big majority decided to leave.

Article 50 process started. We may

stop it but I don't think the

political class could possibly screw

themselves up in this country into

trying to stop it. In my opinion,

given my values, were doomed to

leave.

Indeed. So there will

possibly be a deal on the table, but

there be a vote. Will you vote in

favour of the deal?

If it is a good

deal. We still need to decide what

sort of vote we get. Let me sum it

up and give your short answer for a

change, I see myself as trying to

minimise the damage and try to get

the best possible outcome of this

undesirable situation that does the

least damage to the future political

standing of this country in the

world and our economy. We still have

to sort how what kind of vote

parliament will have and I want a

meaningful vote, that is the phrase

we will use. By that, I think, the

government must, after finishing the

negotiations, get the approval of

Parliament before it ratifies the

deal. If Parliament reject bid and

in my opinion you go back to the

negotiating table and see if you can

negotiate something which you can

get through British Parliament.

And

this is where it is different from

Article 50 vote, we could be in a

situation where you are voting

against the government, your own

government, that is effectively a

vote of no-confidence. If others

vote as you would want them to the

government could fall. I wonder if

you are in a situation where you are

more fearful of leaving the EU under

certain terms than you are of a

labour government and Jeremy Corbyn?

It will not bring the government

down. I voted against the government

several times already. And I voted

with the government more times than

against it on European issues.

Nobody notices that.

Could Theresa

May...

Unless she could then

negotiate a revision to the deal

which would enable us to continue.

It all depends on the circumstances

at the time which no-one can

foresee. We now have a five year

fixed term of Parliament act. We

have a Conservative MPs... Agreeing

that they won an election. Someone

has to try to turn this boat into a

confidence vote. Not all votes are

confident votes. That is a big one,

I agree.

You may not like the deal

that is on the table but by voting

against it you are also

inflicting...

That would be a

serious vote. It is possible but it

does depend... Sometimes it may lead

to a change of Prime Minister which

I personally do not want.

And it

might lead to a change of

government.

The judgement that

Parliament needs to exercise is does

it give, will give the government of

the day approval for this particular

deal? Nowadays, all events of this

kind are surrounded by a far more

hysterical entertainment nonsense

about the personalities. What

matters is the arrangements we are

allowing the government to put into

place for the future.

You are the

person who points out the

Conservatives do not want another

election and part of that is that

they currently do not have a

majority. You think a Conservative

Party, as things stand, could win

another election?

If there were one

now it would be a bigger gamble than

another referendum. The public would

be appalled if the political class

called for another election.

Remember, the public don't like

either of the parties.

I am asking

you particularly about the state of

the Conservative Party at the

moment.

The parties are in a

frightful mess. The public attitudes

towards them are totally

unpredictable.

Indeed. But if the

Conservative Party, we learned from

the chairman of the that 70

democracy that the membership he

reckons is about 70,000. We don't

know figures because they have not

provided quarter a year.

Of that

number make sense? The membership is

the smallest and the oldest in my

political career. I don't no -- I

don't exactly bring down the average

age when I go to meetings but I

still feel out of place.

Comparing

to a Labour Party that has half a

million members as of last summer

are lit as a mass membership of

young lefties who are

unrepresentative of their

generation.

Both sides, activists,

do not represent the people they

represent.

Nearly half Conservative

Party members of a 65, nine out of

ten are middle-class and two thirds

are meant. That difficulty. Unit is

party so well and you have known it

at different stages...

I tick those

boxes myself. There is a range of

opinions about such people. I think

everybody in the Conservative Party

knows that we need to look back to

what we can do to get back to

younger people joining as activist

in our party and actually get back

to winning support of young people

electorally because the referendum,

in particular and the general

election which was roughly the same,

it divided the generations to a

bizarre extent. There are plenty of

people under the age of 50 who ought

to be natural Conservatives because

of their approach to life and their

entrepreneurial ship, their

aspirational... They are all voting

labour. Aged disappointed

disgruntled white working class men

in the north are the votes we are

winning. We must attract the sort of

people in the younger generation who

would benefit.

People like you used

to be. Would a young Ken Clark

joined the Conservative Party these

days?

No idea. Yes, I think I might.

Might use... I have always been

driven by my views. I add a free

market economist and combined with a

social conscience. It needs to be

regulated and the benefit of

everybody and I am internationalist,

pro- European...

And to use your own

words you are impeccably working

class.

I believe in meritocracy and

social mobility. That kicked off the

start of my will, my origins.

I

wonder what there is about the

Conservative Party... As a young

man, you make the point why young

people who would have voted remain,

as indeed you would have, why they

would be attracted to the

Conservative Party.

It can only make

itself more attractive. It was an

attractive because it was then be

modernising and forward looking

party did post war politics in the

post-war position of Britain which

had atrophied. We had been a

laughing stock after the Suez Canal.

So droves of young people joined the

Conservative Party because of the

modernising thing they were doing.

At the moment the public eye reason

more cynical and disillusioned with

politics and I say -- than I say

young people were with traditional

politics in the 1960s. We should

take an ambitious ideas of

modernising the country, adjusting

quickly to the opportunities of the

globalised economy, sorting out our

place in the world, how do we,

nowadays, define our interest and

value in wider politics, how do we

make certain that we get our

population into modern industries

that can thrive.

On those values of

one nation Conservative list which

is something you have always

despised, it stands for United

citizens around the idea that they

have an obligation to each other.

Addressing the needs of all social

classes and all of that.

Is that

dead?

No. I don't think it is dead.

I think a large number of the public

are attracted. It has been -- not

been mobilised very well. X has

become polarised and dominated by

protest. It is becoming dominated by

short-term media hysteria. Not your

programme but the worst of the

media, not the best of the media.

And we need to go back to getting a

grip on what is each party for, what

does it seek to deliver. I would be

attracted, I am attracted by the

party that is most likely to deliver

the kind of one nation thing you

spoke about.

Is at your party at the

moment?

I think so. But we are going

through a bad period. Parties have

taken a battering. Europe is... The

idea that either party is United is

ludicrous. The other thing after the

referendum that Theresa May, the

Prime Minister stood outside Downing

Street and gave what many people

said was a one nation speech,

talking about the management is.

You

agree with every single word. I do

wonder if there is any evidence of

that being reflected in what she has

done in the 18 months hence?

We

agree with you. It was a splendid

aspiration. A splendid vision of

what the party was. We need now the

policy and the implementation of the

policy that will enable us... What

has happened so far is not going to

inadequate he's.

Is there anything

you would point to that you would

say that following through.

Aspirations?

On the things that are

important to you.

She was also

talking about capitalism and the

people it has left behind, she was

talking about that in the past few

days. She is talking about people

dealing with those who take

excessive pay out of the company

when it is doing badly and pay no

regards to pension rights of

workers.

18 months on and one of the

reason she may have talked about it

is that we know from the chartered

Institute of personal development,

the average FTSE 100 executive took

home in the first three days of this

year the salary of an average

worker.

Corporate pay generally, I

am in the minority in this, it

corporate pay has become a farce

since the 1900. I was a chair of the

remuneration committee of several

companies and I got embarrassed

about what the consultants were

urging me and my colleagues were

playing, to pay to executives.

Theresa May says she will deal with

this.

If shareholder democracy

doesn't work then I would give them

more power, making their votes

binding then we need to see what we

can do to check by the way of bonus

when companies performances don't

justify it, no mathematical

justification for it or when the

payment of the executives is

continued in two soaraway and the

government is performing badly. The

Department of business and Treasury

should be working on mechanics for

that, I am a lawyer but the legal

challenges of that...

You make the

point...

That is the field I would

open up.

When I ask about what

Theresa May has done, son and she

said after 18 months, the likes of

your follow MPs, Ed Balls, Sarah

waste have talked about her timidity

and her lack of ambition about her

government which means it constantly

disappoint.

There are people I often

quite agree with, but on this

occasion I think they are unfair to

a tribute that to her and her

personality. The fact is, Brexit is

the elephant in the bath dominating

the political life of a nation to an

extraordinary extent. It is

difficult to see how you escape from

that, it will be the giant

requirement of a government to

deliver something on Brexit for the

next two years and the Conservative

Party has not yet sorted itself out

over what compromise is going to

agree to pursue.

So everything else

gets pushed out a.

They are right.

They are right to warn her that she

has got to stop it being pushed out

and I suspect if she were here she

would agree in spades. She wants to

do other things than Brexit.

What

about Boris Johnson? £100 million to

the NHS is the Brexit dividend.

The

personal publicity day by day, it

was a bridge and a channel. That is

an attempt to rescue Boris's

reputation at out the daft dishonest

figure he was associated with during

the campaign. He has obviously read

a newspaper about people going on

about spending in the NHS.

That is a

Boris being. For his own purposes.

The NHS needs money.

The NHS, it has

got a lot of more money and the

question is how much? You will never

be able to satisfy anybody. As

Philip Hammond and Jeremy have been

finding, when you put more money

into the NHS nobody gives you slate

credit for it and in any use, the

lobby come back asking for more and

I have been chancellor, it has been

nice for years. Actually there is a

case for more money for the NHS

because the ageing population means

demand is rising and changing. There

is a case of not just giving them a

money, it gets blown and pressure

gets taken off, great deals of

change in the NHS, continuing to

strive for higher performance is

needed. That is being delivered by

the government. And so it is not a

simple question of how much extra of

the opposition or lobby is now going

to say they want after the last lot

you gave them, it is what do you do

with it? The Treasury cannot just

throw money around, it does have

deficit problems.

So you would push

back on Boris Johnson?

I would say

which packs, which department will

you take the money out of to give it

to the NHS? The serious people I

would say, given the public are

totally resistant to paying any more

tax nowadays for anything, I didn't

have quite this problem when I was

Chancellor, they didn't expect the

budget is just to be given away as

precedents to everybody. Would

probably do need more revenue.

Social care first of all, and the

NHS particularly as you make them

integrate, that is where you need

money. Where to raise it and how to

responsibly raise it and how we set

about saying to a reluctant public

that this is in the public interest.

Indeed. Also, a public that feels it

is disaffected not just with

politics but also capitalism. You

make the point that you are

effectively a social liberal but in

economic terms you have always been

a free market and of the

Conservative Party.

I haven't

changed my mind, for 40 years there

has been magnificent improvement in

living that we have seen an global

polity is fallen the most in

history.

Inequality and the crash

and the people that feel that they

are left behind a.

That is what we

all neglected. Those

enthusiastically taking part in the

great normality of the 1990s, with

hindsight my having been reproved in

the public, what we ignored at our

peril was this wasn't benefiting

everybody.

What would you do now?

I

would address that question which he

has addressed in speeches.

What

would you do?

Talking about some of

the corporate excesses, I think you

have also got to address what are

you going to do to switch on the

economies of all those areas which

the Americans call rust belt places.

How are you going to get more

investment, more of the modern

industry to go there so steadily

they can rejoin the modern world and

derive the benefits from the

globalised economy which then derive

like everybody else. But at the

moment, a lot of the electors are

right in saying look around this

town, you are doing nothing.

It was

the regions and global growth that

Jim O'Neill, Lord O'Neill, the

former chairman of common sacks were

to do and said I may have got it

wrong on Brexit. He warned about the

trouble for the economy is the short

term, as did you. -- in the

short-term.

I didn't.

You said it

would be unpleasant, I cannot value

quite how severe but if it collapsed

you would have severe interest

rates.

That didn't happen, what

happened was a severe increase in

inflation. I didn't go on that

rubbish. The national media... I

don't normally carry on about the

media, but the national reporting of

the referendum was as distressful as

campaigning parties on the other

side. All they did was support the

rubbish on either side.

In the

longer term now, can you see a route

through this process were actually

the UK, instead of having four years

being awkwardly inside the EU, sits

comfortably outside?

Yes, I would go

back on the Lancaster house feature,

I think we should stay in the single

market, Customs union, I don't think

the public were ever told we were

leaving them. The Leave people

reassure them that trade would not

change, our relationships would be

the same because the Germans had to

sell us their Mercedes and the

Italians their press echo. How on

earth we have decide to lead the

single market and the customs union

for I cannot imagine because the

public did not vote for that.

Given

that you at one stage were planning

to stand down as an MP, but stayed

on...

That was at the end of 2020 in

a full parliament, I thought. Will

you stand down? I think this time, I

will. Had I retired three years

earlier than intended?

You will see

Brexit through?

I am glad I didn't

miss it. It can be chaotic,

extraordinary, what I can gather,

pretty brass off with some of the

things going on in British politics.

The silly nonsense at the moment.

Actually this Parliament will decide

some more important questions about

the future of this country and the

well-being of future generations

than practically any I served in

the.

Ken Clark, thank you for coming

on HARDtalk.