Why is Paul Clark not a minister?

Thanks to Socia Lists, I have now started to wonder why Paul Clark has not got a senior Government role (or even a major junior one) after ten years of fierce loyalty.

Then I came up with a theory. It is an idea so simple, yet it makes perfect sense. I apologise in advance for stating the obvious, and re-using material I have already used in my response to Socia Lists.

It all starts with careful analysis of Paul Clark’s voting record. On your behalf, I shall study that page for at least three hours, mull it over in my mind, then release my findings in a 300-page report which has cost the Government half a million pounds. But seeing as I am not a member of the Labour Party, I have no desire to waste public money, and can achieve the same goal after a brief 30-second skim of the summary at the top of the page and release my conclusion in a matter of a few words, the same ones used by TheyWorkForYou.com:

Never rebels against their party in this parliament.

Okay, so that may not be exactly true. Paul Clark has chosen to oppose his Party on no less than seven occasions (good grief!). To put that into context, Hazel Blears, Ruth Kelly and even Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have rebelled on a higher proportion of times (Hazel Blears in particular supported a measure introducing Euthanasia with help from a Doctor, Ruth Kelly didn’t support a fully elected House of Lords and Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are hardly ever there).

Despite his fierce loyalty, Mr. Clark has not achieved so much as a junior minister role. He has advanced no further than Assistant Whip or PPS to the Deputy Prime Minister (and his days are numbered in that role), defending Mr. Prescott’s decision to play croquet whilst “running the Country”.

The reason for this lies not, I believe, entirely with Mr. Clark. Although not a great public speaker (he did not get so much as an applause from an assembled group of sixth formers at a politics conference, when Conservative spokesman Reh Chishti and Liberal Bob Collinson did), and the fact that he appears a little unkeen to speak in Parliament (he has spoken in just two debates in the last year), some people try to assure me he can hold his own in a debate.

I believe the reason for this lies in the demographics and history of the Constituency he supposedly represents. The Constituency of Gillingham is 89 years old. Of those 89 years, 74 were spent with Conservative MPs (Sir Gerald Fitzroy Hohler, 1918-1929, Sir Robert Vaughan Gower, 1929-1945, former Labour PPC Sir Frederick Burden, 1950 – 1983, and James Couchman, 1983-1997).

Both times the seat was won by a Labour candidate was when there was a huge national swing to Labour. And in 1992, when James Couchman won his last election, he had the backing of 52.3% (a majority) of the electorate and was 16638 (28.8%) of his nearest rival, Paul Clark.

In contrast, in 1997, Paul Clark polled just 39.8%, an increase of less than 7,000 votes. In the following election he won his all-time highest vote share of 44.5%, but the number of people voting for him dropped by just under 1500. And in 2005 he had 41.2% of the vote. He has never been in a situation where he has the backing of the majority of the electorate in the Constituency, in fact he only won the last election by 254 votes!

Full polling history of this Constituency (well back to 1992 anyway) will be added to this site later, and can also be found on wikipedia. However, it would take only a small swing from Labour to Conservatives and Mr. Clark will have lost his seat in Parliament. The seat is (as demonstrated in this year’s local elections) a strong Conservative seat demographically. Unfortunately, the candidate fielded in the past two elections by the Conservatives was not particularly strong, and put off a large number of potential voters.

So that’s it, mystery solved! Oh, wait, I haven’t explained yet, have I? Basically, could you imagine the tomato-like faces of the Government if it lost one of it’s Ministers at an election? Even if they won the election that would be an incredibly embarassing event. I believe that they were scared that the seat would be lost at the last election (thus the media circus resulting in that now infamous photograph of Tony Blair handing Gordon Brown and ice cream at the Strand, with Paul Clark barely visible in the background) and didn’t want to risk anything.

Now Mr. Clark is brown-nosing Mr. Brown (e.g. the hypocritical Sunlight Centre visit) and says it is up to Mr. Brown if he is to have an important role after Prescott has gone.

Take my advice, Mr. Clark, with the seat you’re in, don’t hold your breath.