eteran justice secretary regrets use of 'colourful language' but insists he remains right on all the facts in Catgate
Share 9
inShare1
Email 
Kenneth Clarke speaking to the Tory conference in Manchester shortly before Theresa May sparked Catgate. Photograph: Jon Super/AP
Downing Street is, to put it mildly, furious with Kenneth Clarke. No 10 had thought – to use one of the deeply unoriginal puns of the week – that the cat had been firmly placed behind the flap.
Then, just as the political world pauses for breath after the conference season, the justice secretary secretary popped up in his local paper to say that Theresa May had used a "laughable, child-like" example to criticise the Human Rights Act.
Joe Watts, the political editor of the Nottingham Post who tweets as @lobbydog, probably thought he would be talking about Clarke's Rushcliffe constituency when he sat down with him in Manchester on Wednesday morning. But Watts landed a great scoop when Clarke joked that he would probably need body armour the next time he meets May after mocking her suggestion that an illegal immigrant had resisted deportation on the grounds that he owned a pet cat.
Downing Street, which fully supports May, demanded an explanation from Clarke. He duly released a statement at lunchtime today saying that he regretted "the colourful language" he had used "at one point" in the interview. By choosing to criticise his language Clarke was making clear he believes he is right on the substance.
The anger in Downing Street has prompted speculation that the prime minister could bring forward his planned reshuffle from next spring to November to allow for an earlier retirement for the justice secretary who is 71. But Downing Street might like to bear in mind the following thoughts when it considers Clarke's future.
If Clarke decided to take this matter up to Defcon Two this is what he would say:
• The Lord Chief Justice in England and Wales, Lord Judge, who sanctioned a statement by the judicial communications office on Tuesday, believes that May is wrong on the facts of the case. The home secretary told the Tory conference:
The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – I am not making this up – he had a pet cat.
It is true that immigration Judge James Devitte did cite the cat when he said the Bolivian national should not be deported. But this was overturned on appeal by a judge who dismissed the cat argument as relatively immaterial. The man successfully fought deportation on other grounds. The Daily Mail, which threw its weight behind May in its main front page article today, left these awkward facts to the 16th paragraph of its piece.
• Theresa May was speaking for herself, and not the coalition government, when she said the following about the Human Rights Act in her speech:
I remain of the view that the Human Rights Act needs to go. The government's Commission is looking at a British Bill of Rights.
The coalition is not committed to replacing the Human Rights Act. It is committed to investigating the "creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights".
The most important word is all. That means that the right to a family life, which has been criticised by opponents of the HRA, will have to stay. The commission will report to Clarke and Nick Clegg.
• Members of the commission may resign if they believe that May's remarks indicate that their recommendations will be ignored. In the excitement of his "child-like" comments people have overlooked the first part of Clarke's quote when he raised this point:
It's not only the judges that all get furious when the home secretary makes a parody of a court judgment – our commission who are helping us form our view on this are not going to be entertained by laughable, child-like examples being given.
The commission was carefully balanced to ensure both sides – opponents and supporters of the HRA – were represented. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Professor Philippe Sands are unlikely to have been amused by May's remarks.
Clarke bears the classic characteristics of a political beast: a tendency to speak his own mind and to deliver uncomfortable truths to the prime minister. That can be immensely annoying, as Sir John Major can testify after Clarke's passionate pro-Europeanism limited the former prime minister's room for manoeuvre on the single currency.
The justice secretary knows his interest in the euro now looks difficult to defend. But big beasts usually know what they are talking about. They also know how to strike. Were Cameron to sack the justice secretary the prime minister may find that Clarke could wound him in a way that would be understood by voters who switch off when the Human Rights Act is mentioned.
Clarke could question the prime minister's attempts to portray himself as a One Nation prime minister. As I blogged on Wednesday, this is what Clarke told the same Daily Telegraph fringe meeting where he criticised May:
I always describe myself as a One Nation Conservative. I have the disappointing feature in politics of having been consistent over most my political career. I was always regarded as wet when we had wets and drys.
It was when we move too far to the right that we found it impossible to do anything but cheer up 30% of the population and got nowhere near winning an election. I always think it is my wing of the party that ever got us into power.
When tempers cool in Downing Street, Cameron will probably move with great caution when he considers Clarke's future.
UPDATE at 19.45
Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat home office minister, has reinforced the second thought in Clarke's mind – that Theresa May was not speaking for the government when she said the Human Rights Act should be scrapped. This is what Featherstone wrote in her column in the Ham & High:
So there is scope for common ground on dealing with those excesses [in interpreting the act], but outside of tha[t] – the Home Sec's 'personal' desire to see the Human Rights Act go – is just not going to happen under this government.