Ken Clarke in rape proposal row

Ken Clarke the Justice Secretary

Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, finds himself at the centre of a row because he did not choose his words carefully. His understanding of the cause of the row. He had appeared on a Radio 5 phone-in show. When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire told him "rape is rape", he replied, "No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape because she is under age, she can't consent. What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

Now legally he is right. And I think most people, if they sit and think about it without any prejudicial thoughts, would have to agree. The two are in no way the same. However, certain people rush to judgement because they have "issues", many of which are quite understandable. However, saying "rape is rape" is meaningless. Each situation arises out of different circumstances. There might be similar traits to the crimes, but they are definitely not all the same.

Quick as a flash Ed Miliband got all priggish and thought he was onto a winner by seeking Ken Clarke's immediate resignation to be followed by the demand for a grovelling apology. This just shows why Miliband is not fit to be prime minister. For him the mantra is a means to an end.

In the same programme the Justice Secretary was confronted by sex attack victim Gabrielle Browne. She said later, "Ken Clarke didn't listen. His comment about not all rapes really being rape was disgraceful for a man in his position, a man of previous ministerial experience and previous experience as a barrister.

"He did not show empathy or understanding. If he can't open his eyes and ears and listen and see life from a victim's perspective then he should resign."

But this is where her natural emotions blinker her understanding of the truth. Ken Clarke's example of distinctions in rape is legally and factually correct. And explaining a legal distinction does not mean one excludes empathy or understanding.

It would appear that the government is seeking to cut costs in trials. One cost cut would be if those charged with rape have the opportunity to plead guilty (if they are so minded) before a trial begins in order to obtain a reduced sentence term. It also means that the main witness does not have to go through the ordeal of a court appearance and the trial costs are reduced.

It all sounds so reasonable to me. If Ken Clarke had chosen his words with efficacious carefulness we would hardly be talking about it.

Ken Clarke in Tory front bench return!

Well, he's back. He's going to be shadow business secretary, taking on the oleaginous Lord Mandelson. Clarke may be distrusted by many Tories inside and outside the Conservative Party for his pro-European leanings. However, in my opinion he is a very excellent performer, a demolisher of humbug (Mandelson's stock in trade!), and a man who can put forward an argument in ways that the electorate understands. In that, he is an excellent choice.

Put him in the House of Commons or on TV, and we will see the slippery Mandelson's plotlines unravel very fast. We need people with the will to get to grips with this financial mess. Funnily enough, it's occurred to me that a pincer action between Clark and Cable in the Commons would be the political death for this New Labour outrage of a government.

Ken Clarke to propose a dog's dinner for England!

The West Lothian Question has been asked again. The Conservatives are thinking like mad, especially those in the Democracy Task Force set up by David Cameron. But I fear they've failed to make good grades. No straight A's coming from Ken Clarke.

He's implacably opposed to an English Parliament. "We've got one!", he says, meaning the Houses of Parliament at Westminster. This Victorian pile is the British Parliament, build to glorify the political embodiment of the Empire. It is not an English parliament.

So we will get, as The Daily Telegraph reports, a compromise between those who want English votes for English laws and those who would leave things be (undemocratically so, but they wouldn't mind!). Legislation affecting only England, an education Bill, for instance, would receive a second reading by the entire Commons; but its committee stage, where the measure is subjected to line-by-line scrutiny and can be amended, would be for English MPs only. When the Bill came back to the Commons for its report stage and third reading, all MPs would again have a vote. But the Government would be bound to accept amendments agreed by the committee, or risk losing the legislation.

Non-English MPs still having a say. It's the current state of affairs with a dollop of royal Tory icing on top! We would still have two types of MP, still have part-time MPs job-sharing with MSPs, but we'd have the added dimension of report stage and third reading votes becoming rigged.

It's not what I want, and it is probably not what the majority in England want either, if a Newsnight Poll is anything to go by.