![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miss_s_b
Ken Clarke is a long-time political operator, and as such has attracted many labels. The one currently doing the rounds is
With all due respect to our journalistic cousins, I submit that this is the wrong reason to be supporting him. The reason we ought to be supporting him is not his political convictions and background. The reason we ought to be supporting him is that, alongside his many other experiences and qualifications, he is a QC. He knows the justice system, knows how it works (and doesn't), and has contacts in the profession from whom he can gain current insights.
If you're a Lib Dem, you should be a supporter of evidence-based policy making (as opposed to policy and ideology based evidence selection). Ken Clarke might be a Tory - and my belief is that if you're going to call him a Liberal Tory, he's a Liberal Tory, rather than a Liberal Whig who is in the Tory party - but he is a person who is well-qualified and experienced to make evidence-based judgements in the field of the justice system.
The fact that a lot of the judgements he is making are in accord with the sort of stuff I have believed since I did my law degree only make this easier for me.
Liberal Tory, and this is the one being chucked about in the press as a reason why Lib Dems are/ought to be supporting him in his role as Justice Minister, and his proposed reforms to the justice system.
With all due respect to our journalistic cousins, I submit that this is the wrong reason to be supporting him. The reason we ought to be supporting him is not his political convictions and background. The reason we ought to be supporting him is that, alongside his many other experiences and qualifications, he is a QC. He knows the justice system, knows how it works (and doesn't), and has contacts in the profession from whom he can gain current insights.
If you're a Lib Dem, you should be a supporter of evidence-based policy making (as opposed to policy and ideology based evidence selection). Ken Clarke might be a Tory - and my belief is that if you're going to call him a Liberal Tory, he's a Liberal Tory, rather than a Liberal Whig who is in the Tory party - but he is a person who is well-qualified and experienced to make evidence-based judgements in the field of the justice system.
The fact that a lot of the judgements he is making are in accord with the sort of stuff I have believed since I did my law degree only make this easier for me.
![[identity profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 02:58 pm (UTC)At least he has practiced at the Bar, as well as at the bar - though wasn't his appointment as a QC in 1980 merely a courtesy title as awarded to any barristers[1] who got elected to Parliament? There aren't that many well-known MPs who *did* take silk before their election, as opposed to "artificial silks"; Michael Howard is the only recent one who comes to mind.
[1] - and later solicitors - qv. Harriet Harman, conqueror of the aforementioned Howard in the Futters case - though I believe the practice is now defunct.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 03:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 05:06 pm (UTC)"If you're a Lib Dem, you should be a supporter of evidence-based policy making (as opposed to policy and ideology based evidence selection)."
This is the thing I don't get/like/understand about evidence-based policy making though. Some things I support for entirely ideological reasons. Eg ID cards, I don't much care if they do help prevent crime/benefit fraud I'm still against them because identity as a person is not something which it is up to the state to define. The "evidence-based" school would suggest that if they "work" to some degree then they should be supported.
Added to which is the problem that in many areas there isn't a clear policy which the evidence points too (pornography and sexual violence being one obvious area where there is research on both sides
I think that political policy making should be driven by ideology more often. evidence-based policy making is getting pretty close to the "what matters is what works" mantra which drove a lot of the apolitical Blairite stuff.
PS - and to end on a lighter note - I assume you deliberately set up your tag list to read "ridiculously soppy sexual perversions" :-)
no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 05:06 pm (UTC)Hywel
no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 05:13 pm (UTC)Don't think so - Margaret Thatcher never became a QC for example, nor did Geoff Hoon or Tony Blair.
I think this was gained in the usual way by people who continued in practice whilst in Parliament (eg Alex Carlile)
Defining terms
Date: 2010-10-05 05:42 pm (UTC)* primarily a Tory (protecting social order by preserving traditions and hierarchy),
* less of a Liberal (emphasising the freedom of the individual over the powers of government),
* and certainly not a Whig (broadly in favour of social and political reform).
For my money, the great thing about Mr. Clarke is that he's got experience, and that he's not wedded to his own past, and - yes - that he's actually looking at evidence before making a policy. I could get used to this!