Would choosing Clarke be the Tories’ “clause 4″ moment?
May 30th, 2005
Can the Tories to expunge their Euro nightmares?
Perhaps nothing demonstrated more that the Tories were not interested in returning to power was in 2001 when the party’s grass roots membership chose IDS in spite of the fact that his opponent, Ken Clarke, had the support of more Tory MPs.
-
For those who worked closely with Clarke at Westminster knew that whatever his views on Europe he had the capability to deal with Blair in a way that the hapless IDS simply did not.
It was a sign of Clarke’s resolute character that he was not going to adapt his line on the EU simply because it would have been more convenient in terms of securing the nomination.
What would the shape of British politics be like today if Clarke had won? How would Tony Blair have coped with the old bruiser across the dispatch box, especially as he did not fall in line with the policy on Iraq? Would there have been a different General Election outcome?
Who knows? But Clarke has made it clear that he wants another go and his steadfast pro-Europe views might not be the disadvantage they once were following Sunday’s French referendum. A lot depends on whether the Michael Howard voting changes are accepted by the party but, surely, the rank and file membership have got to get rid of their Euro-fixation one day.
-
Choosing Ken Clarke as leader could have the same symbolic importance of a departure from the past as Labour’s abolition of Clause 4.
There are some who obviously think Clarke can do it and his price has been tightening right from 9 pm on Sunday when the first news of the French NON emerged. He’s now moved up to third favourite on the Betfair betting exchange though there is still great value to be had at BinaryBet where you can still get 15/1. This compares with about 10/1 elsewhere.
David Davis is still the red-hot favourite but could this be Ken Clarke’s moment?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
No
Did you see the voting intentions of Tory supporters on the constitution? From memory it was something like 80-10 against! There is no way a Europhile candiate as blatant as Ken Clark will be elected.
My guess is that the general election outcome would have been different this time round, probably similar to the Canadian election of 1993. UKIP (boosted by defections from the Conservative Party) would have played the role of the Reform Party, picking up the bulk of core Conservative voters, while the Conservatives would have retained the more leftish-europhile Conservatives. First past the post would have ensured that UKIP picked up a fair number of traditional Conservative seats, while largely eliminating the official Conservative representatives.
Have to agree with 1-3 , our Ken is not the answer to the Tories crisis , the problem is not just who but how and when !
Perhaps nothing demonstrated more that the Tories were not interested in returning to power was in 2001 when the party’s grass roots membership chose IDS in spite of the fact that his opponent, Ken Clarke, had the support of a big majority of Tory MPs.
Nonsense. He did not have the support of a big majority of Tory MPs. Arguably the only reason he didn’t even get knocked out was because a whole load of Duncan-Smith supporters switched in a (successful but very nearly disastrous) attempt to keep Portillo out of the final two. It was incredibly self-indulgent that he even entered the race in the first place.
Yes, I’m not at all sure that Clarke had the support of a majority of Conservative MPs. He was the first choice of about 20% of them.
Most Tories are too eurosceptic to want Ken Clarke. Indeed I think that a recent poll, showed that the majority of members at least, wanted to withdraw from the EU. A Ken Clarke leadership would gain swing voters, but lose significant numbers to UKIP at the same time. The problem would be that while KC would gain voters overrall, the membership base would be decimated with a huge rush over to UKIP. This is not to mention the revulsion many party members feel over his flogging of ciggies to the third world. It may have lost him the election last time round?
5 , Alex , entering a democratic race with a reasonable chance of winning surely cannot be called “incredibly self indulgent”
8. He had no chance of winning
As I have said on here before , Clarke is in my opinion too old to be considered as leader for next time . I know not everyone agreed with me then but to break out of the public conception that the Conservatives are a party of the past , they should be bold and go for a leader from a younger generation .
9 , Alex , In which case neither the Tories , the Lib Dems or any party bar Labour, should have turned up for the General Election.
I don’t think the question of Europe can be compared in any way to Clause 4. Clause 4 was an out-dated anachronism and the vast majority of the country considered it so and continues to consider it to be so.
The question of our relationship to Europe is something far more important and current. Not only that, but the vast majority of the British public are Eurosceptic and have, paradoxically, become increasingly so during Blair’s premiership. This is despite Blair having converted to being an ardent Europhile and wanting Britain to be at the heart of Europe.
The ideological battle over Europe that deposed Thatcher and split the Tory party was well ahead of its time. The same arguments that then appeared so bizarre and belonging to the swivel-eyed brigade are now the mainstream. Even Gordon Brown moans about the absurdity of EU regulations. And something like joining the Euro, let alone ratifying the constitution, is today a political impossibility.
The vote in France yesterday shows that Euroscepticism (or at least the end of blind unquestioning Europhilia) has spread to the continent. The No vote has not taken Europe off the agenda or neutralised it in any way. The Commission will attempt to push through various parts of it regardless. Indeed, several new political structures in the Constitution are already up and running (eg EU space programmme, EU defence agency etc) despite the Constitution not having been ratified.
In my view Ken Clarke has missed his window of opportunity and his becoming leader now would fatally split and spell the end of the Tory Party.
“It was incredibly self-indulgent that he even entered the race in the first place.”
Correct: Because Clarke could never win with the membership, he just prevented a contest between two candidates who might have.
Euroscepticism is one of the Conservative Party’s strengths. It would be foolish to jettison it. Only a convinced Liberal Democrat would think otherwise.
11. That’s a silly point. The general election isn’t winner takes all. The point is that Clarke entering the race ultimately destroyed Portillo’s (the best candidate whatever has happened subsequently) chances. Contrary to the received wisdom the Tory party membership did not make the wrong decision. They made exactly the right decision given what was placed in front of them - it was the electoral system that was at fault not the electorate.
The final ballot in 2001 was Ken Clarke - 59 votes; Iain Duncan Smith - 54 votes; Michael Portillo - 53 votes. My term “big majority” is wrong but the point remains that KC was the first choice of MPs not IDS.
To paraphrase Gerry Adams “Europe’s not gone away you know”.
True believers in “The Project” will still try to bring in most, or all, of this constitution in one form or another. And so it will remain a live issue in British politics, probably more live than it’s been over the past year.
IMO - Clarke was probably the best candidate in 1997. That was his chance and, through his own fault or otherwise, he missed it.
BTW, Clarke’s entries in the MP’s register of interests make interesting reading.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/kenneth_clarke/rushcliffe#register
BTW, BAT are also involved in Burma, which has become a significant issue for young conservatives in particular. I am amazed on this basis that John Bercow can endorse Ken Clarke having been such a critic of what is going on in Burma.
15 - you ignored my point about the widely held belief that a number of IDS supporters switched to Clarke to try and keep Portillo out of the final 2 (a very nearly disastrous but ultimately ’successful’ strategy).
13 , Otto , Yes and the membership elected IDS !! As I said earlier not just who but how and when . The tories have got to reconnect with the ABs , and the moderate centre ground and eliminate the Lib Dems as an alternate to Labour , re-establish themselves in the cities outside of London , the North , Wales and Scotland - all in next the couple of years . No I don’t think so either.
14 , Alex , I think you’ll find it is winner takes all . It’s called the reality of power and the impotence of opposition.
Well, Jack, I do remember that not so long ago, people were saying that the Conservatives were finished in London, and could never win back the votes of young professional people in the Metropolis.
A lot can happen in two years, although I would certainly doubt the Conservatives can win back *all* of the groups you mention in that time.
22 , Sean , fair point about London , but the scale of the challenge facing the Tories is daunting. Realistically I just don’t see it happening before the next election , so 4 successive Labour governments is the most likely option.
21 - i believe my Lib Dem MP would probably argue it was worth standing for election. But you can stick to your debating points…
15 - Clarke was not the first choice of MPs. Portillo was (comfortably) The final ballot result can be put down to many factors, only one of which was the best candidate for the job.
People grossly overstate the importance of the EU as a General Election issue. Look through the archives and last year when UKIP was in the ascendency I was attacked strongly here when I predicted that they would not beat the 1997 Referendum Party performance which was backed by £20m by Jimmy Goldsmith. Then the RF got 2.6% of the vote - UKIP on May 5th got 2.3%.
As William Hague, no doubt, will tell you the EU is an issue that concerns a lot of people but not enough to change the General Election voting intention of all but a few.
Until the Tories get over their Europe thing then they can forgot any idea of a return to power.
It’s a big issue among politicians, and political activists, though, and rightly so.
24 , Alex , You’ve now made my point about your post @ 5 .
People grossly overstate the importance of the EU as a General Election issue.
They may well do. But what then are your serious, justifiable reasons for thinking Ken Clarke would be a good candidate for tory party leader? By your own admission pro-Europeanism is not one of them. His ‘popularity’ among the general public is probably largely centred on people who will probably not vote Tory anyway, and he has shown little indication of being interested in many modern electoral strategies. Both Brown and Clarke would IMO suffer when reality confronts the fictional image.
27 - You’ll have to spell it out. I’m struggling to understand.
18 - I wonder how miuch of the Clarke negatives are widely known? He cultivates his blokeishness very successfully (an impressive politcal performer - I was fortunate enough to observe him in the flesh).
If his bandwagon rolls and the DD-mob start dishing the dirt I wonder if this might tarnish his image in other places?
25,”Until the Tories get over their Europe thing then they can forgot any idea of a return to power. ”
they could return to power even if they don’t solve their EU “obsession” problems.
If it’s a non-issue in a General Election, they could take all the stances they want about Europe.
Ah i see. You’re arguing that Ken Clarke probably thinks it was worth standing. I wouldn’t be so sure. I think he is probably of the opinion that a Portillo leadership would have been better than a Duncan-Smith one.
Alex 28. Compared with David Davis he is streets ahead in terms of presence and likeability. He showed when in office that he’s resolute and he would - the Murodch press notwithstanding - attract better media coverage. He would IMO also be much better at dealing with Blair than Major, Hague, IDS and Howard.
I accept that he is getting old and that it would have been much better for the party if he had got the leadership in 1997. But he is still a major figure.
33 - In the late eighties he was arguably the most hated politician in Britain.
29 , Alex , In the Tory General Election Ken came a respectable second to IDS. In the General Election the Tories came a distant second to Labour. Neither was “incredibly self indulgent” . In a democracy standing for election , whatever ones chances , is the lifeblood of politics , the validiction of the the peoples voice. If Ken had stood and got just one vote then that is the indulgence of our democratic process and long may it last.
He showed when in office that he’s resolute and he would - the Murodch press notwithstanding - attract better media coverage.
Eh? And the Telegraph and the Mail. Ok so he might get a bit of support from the Guardian and the Independent…
34. Maggie was still there in the 80s right through until the end of 1990. I think she was probably higher up the “hated” list.
I don’t and have never argued that KC is not popular. But his popularity has been cultivated by his time off the front bench. Was he the most popular Tory in 97? Anyway his popularity would soon wear off as leader. If the party wants a centrist (and personally I am still undecided) it should back Cameron not Clarke. KC is like John Smith. Everyone speaks reverentially about him, because of the fact that everyone can idealize them, because like John Smith (who tragically died) no one knows what Ken Clarke would stand for (outside Europe) and would have done in government. The difference is that Smith is tragically dead, whereas Ken Clarke is alive and silent.
35 - Interesting interpretation of “distant second” (360 seats to 200 seats) and “respectable second” (62%-38%)
36. I think the Telegraph and Mail would support any Tory leader who was competent.
Mr Smithson. Blai or Brown or whoever would simply find a way to bring Euro Votes up with suprising regularity in the Commons tailored to split Ken and his Party and re-gnite infighting. How would Ken be able to combat that? I hear last night on TV he was interviewed and was as intransigent on Europe Chirac an idiot for calling a referndum in the first place and so on as ever.
Maybe if the Tories had been hammered into the ground at the last election they might think of voting for one of their various experienced ex-ministers. But, since they in fact made some real progress in terms of seats, I don’t now see them going for Clarke any more than for Rifkind. The reality is, they have a very good chance of getting in next time, even if as a minority government. They are nowhere near as desperate as Labour were after 1992 (even apart from the fact that Labour’s own ‘clause 4 moment’ was largely cosmetic). So I guess it will be ‘business as usual’- the next right-winger in line. None of the more centrist candidates is making any progress or emerging as anything like a favourite- Rifkind, Clarke and Cameron all have real drawbacks.
40.”I think the Telegraph and Mail would support any Tory leader who was competent.”
I think that the Mail will support any Tory leader, even if incompetent. Except that the tories elect John Bercow or Alan Duncan.
3 - Not sure what %split you would give between UKIP AND CON Sean but it is quite fun putting CON 15% and adding 18% to others to see the results under Baxter and H & K
35 - Jack. What would be your opinion if 20 Tory MPs stood for the leadership in the next contest?
39 , Alex , fair point , it’s a bit like comparing oranges and pears electorally , but my essential points remain valid .
By the way, can anyone tell me why Andrew Lansley is so far up the betting order? I have no idea who he is, and I reckon I can name more people in the shadow cabinet than most of the world at large.
45 , Alex , I’m not sure that many could stand mathmatically. Hovever for the purpose of debate I see no problem with that , let the cream come to the top or in the case of Nicholas Soames the double cream !
re 47. Andrew Lansley is so far up the betting price lists because people are betting on him. This is driven by money.
At the moment this race is David Davis versus A. N. Other and all sorts of ideas about the stop DD candidate will emerge.
Somebody has even put money on Boris Johnson.
Judging by all the previous tory leadership contests nobody seems to vote for who they want as leader so much as vote against who they don’t want. Maggie was pushed out not because they had somebody better in mind but because they didn’t want Maggie any more. Same when Maggie beat Ted Heath I think.
Major seemed to get in to stop Hesiltine and Hague because he’d never been in a position to upset many people. IDS was the anybody but Clarke or Portillo candidate. Who’s the best anybody but Davis and Clarke candidate this time?
42 , Sara , I think you’re observation that the tories have a “good chance” of forming a government , even a minority one are over optimistic . 115 odd gains for a minority government - run down the list required , it’s awesome . Getting to 250 would be an achievement, in preparation for the following election . One more push isn’t going to cut it next time.
I disagree with the second part of 33. Clarke definitely has more presence than Davis, but I think Davis comes over as more likeable on TV. If you remember the 2001 Newsnight debate between Clarke and IDS, Clarke can come over as an arrogant bully (wich, apart from the Euroscepticism of the Conservative membership, accounts for why they voted against him - I remember a pair interviewed on Newsnight who said that, in one of the leadership contest roadshows, Clarke came over as a person who spoke at people rather than to them). He also behaved like an arrogant bully towards public sector workers, denying the police side-handled batons just because some members of the LAPD had used them to beat Rodney King (never mind all the poor police officers in this country who were being beaten up and stabbed by criminals in the absence of side-handled batons) and sneering to the daughter of an ambulanceman who wrote to him that ambulance drivers were just ‘professional drivers’. He also bought an extra 100,000 low paid workers into taxation through freezing allowances. There’s also, of course, that dreadful mirthless laugh.
Perhaps there is no other candidate better than DD this time and perhaps that is what the members think?
51. ‘Over-optimistic’ no- another Conservative government is certainly not my idea of fun. But people could really be seriously, seriously cheesed off with Labour after another 4-5 years, and yet not think that the LibDems look plausible (the mirror image of this is the Lib Dem problem of whether to ditch CK or not). Yes, it’s a mountain to climb, but with new boundaries and all those wafer-thin majorities, surely there has to be a “good chance” they’ll get there? I agree with Alex, for example, that Brown in the treasury and Brown as PM are two very different things to the average South of England voter.
Some interesting thoughts here. I don’t think that Clarke would win (or that the Tories would win with him). I’m not convinced he’ll stand. Wasn’t Michael Howard’s quote about being ‘too old’ directed at KC (as well as DD)?
The Tories could easily form a minority government next time - winning around 50 seats. If the current election dynamic continues - Labour could easily lose 40-50 seats to the Tories, 20 or so to the Lib Dems and a dozen or so to the Nats and far left - 35% Tory, 33% Labour 24% Lib Dem - add in a bit of anti Labour tactical voting and the Tories are the largest party according to Baxter.
The Euro constitution is dead and it will be laid to rest on Tuesday when the Dutch hammer in the final nails to its coffin. And a good thing too. Any constitution that runs onto 100+ pages is not worth the paper it is written on regardless of what it says.
Unfortunately for anti-Europeans it actually provides the perfect opportunity for Prime Minister Blair to save the day as Euro President. I can imagine a short, vapid, but easily translatable and easy to attach meaning to form of words emerging from the British presidency. ‘Europe governing for the many, not the few’ you get my drift…
The issue that actually matters is the reform of the Euro institutions and the bureaucratic nightmare of CAP etc. The French ‘non’ has made that more likely. Typical socialists - hoist on their own petard!
It’s also ultimately bad news for Tory anti-European (as someone above
mentioned re Liam Fox). We have a more streamlined and sensible EU, the French political class with clipped wings (hopefully a downsized CAP) and Mr Blair claims credit for it all - doesn’t it make you feel sick?
54, Sara , I don’t even think there is a “good chance”. Running past the wafer thins and the sub 3000’s , you get nowhere near the target. Indeed quite a number fall to the Lib Dems. Indeed the Lib Dems really do provide the tories with what I call a “blocking minority” on the road to power - A whole raft of seats the tories need to gain power are held by the Lib Dems or have the Lib Dems in second place to Labour. It’s a mighty problem for the tories.
In reply to the question at 50, David Cameron.
My feelings about the Tories run in parallel to my feelings about radio 2. I’ll listen to them once the old guard of the Thatcher/Major era has gone (for Clarke, Howard, Rifkind etc. read Terry Wogan and Ken Bruce!).
Cameron would be great. Fox needs a haircut, some new suits, and needs to get down the gym.
Well, let’s suppose that the Conservatives do manage to become the largest party in the next HoC (but short of an overall majority)… who would be their best bet in such circumstances and how should he (or even she) go about it?
As a matter of interest are there any odds on the Conservatives having two leaders before the next election a la IDS/MH
Although it is too early to rule out any result at the next election , I would agree with Jack W that it is extremely unlikely that the Conservatives will get to be the largest party . The maths show the swing required to be almost historically unachievable .
If the Tories want to show they have changed they shouldn’t pick a Euro-fanatic who doesn’t mind flogging fags to unsuspecting new markets.
They need a black MP or a woman (who isn’t manly like Thatcher) for example, but not a man who is going in a different direction from the Tories and most of Britain on Europe.
59 , IA , It’s a very good question and my answer is I really don’t know . My best shot is John Bercow . He’s the type of tory that would attract me back - liberal on social issues and liberal on economic issues , exactly the reasons he won’t be chosen and of course in this media/image dominated world he’s a short arse !!
61 , Printz , in the new equal opportunity Tory party is “flogging fags” selling cigarettes or S&M for gays ??
61.”They need a black MP or a woman (who isn’t manly like Thatcher) for example, ”
I’m not sure that a woman or a black MP is the solution of their problems. The leader’s image is something important in today politics (and in UK more than in the rest of Europe), but if they’ll chose a woman and she’ll advocate the same things that Howard advocated, the situation won’t improve IMO.
They need to update their policies too.
People seem to forget that the ability to attract new voters is not the only qualification necessary on any leader’s CV. They do also need to have the ability to lead both party and country.
Mark at 60 - you’re quite wrong - the Tories could easily be the largest party in a hung parliament with something like a 2% swing if the Lib Dems continue to poll in the mid 20%s.
The Tories, of course, need a much larger swing to win outright.
If you have a play with Baxter you can see how easy it is (particularly if you assume tactical voting is against Labour - which it was in a number of seats this time).
I’m sorry but i don’t think it is an issue of the tories getting over their Euro-fear. As a young tory I just think that the issue of Europe is one of the most fundamental things that the party stands for. I could not even consider being led by a europhile. Also, Clarke isn’t such the perfect figure everyone seems to be making out. He’s old, he is associated with the Thatcher and Major years, he has some pretty immoral (in my opinion) connections with tobacco campanies and he sounds like a toff. Liam Fox is my choice, not too young but sounds good and looks ok. Can someone explain why his chances would be damaged by the French No vote??
Clarke,who wants that clapped out rustbucket?
Last night he was busy saying on TV that there should not have been a reforendum on the constitution,too complicated for people to understand!What arrogance.
25 “Until the Tories get over their Europe thing then they can forgot any idea of a return to power”
It’s not clear where you’re coming from. First you promote this most sycophantically pro-EU character as a potential Tory leader…and then you come up with the statement above. It’s a technique that’s been used by Clarke himself, bizarrely accusing those who oppose him as being “obsessed with Europe”. A bit rich really.
And you say the electors are not interested in Europe. Then why bang on about its champion?
Regarding his personality deficiencies, Clarke is remarkably similar to Denis Healey. Both tried to project themselves as the blokeishly bullying type but failed to understand that, in politics, the dividing line between ebullience and buffoonery is a very narrow one. Healey met his come-uppance in a TV studio in 1987 when he was taken apart by - of all people - Anne Diamond. Clarke’s defining moment of idiocy came when he admitted during the Maastricht debate that he’d never actually read the Treaty, and then gave that ridiculous whinnying laugh of his.
Until leftist Tories get over their Clarke thing then they can forget any idea of the rest of us taking them seriously.
Does anyone have an analysis of the likely change in support for Clarke between the 2001 and 2005 groups of tory MPs?
I think there were approx 14 retirements and therefore 47 new Tory MPs. Surely those that have retired were much more likely to be Clarke supporters (being his generation) whereas newcomers are much less likely to support him?
Well, I don’t know about the Tories overall, but the horrified recoil of the Tories on this site is pretty striking.
Clarke would be a high-risk choice for this reason, even though I’m not in any doubt that he’s the more formidable opponent. Davis is the safer, one-more-heave choice. I think the Tories only have a decent chance next time against Brown+honeymoon (failing cataclysmic Events) if they can achieve Clarke without a subsequent major row, and that doesn’t seem likely.
If KC could come out and say, under my leadership no Euro entry and no constitution, then he might do enough to win. BTW, v.interesting piece in the Telegraph tommorrow about his leadership bid. It is looking possible that the race will be a two man battle between Clarke (supported by Rifkind, the left and the young modernisers) vs Davis (supported by his allies, right wingers and some of the MP’s he helped to get elected). In this case KC chances are reasonable. Liam Fox is possibly the key to all this. If he stands he could shut Clarke out and give Davis the leadership on a plate.
I think Kenneth Clarke as leader would be terribly damaging for the Conservative Party. There’s a reason why our illustrious Labour and Lib Dem posters on this site are extolling his virtues, and it isn’t with the best interests of the Conservative Party in mind.
I say this as a man who voted for Clarke in the final ballot of party members in the 2001 contest that elected IDS. I felt safe in doing so as I knew that IDS had the thing sewn up and I thought that IDS didn’t have it and would be a disaster.
The Conservative Party is clearly and broadly a Eurosceptic party and it is completely irrational that we would elect someone as our leader who’s views on this vital subject were 180 degrees in the opposite direction. We need a fresh faced leader who unburdened by the decisions and subsequent unpopularity of the last Tory government (not Clarke), someone who can appeal to the centre ground and regain our former strength there when middle of the road voters begin to reconsider their options once Blair departs and who won’t allow UKIP to sheer off our entire right flank. Ken Clarke simply doesn’t fit the bill.
It has got to be either David Cameron or David Davis.
Andrea, I believe in the presentation is everything theory. That is you can sell crap if you present it well.
Tony Blair has proven this, although I admit some of his policies have been good. Gerald Ratner certainly proved it.
The Tories don’t have to change a single policy to keep nearly all of their existing vote plus appear more caring and more of the centre.
All they need is a leader who can inspire and is a step change from all these rather boring middle age or older white men in dark suits.
None of the candidates in contention compare with the likes of Thatcher or Blair prior to their election.
None of them have that dynamism or charisma. They are all utterly boring in my opinion and do not represent much of an image change.
After appearing to spend half the election campaign talking about immigration, a non-white leader or a female leader would shed their nasty image faster than anything else.
Today’s Telegraph is talking about a “dream ticket” of Clarke and Cameron - a good article.
The reaction of the Tory posters on the site to Clarke has been very revealing. Looking on from outside I cannot see any hope of a return to power without the party finding some collective means of slaying the EU demon that has infected it completely ever since the Danish referendum in 1992.
75 - But Mike, what do you mean by ’slaying the EU demon’? Is this code for seeing the error of our ways and coming round to the European ideal? I don’t think that’s the right approach at all. The public are on our side on this issue. What we need to do is be clear that we’re not afraid of Europe, we want to do business with Europe but we want to manage our own affairs. It’s nothing to do with being Anti-European, it’s about being Pro-British. I think the Great British people would be very receptive to this argument provided it was made in a reasoned and thoughtful way.
This post is little more than Guardian editorialising disguised as a Political Betting column. Very poor. It’s a sign of Ken Clarke’s character he wouldn’t abandon his europhilia, but a sign of the memberships’ obsessions that they in turn stuck to their guns on Europe? It’s far more like the other way around. Ken Clarke has a view on Europe very unpopular in the party and the country, and the Tory Party has a view on Europe that is popular in the party and the country. You tell me who’s the obsessed and arrogant one of the two for not changing their mind.
Matlock, it’s like the nuclear debate in the 1980s - it’s just Mike doesn’t realise he’s the unilateralist here, out of touch with the needs and interests of this country, particularly as they are perceived by most Tories and most voters. This wouldn’t matter if he weren’t judging the Tories’ future through this absurd spectrum. To describe adopting the stance so unpopular it has crippled Tony Blair’s ability to do anything radical domestically since devolution as “slaying the EU demon” is simply laughable.
Ken Clarke is most certainly not some magic bullet for the party. I can think of plenty of people we already have who come across just as well on television, and who would never descend to calling ambulance drivers “glorified taxi drivers”. The reason you on the liberal-left think he’s got enormous appeal, Mike, is because he often agrees with you. It’s not that he is personable in an unprecedented way (and who really thinks that matters much in elections, anyway?), but that he says things about Europe, about America and about the Tories that you like the sound of. It’s the same reason you like John Bercow so much, even though he tends to come across very badly on television.
78 - You’re on to something there, Peter.
76-79. As I stated in a comment above the evidence of the past 3 General Elections is that the EU is not as an important an issue as many Tory activists think it is. In 1997 Jimmy Goldsmith spent £20m funding his Referendum Party campaign and got a paltry 2.6% of the vote.
So the Tories have been tearing themselves apart over an issue that really does not count very much when electors are deciding what sort of UK Government they want.
Blair realises this and that is why he’s managed to run rings round the Tories for fourteen years and exploit all the divisions.
Except on the margins, the Tories have been united on this issue since the late 1990s. They’re united against further European integration, a stance the British people appreciate. There’s no evidence divisions over Europe did us any electoral damage since we became a Eurosceptic party, either in 2001 or in 2005. (If anything, though I wouldn’t necessarily argue this, electoral damage has come because we’ve not been eurosceptic enough to win enough people back from UKIP.) What you’re advocating is going back to the situation in the mid-1990s, when those divisions really did harm us, because the leadership had such a very different stance than the party rank and file.
What you seem not to appreciate is that Ken Clarke is in the wrong here, at least when judged against the views of his own party and his own country. The comparison with clause IV is absurd. Nationalisation was deeply unpopular and loses votes, something no one could say of Tory euroscepticism. It’s like saying that Labour shouldn’t have abandoned its commitment to nationalising industries if it wanted to modernise, but should instead have promised to scrap the NHS: changing a policy that the vast majority of voters support - keeping the pound in the Tories’ case or keeping the NHS in Labour’s case - is not the way to win elections.
81 Quite so, very well said !
Whilst Clarke is thoroughly entitled to his views he remains totally out of touch with the vast majority of the Conservative Party over Europe.
Also, just because the European Constitution is in apparent difficulty
it does not mean the matter is closed. Irrespective of the vote in Holland, Brussels will not stop in its insatiable lust to draw power
to the centre - Brussels very future demands that it does so.
There’s also the tiny matter of the Euro itself - how on earth could
a Party whose membership is so unambiguosly against be represented
by a Leader who is in favour of a measure that would effectively end
hundreds of years of parliamentary sovereignty by ceding control of our economy to Europe ?
His Election, which is clearly what the ‘Modernisers’ (Back to the future !?) are seeking to do by changing the voting system, would cause a cataclysmic split within the Party.
Could one of the reasons that his (so called)’Big Beast’ credentials are so routinely talked up by the otherwise Conservative hating section of the media, be for exactly this reason ?
David Davis and quickly please !
Peter @ 81: The solidly eurosceptic Conservatives were comprehensively trounced in 2001 and 2005, while in the 1990’s they still used to win elections. Surely this supports Mike Smithson’s hypothesis that Europe just isn’t that important an issue as far as most of the British public are concerned?
83 If Euroscepticism is an alien concept/irrelevant to the vast majority of the wider population, why do the Conservatives (& UKIP) continue to trounce Eurofriendly parties in successive European Elections ?
Dave X [83] - true for 2001, when William Hague was the beamish boy who set out to slay the Euro-jabberwock and made a net gain of one seat. Far less so for 2005, when Howard downplayed the issue for the reasons our genial host has put forward. And he achieved merely the result that they should have got in 2001!
The problem is that the Tories need both a charismatic leader, whether a Thatcher or a Blair, and a philosophy that (a) attracts 35%+ of the voters and (b) is immune to being stolen by their opponents. Given NuLab’s shamelessness in stealing ideas from American neo-conservatives (citizenship lessons, faith schools, deficit finance) and the Lib Dems likely willingness to produce tax proposals that the Tories might wish they’d found first, this is no small order.
Tory Boy [84] - you might look at the turn-out in Euro-elections for your answer…
“the evidence of the past 3 General Elections is that the EU is not as an important an issue as many Tory activists think it is”
Then why do you support a eurofanatic? Again, you’re trying to sound aloof and bored about an issue when it is clear that you are in fact a partisan.
Engage. Stop speaking in code. If you believe that the path of further integration is valid then argue your case.
The thing is that the eurosceptics have been proved very largely right about the Single Currency and the EU generally. What were once fringe opinions are now becoming mainstream across the continent (paradoxically euroscepticism is the one way in which Europe has developed a common political philosophy).
Had we done as the Tory europhiles wished and stayed in the ERM, and then joined the Single Currency, output per head would be appreciably lower in this country than it is today.
People can usually be persuaded to drop ideas that have failed, but not ideas that have succeeded.
It seems to me that the Tories problems stem not from Euroscepticism but from Europhilia.
John Major (a closet Europhile) forced Margaret Thatcher into joining the ERM, against her better judgment. That led directly to Black Wednesday, which destroyed the Tories’ reputation for economic competence.
As prime minister, John Major continued his pro-Euro intriguing and split his party in two. That destroyed the Tories’ reputation for managerial competence and stability.
I can understand why the LDs and Nulabs would want the Tories to return to that era; it might be enough to finish the Tories off.
What I find bizarre is the desire of some Tories to go back. You’d have thought that they would be recoiling from that disastrous experience.
The “friendly” advice to the Conservative Party on who should be leader from Labour and the Liberal Democrats reminds me of the situation in 1980/81 when Labour MPs who were planning to defect to the SDP retained the Labour whip to put Foot in as leader and try and elect Benn as deputy. The late Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington 1971-83) was actually walking around the House showing Conservative MPs his ballot paper marked for Foot.
Sorry Ken, no it was, no it is and no it will remain.
Sean Fear @ 88: This is just more europhobe waffle. Where is your evidence that the single currency is a bad thing, or that output per head would be lower in the UK if it had joined? Show me your evidence that a majority of the population of any of the countries that have adopted the Euro regret the decision.
86 - Winning is winning (as we saw on May 5th with a record low %
of the vote for a winning party and fewer votes in England than the Conservatives !)
Dave X - there have been numerous polls showing that Germans (and I think Poles) regret joining the Single Currency. Sean is absolutely right and it would be disastrous for this country to join.
All this stuff about Clarke being the answer is nonsense. If Clarke is the answer I dread to think what the question might be! Clarke is too old and has far too much baggage as some here have indicated. His connections with BAT would be a huge vote loser in my view but what is more damning is his refusal to serve in the Shadow Cabinet in recent years. He talks about “the party being willing to be led” but he has been one of the worst culprits in not being led himself.
I also hope that we dont have lots of fringe candidates standing. Redwood needs talking to, as does Alan Duncan, to point out that they only have widespread support in their own imaginations.
For my money I would be happy with either of the David’s currently being proposed.
Peter Golds at 90: I value the frank discussions here so I try to say what I actually think. It did occur to me that since I do think the Tories will be better off with Clarke, perhaps I shouldn’t say so. But the probability that a comment on pb.com is going to change the outcome seems vanishingly small.
Peter at 81: I agree that there is no great public demand for the Tories to become pro-European. I think, though, that there is a widespread view that it’s become the party of obsessions - in 2001 Europe, in 2005 immigration. People want to see an indication that the party is now focused on everyday issues. Choosing Clarke would indeed be a ‘Clause 4′ moment as Mike says, because it would demonstrate dramatically that an obsession has been shed, like an arachnophobe saying that he’s no longer too worried about spiders - it’s not that his friends actually like spiders, it’s just that they’re pleased he’s no longer obsessive about them. But the main argument for Clarke is that he is simply in a different league from the others in terms of communication with the electorate. There are lots of Davises and Camerons and Lansleys in the Commons, and they’re all perfectly OK without making the unaffiliated sit up and pay attention. There are only a few communicators in the Blair/Clarke league. On the LibDem side, Simon Hughes (who is too aggressive for my taste) is probably the closest to this.
93 - The Poles aren’t in the single currency AFAIK. The Dutch aren’t too happy about it though and part of the evidence will come on Wednesday.
93 - Poland hasn’t joined the euro, though obviously the necessary interim preparations for the single currency have an effect on the economy and on public perception.
94 - the arachnonphobe analogy is just about right, I think. I wonder if your thoughts about Simon Hughes’s aggression spring from tussles over ID cards? My view is that he is just about our best speaker on that issue.
Dave at 83: you’re misunderstanding my case. Nowhere have I said Europe is determining General Election results. What I have said is that Ken Clarke is demonstrably out of touch with public opinion on this issue and the Tory membership is demonstrably in touch. So why should it be the membership that have to swallow their principles?
On top of that, while it’s certainly true that Ken Clarke is unusually normal and jovial for a politician, I don’t believe that is likely to be a significant electoral issue. The reason he gets such good press from non-conservatives is the same reason Tories like Kate Hoey or Frank Field - because he’s a rare case of someone in the opposite party who says things they really agree with. It’s not because of a hypnotic personality that will win hundreds of thousands of votes.
And your claim that in the europhile nineties the Tories won elections whereas in this decade they have been ‘trounced’ is so selective as to be dishonest. In comparatively europhile 1997, the Conservatives got their worst result since 1832. In 2001, they did marginally better and on 5th May 2005: they came within 2.9% of Labour and won more votes in England. The Tory landslides of the 1980s came under Margaret Thatcher, not a known europhile. Only 1992, - where our majority fell dramatically from 101 to 21, nearly as big a drop as Blair’s this month - is a case of a Tory victory without euroscepticism.
94 - I doubt I large portion of the electorate know who Ken Clarke is any more. They know he’s apparently a ‘nice Tory’ and that’s about it. It was quite amusing watching a BBC discussion programme not so long ago where Polly Toynbee was arguing how out of touch and ‘extreme’ the Tories and there policies had become and they needed “you” (Ken Clarke) to come and save them from it. Clarke pointed out that Europe apart he agreed with the vast majority of Tory policies (on public services etc) and probably wasn’t quite what Toynbee was looking for
91. go fish. You need evidence that the single currency is a bad thing? How about two recessions in two years in Italy? Holland now in recession? 5m unemployed in Germany? 10% unemployed in France? Even those in favour of the euro are now admitting that it’s one-size-fits-all interest rates have.. shall we say… drawbacks. You could also mention that Germany and France have now broken the euro’s Stability Pact, indeed trashed it, making the euro a laughing stock, as well as a risky bet. You could also mention that it has now been proven that Greece and Italy fiddled their deficit data so they could get into the euro, something which is now causing major problems. You could also mention that the Dutch guilder was deliberately and secretly undervalued when Holland joined - a factor only now coming to light, and a major influence on the upcoming Dutch Nee in the Constitution. Then there’s the fact that the Eurozone economies are now diverging rather than converging, as was promised, which does not augur well for the eurozone’s future. I’m sorry, but anyone who still supports the euro after all this, indeed anyone who supports more European integration, is either an idiot, or a self-deluding loon.
Mr Palmer at 94 question on GB . I’ve heard he subscribes to the Nye Bevan view thgat all Conservatives are lower than vermin, and is one of the most tribal people in the Labour Party is this true? Jusat curious as most incl you tyhough you all want to win seem atr least to regard them as fellow countrymen even if you disagree with them. Cheers.
Nick Palmer @ 94. I think what you’re describing is a media caricature, not a real impression of the Conservative Party that influences how many people vote. Most of all, the party has been very silent on Europe ever since IDS became leader, because we are so united on the matter and seek to make political capital on other issues now. Electing someone so obsessed with a federal Europe he has twice thrown away the chance of being Tory leader because of this would bring any supposed obsessions with Europe to the surface, not bury them.
The idea that Tories need a “clause IV moment” is extremely dubious, based on an analogy with Labour in the 1980s that doesn’t withstand a moment’s scrutiny. But even if we did need a clause IV, it should surely be about changing those policies that are less popular than Labour’s, not - as with Europe and immigration - more? Why do the Clarkites and Notting Hill ‘modernisers’ care most about ditching the few things about the Conservative Party that voters like?!
Richard Willis @ 93 - Perhaps you could provide a link to one of these “numerous polls” you mention (just so I know they’re not a figment of your imagination).
alex @ 95 - The Dutch are voting on ratifying the constitution, not on the single currency.
seanT @ 99 - Sure, many eurozone countries are having economic problems. But where’s the evidence that this is because they use the Euro? In Germany, at least, most people seem to regard an overly-rigid labour market and high wage costs as the main cause of economic distress, not the Euro. The sharp increase in oil price is also a likely factor, given that all the eurozone countries are heavily dependent on oil imports unlike the UK and Denmark. Idiot yourself.
I’m one Lib Dem who most definitely would NOT welcome KC as Tory leader!
102 - Dave X, you mean you don’t accept the word of an Occifer and a Gentleman?
Well, my 11th and 12th Commandments are never to criticise fellow Tories, particularly on this seething caudron of a thread! Like them all, I don’t share Clarke’s views on EU, and recoil from his business incarnation as the ineffable BAT-man. And Mike’s references to Clause IV defining moments are off-beam.
But Conservatives surely cannot ignore lightly the consistent polling evidence that Ken Clarke is by far the public’s (yes, this will include Labour and LibDem voters) choice as Leader, far outpacing his rivals. Far more important, the next election, like all elections, will be ultimately be fought on the economy, and Ken was the Chancellor - in large part due to White Wednesday - who bequeathed the golden inheritance to Gordon Brown.
Sorry about the sound bite, but isn’t this about credibility and electability: Hague and IDS had neither, Howard had the first (a massive achievement) but alas not the second. Out there and to the voters who must propel the Tory vote to 40%+, Ken Clarke appears to have both. I’m not saying that Davis or Cameron cannot also succeed in time, but this will be tough.
Europe IS a problem for Clarke but the inevitable demise of the constititution does reduce its salience as an issue with the electorate as a whole, and the party would be wise to take this into account.
Clarke would be a risk…albeit one likely to be reduced were he to be aligned with Cameron. As I’ve mentioned before, I wouldn’t really have a big problem with Davis as he himself is already beginning to braoden his appeal. But “Cuddly” Ken, the Benign Bruiser, is too big a beast to by=pass in the great safari for votes…
Whilst I would rule out Clarke on the grounds of age alone , I think that there is more to be a leader and much much more to being a great leader to just following the majority views of their party and/or country . That is populism , yes , but the mark of a great leader is to challenge the commonly held views of the time and move their party and country forward . Love her or hate her and I was certainly in the latter category , this is what Mrs Thatcher did but I cannot see anyone who can rise being above populist in the running for the leadership .
Back in the 1960’s the perceived dogma of all parties and hence the belief that the voters at large held were that the pound had to be fixed at a certain rate to the dollar and balance of payments every month should balance . We have moved on that now probably noone thinks that . Perhaps what the country needs now is someone who will lead us away from the straightjackets of today’s political economic dogma but again I can see no sign of this in the potential leaders of the Conservative party or the party membership .
102. From EU Business, (an EU website), Dec 2001. Germans and Swedes are still strongly opposed to the euro. The latest Forsa poll in Germany shows that only 34% think that the euro is a good thing. 61% think it is a bad thing. This is a worse figure than that in the most recent Eurobarometer from the European Commission, which shows that support for a single currency had dropped to 47% in Germany by last November.
EU Business 2005:
The undervaluation of the Guilder is being linked to high inflation following the euro’s launch in 2001 - which made the currency unpopular among many Dutch citizens.
Euractiv: A recent poll has shown that the euro is a complete disaster for Germany. In the poll, carried out by the prestigious Allensbach Institute, 54% of Germans said they want the euro to be replaced by the Deutschmark.
I note you ignore all my points about the Single Currency’s appalling constitutional problems - the Non Growth pact, the deficit fiddles, the Guilder problem, the divergence, etc. Idiot squared.
You know, it would be nice if all those people who were pro the euro, and pro the Constitution, and pro integration - but mostly those who were pro the euro - just put up their hands and said, Yep, we were totally wrong on that one, it’s good we didn’t join, the euro is rubbish. Sorry!
Just a simple apology. It wouldn’t be painful. We’d respect you more. Cause we all make mistakes, and being pro-euro was yours. So come on, fess up, it’ll be good for your souls.
Fat chance tho, eh?
All this discussion about Ken Clarke is focused on Europe, with some mentions of BAT. This is not the only major issue where Ken has been out of step. What about Iraq? The tories were and I believe still are in favour of the Iraq war. Ken was not. While this might be a plus point with many of the public how does it play in the tory party? Does this win or lose Ken support in the party? Would Ken change tory policy on this and would others follow him in such a change of direction?
The difficulty for the tories is that there is still a significant proportion of the electorate who are still not listening to what the tories are saying , almost come what may. It’s a very real problem for them in General Election terms . The tories need their own clause 4 , new Labour , Tony Blair , Lib Dem eradicating phase before they recapture the ground for a Tory win. It seems that is some way off yet.
Of topic I’ve read two obituaries of the Lib Dem MP , Patsy Calton , what a tremendous woman she was , they really moved me and gives the lie to that stupid and lazy phrase that “MP’s are only in it for what they can get”
107 - we’ll get him to come over to the Dark Side eventually
Something no-one has mentioned is Clarke’s record in the Thatcher administrations of the 1980s - he certainly put the backs up several interest groups (including teachers when he was Edu Sec) and I’m sure this record would be scrutinised more closely were he to become leader.
109 - I think that’s probably what Alex meant in saying Clarke was “the most hated politician in the country in the late 1980s”. As the son of a teacher I remember this well (you too no doubt Tabman!), but there are probably plenty of his quotes on health and education Labour would gladly refresh the electorate’s memory on.
110 - I do indeed - Ken Baker was equally “popular” IIRC.
The basic objection to the single currency, Dave X, is (a) it tries to “freeze” exchange rates for all time, regardless of subsequent economic changes in a particular country’s performance, and (b) it obliges all participating countries to adopt the same interest rate, again, regardless of differing economic conditions.
A country like Italy needs to devalue, and reduce it’s interest rates close to zero, because its economy is uncompetitive and in almost permanent recession. Germany’s economy is competitive internationally, but domestic demand is falling, and so it too needs to cut interest rates aggressively. Neither country is free to do what is necessary to kick start its economy.
By coming out of the ERM, we were able to cut interest rates aggressively in 1993, which gave our economy a real boost. Raising interest rates to the level which would have kept us in ERM would have done real harm to the economy (remember countries like Sweden putting them up to 500% for a while?)
In the long run, issues like tax rates, education, productivity, Labour market reform will matter much more to economic performance, than either interest rates of exchange rates, but in the short term, these things matter enormously. It is folly for a government to deny itself freedom of action in this way. It’s also far easier for a government to sell economic reform to its electorate if it can show some short term gain to compensate for the short term pain that economic reform generates.
One thing all you Tory enthusiasts need to think about (not that I think Ken is your saviour, quite the reverse). You had a number of very talented pro-European Tories in the 1990s, mainly Euro MPs, that would have added significantly to your pool of talent now. One reason the Tory MPs in the commons are generally agreed to be so comparatively poor is that there was proctically a pogrom of Europhile candidates. You really need to recognise the damage this has done your ranks of activists and potential MPs and cabinet ministers, and start welcoming some of these back.
“One reason the Tory MPs in the commons are generally agreed to be so comparatively poor”
I don’t think is true and I certainly feel the 2005 intake are on the whole very highly regarded.
110 As if….. (did I hear somewhere recently that Michael Howard was the architect of Thatcher’s Poll Tax !)
The bizarre thing about this “Big beast” thing is that his reputation
was earned largely for his stewardship of the economy whilst he was Chancellor.
The only reason he bcame Chancellor was because of Lamont’s sacking following the UK’s merciful realease from the ERM on Golden Wednesday.
Clarke and Major were proponents of Sterling joing the ERM, Lamont was
an anti, yet por old (hapless) Norman was the one who got slotted !
With interests rates returning rapidly afterwards to a natural level
and with £ finding a ‘free market’ level against other major currencies the economy boomed, despite a poor Conservative administration and definitely not because of it.
Exactly the same is true of Brown’s stewardship since ‘97. Despite the extra burden of taxes and red tape it continues to chug along,
albeit increasingly spluttering.
When the engine does sieze up, as it inevitably will, will be the time that people turn to other parties to listen to what they have got to offer.
If we sound the same as everone else when that time comes, why should they listen to us rather than anyone else.?
No, we need to hold true to ourselves and our principles.
To change what we believe in (oxymoron ?) for political expediency
really would be the final straw.
We might as well all join New Labour and have done it.
Could Clarke beat Blair (or GB)? The success of the economy is due to KC’s…all irrelevant.
My view is that the political maestro of this era, TB, is even now re-inventing himself as the ‘Euro-realist’ of our times. He ‘bends with the wind’—he might say he ‘understands what the people want’.
TB’s has expressed his political philosophy as ‘I support what works’. You could argue that that is not a philosophy, and you’d be right. But you’d also be second, and under FPTP, second is …
And that’d be KC’s (or DD, DC or anybody else’s problem). The chamaeleon TB makes everybody else look wooden and unchanging. They’d believe that they show integrity and consistency—which they do. But of course, TB shows it isn’t good enough for ‘the people’. How does he manage it? Don’t bother to try to analyse why–he just can.
While TB is in the saddle, the tories are limited to damage limitation, and it is easy to understand why KC is the best damage limiter. But now TB has announced his going, that is less vital than it was.
Has nobody noticed how MH is a lame duck, when apart from election times, the leader of the opposition is never more than a peripheral figure anyway. And yet when TB says he is leaving, in a much longer time-frame, he is still the man?
110 Once you have attained power it’s up to you what to do with it. Chgurchill was deliberately ambiguos as to his attitudes as to what to do with the War to smooth his path after Chamberlain did good things didn’t he?
You sound rather like the old Labour Left in the 80’s preferring purity to power. Maybe you should think who would you prefer Ken restrained by a Euroosceptic Party, or a Europhile Labour PM backed by a muych more Europhile Parliamentary Labour Party and Trade Union Movement. Still you much prefer impotent opposition by the Sounds of it.
Sorry 117 is foir 115.
Richard Willis @ 93: My apologies. Here is the poll referred to by seanT @ 106:
http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/news/prd_0501.html
In my defence, I’d point out that the poll represents more of an emotional attachment to the D-Mark, especially amongst the older generation, rather than a rejection of the Euro for economic reasons. I’d compare it to the introduction of decimal currency in the UK (in 1971?).
The jump in prices (of consumer items) on changeover was to be expected - what retailer wouldn’t wait until then to make their usual price increase? In the long term though (the past few years) there is no evidence whatsoever that the Euro has caused inflation - if anything, the opposite.
Sean Fear @ 112: Excellent points. I’ll reply when I’ve got more time.
I´m not the Peter who was posting on this thread earlier. but I have always posted as Peter and I´m not changing!
Joining Dave X, I agree that Germans are incurably nostalgic (see Goodbye, Lenin) as an example.
Italy’s problems are structural. Being in the Euro means they are more urgent. But if Sean Fear were Gianni Paura he would want them tackled urgently anyway. Italians tend to appreciate the EU partly because it forces their government to take decisions.
Sean presumably hasn´t noticed that interest rates in the UK are now very much higher than in the Euro zone. It would be difficult to join just now, and there are difficult years ahead. But we missed an opportunity when we failed to the Euro on day one.
75-’Slaying the EU demon’
As people see the increasing economic chaos in continental Europe with Italy on the point of economic collapse (according to most respected analysts),France & Germany in deep recession with double digit unemployment it will be hard to miss the point that all 3 major economies (and others like Holland) all started to rapidly deteriorate since joing the €uro with the absurd notion that ‘one size fits all’and the common hatred (as shown in numerous polls in these countries) of the €uro.
I believe that it will be long remembered that there was one major political party that was warning of the dangers (now a reality) of the single currency.It is interesting to note that we hear nothing now from the pro European Labour MP’s and even less from the Lib Dems that would have joined the €uro at the earliest opportunity (no doubt as the mess unfolds on the continent this will be conveniently dropped from their list of policies).
Thankfully the Lib Dems will never have the opportunity to implement their policies.
Far from being a negative,the so called obsession with Europe by the Tories will,I believe prove to be a long term winner as events unfold over the next 2/3 years,as the only party being consistent over its stance with Europe,which at the end of the day would have more impact on the UK economy (with no opportunity to change) than all other economic policies combined.
There’s nothing particularly good or bad about high or low interest rates. In 1993, we needed to cut interest rates very sharply. After 12 years of growing more rapidly than the eurozone countries, it is quite right that our rates should now be higher than in the eurozone, in order to choke off any inflationary pressures. My point is that we have a degree of flexibility that the eurozone countries don’t have.
It is open for the Italians to restore their competiveness by letting unemployment rise to such a level that their wage rates, and unit Labour costs, will fall sharply. I just think that a devaluation would be an easier route to the same outcome.
119 - Dave no apology needed - I remembered reading about polls in Germany but couldnt recall precisely where!
WRT Poland whilst it is true that Eastern Europe has yet to switch over to the Euro, by joining the EU it is committed on block to so doing. Again I recall reading that in Poland they were having doubts about this and that several polls were against ( I am afraid I cannot evidence this yet but will look for more info).
117 Yep, spot on and proud to shout if from the roof tops.
Unprincpled pursuit of power is exactly the reason the public
hold all politicians of all politcal hues in the contempt they
do today.
Those who would do or say anything to achieve power for power’s
sake demean themselves and those they aspire to represent.
Our time will come, when it does we need to be able to stand
up with a set of principled policies based on our fundamental
beliefs.
What’s the point of being in politic’s if all you aspire to is to
manage someone else’s policy ‘better’ than them ?
creed
Sean @ 112: I’m fully aware of economic objections to (a) frozen exchange rates, and (b) same interest rates. I don’t agree that they’re very important though.
If it is so beneficial for different countries to have their own exchange rates and interest rates, then why not have different currencies for different regions of the same country? How about separate English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish pounds, each with a variable exchange rate to reflect the prevailing economic conditions? AFAIK, no country has done this, even those whose tax rates vary from state to state.
As regards the economic woes in Germany, France and Italy, there is a school of thought (cf. Peter @ 120) which contends that these countries are being forced to implement their current labour reform programs precisely because they cannot devalue. This means that governments cannot raid people’s savings to put off the necessary changes - until the next lot are in power and reforms are even more urgent. Membership of the Euro enforces a degree of fiscal responsiblity in this respect.
I fully agree with your statement that “In the long run, issues like tax rates, education, productivity, Labour market reform will matter much more to economic performance, than either interest rates (or) exchange rates”.
&