Has he changed his mind too late?
August 30th, 2005
Will Clarke’s switch on the euro come across as common sense or opportunism?
In the Conservative leadership race, the chances of Kenneth Clarke seem to have been rescued from a badly flagging position since Clarke – the only really prominent Conservative to have supported the euro – admitted that he now saw the single currency as “a failure”.
Less than two weeks ago, Clarke’s campaign was being deserted by former supporters such as Tony Baldry, with only John Bercow and Ann Widdecombe left as publically declared allies. Now the momentum has turned round. Tim Yeo may only have been a “leadership contender” to boost his shadow cabinet chances under the eventual winner, but his endorsement of Clarke seems to mark the stage where the former Chancellor has begun to be seen as in with a chance again. The betting markets agree, pulling Clarke’s odds in to 5.6/1. Doubtless Clarke and David Cameron would argue as to who it was that rejected the “dream ticket” idea first, but both are running hard in their own right.
Clarke argues that his great merit is his ability to beat Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and on what polling evidence is available, he is correct that he has more public appeal than other leadership candidates. On the other hand, polls about hypothetical alternative party leaders tend to reflect name recognition quite strongly rather than thought-out opinions on the candidates. Labour sources are reported as saying Clarke is the candidate they fear most, though parties would probably be wise not to try outfoxing their opponents based on comments which are conveniently allowed to leak to the press.
With British entry into the euro having fallen way down the political agenda, and a future Gordon Brown government unlikely to be in a hurry to resurrect it, Clarke’s change of position on it could be seen as a common-sense recognition of the facts of the current situation. But those who distrust Clarke will conjure up another parallel. In the approach to the final round of 1997 leadership election, Clarke made a deal with John Redwood, the most right-wing candidate in the contest, for his support. With so little political common ground between Clarke and Redwood, the odd coupling did not go down well with Tory MPs, and William Hague won the leadership by 22 votes. Whilst some of Clarke’s public appeal comes from the perception that he goes ahead and speaks his mind regardless of the consequences, supporters of other candidates may try to link his change in position with the Redwood pact in a pattern of opportunism.
Conspicuous by his absence from recent coverage has been frontrunner David Davis – and that may be the most advantageous position for him, while Clarke and Cameron are seen as fighting each other. With some fire drawn away from him, a three-horse race could boost Davis’s chances.
As punters in this market return to digest the long weekend’s news, the momentum towards Clarke should have further to run. And even if this is overdone, it does reflect a genuine recovery of his prospects from their low point. But beyond that, the transformation into a three-cornered contest has the effect of making David Davis (currently 0.75/1) better value than has been the case for a while.
Philip Grant
Guest editor
Mike Smithson is on holiday until 5th September.
MessageSpace Advertising
Useful article at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1755857,00.html
Knew you’d want me to point that out.
Grr…something unfathomable about my link…try again
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1755857,00.html
I do think his recent statements smack of opertunism. I think this has had the effect of alienating some of his previous allies. Also with so many backing, either, Davis or Cameron now. I doubt many will be willing to do an embarresing u-turn to back Clarke. Though I do think his talents should be used in a senior shadow cabinet portfollio when the new leader is designed.
I do apologise about the lack of post last week. I moved house to a friends, there still to get the internet set up there so I ended up finishing half way through disscussions on local government & global warming.
Hi Stuart. Who are you going for in this long drawn out contest? Or havent you made up your mind yet?
3 S Penketh. You seem shocked that a politician might be an opportunist. I’d be shocked to find one who isn’t ! Also in the privacy of the ballot box I wonder how firm these pledges will be !
I hereby declare - Jacobites Online Championing Ken’s Splendour - JOCKS - to promote the wonder of our Ken’s bid for the Tory party leadership . Our endorsement will be crucial in ensuring high Tory support for Ken’s bid.
Signed Sir Jock McKinkell of Fedora-Hush Puppy. KCBAT and Bar (well stocked)
Dear Roger
I’m still affraid it’s Cameron for me.
Mr W
I know opertunism and politics go hand in hand but honestly after he sounded everyone out and found because of his euro he had less support than Cameron. It is just so unbelievable it’s funny. Liberals must be scared of him, he seems to have copied their election tactics.
The criticism of Clarke on this has been a bit unfair. He remains in favour of the Euro in principle but the fact is that we didn’t get in early enough to be involved in setting the ground rules and, in practice, the Eurozone’s performance has been pretty unspectacular (although not nearly as bad as some make out). Clarke can see - exactly as most Labour pro-Euro people and a lot of Lib Dems have seen - that there is now no real imperative to join so why bother spending political capital trying to do it?
Clarke is not, as I understand it, saying, “What was I thinking? It turns out Teddy Taylor was right and if we join the Euro we will all be speaking German and eating snails within a fortnight. We must never join.” He is in effect saying, “Don’t let an issue which is off the political agenda for the next few years stop you from voting for me.” Still wasn’t a wise move though - it invites misrepresentation, and has indeed attracted it.
7 S Penketh. I’m preparing a bar chart as we speak showing clearly and incontrovertibly that Ken has the support of 379 Tory MPs, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Will Young. All opposition is useless !
and certainly has been recently:lol:
3.”Though I do think his talents should be used in a senior shadow cabinet portfollio when the new leader is designed” A good 21st century idea a GM leader… Couldn’t do worse than those that have come up through natural selection of late…. I think this is a fascinating contest and can’t wait for the proper mud-slinging to begin. It is ironic that the contest will take place against the backdrop of a Blackpool conference as Blackpool is the scene of most leadership discontent for the Tories….
Bugger I meant designated
Come on people!! KC’s entry into the race is just another step into farce by the Tories.
I find it particularly amusing that KC thinks that Lib Dems are sacred of him. He has never really had to fight us- we are weaker in the East Midlands anyway- but how more out of touch could he be? His hinterland as a moderately elderly jazz fan in Hush Puppies is severely off-set by his BAT fat cat credentials and he will be ripped to pieces, quite probably by his own side. His flip-flop on the Euro is so transparently opportunist as to undermine any claim he has to stand for a co-ordinated, principled programme.
So the choice:
KC- compromised has-been from Major era, a fat cat with nasty BAT links
DC- wimpy new man, Old Etonian elitist, unconvincing “Moderniser”
DD- bombastic, out of touch, rumoured skeletons, unconvincing “Liberal”
If I was a Tory I think at this point I would get the “little woman” to run me down to the Ring of Bells, nip to the saloon bar, take off my blazer and have a very large pink gin, in a vague attempt to drown my sorrows.
In some races there’s a lot to be said for entering late. I know it’s hardly the same but for example a candidate for president of the European Commission had a quiet word with a journalist to ask if he’d stop talking up his candidacy. The front-runner has usually lost the Tory leadership although I’ve read nothing arguing that that’s more than coincidence. Clarke did a good job of teasing the press as to whether he was going to stand against IDS and got himself a lot of extra publicity that way. Against that, a few potential supporters have already commited themselves to someone else which will make it at least a little more difficult to come back to Clarke.
James there may well be arguments for europhiles to change their minds on the euro. That doesn’t mean he’s not being opportunist. Still I think it improves his chances, albeit not as much as if he’d done it a year ago. Notice that he’s only ruling it out for 10 years -till he’s retired.
Surely Ken Clarke wouldn’t be interested in a Shadow Cabinet post would he? At the very least he wouldn’t do it unless he thought the Tories had a real chance of winning. This is on the basis of no evidence by the way so I may well be talking rubbish (nothing new there …)
James I really don’t think you’re looking at this objectively. For starters, when he was Chancellor Ken’s main electoral battleground was the national media not his constituency. I don’t like the Tory party either but it doesn’t mean that the rest of the country is suddenly going to see the light and vote Lib Dem.
James O - A very considered opinion. And what exactly are these ‘nasty’ links with BAT. I would have thought that as a Liberal you would allow people to make up their own minds about whether they choose to smoke or not. You make the point that KC has never had to fight the Liberals. Presumably you think on the same basis DD would pick up loads of Lib Dem votes based on his performance in H&H?
12. Clarke has made clear that if he isn’t swinging from the top of the tree then he doesn’t give a monkey’s. He doesn’t actually want to be leader of the Conservatives, he just wants to be PM. Do the Conservatives actually need, an obese, chainsmoking, out-of-touch jazz fan anywhere near the top? Personally the fact that Labour are spinning the line that they are scared of Ken is precisely to induce the result, the surely can not have the Tory interest in mind!!!!
rumours are bound from parliament that if davis does win there could be another coup, ala ids. anyone think this is a possibility, davis is elected no immediate impact to he is replaced?
12 - I agree that Ken would have no interest in a shadow cabinet job. Plunging back into the frontline might be worth it for the chance of being PM but probably isn’t for the vague chance of doing something you’ve frankly already done for a couple more years and at the whim of Davies, Cameron or whoever.
On opportunism, I think ditching the Euro in 2001 when it was still on the agenda would have been genuine opportunism. Ken was simply stating the obvious last week when he said it was off the agenda for the foreseeable future. A proper definition of “opportunism” involves abandoning something of value to achieve a result for yourself. Ken didn’t abandon the principle of a single currency, he was just stating political reality. If he had ditched the idea in 2001 that would have been properly opportunistic because it would have meant abandoning what looked at the time to be a realistic short term goal.
It is akin to saying to John Gummer, “I support disestablishing the C-of-E but don’t let it stop you from voting for me because we both know it isn’t going to happen in any event because it isn’t on anyone’s immediate agenda.”
Re: 11 - I’m no Tory but I think it’s fair to say it’s hard to find the “perfect candidate” in any election. If you had a perfect candidate, you probably wouldn’t be having the election at all. As I recall, there were many serious reservations about Thatcher in 1975 and even Blair had his doubters in 1994 so that’s not too much of an issue.
2001 was effectively a 3-horse race and I think IDS didn’t start as favourite against Portillo and Clarke. The MPs were split almost evenly between the three. I’m not so sure this time but I do think it will be a messy result with no one winning a majority on the first ballot.
[14] Max- quite right, I am Libertarian on this issue- if people want to hurt themselves (and not others), then go ahead. However KC has walked off with about a million quid as a board member of BAT. a) that is quite a lot of dosh, even for a well known non-exec b) BAT has been censured several times for i) activity that encourages chidren to smoke ii) appearing to condone the smuggling of cigarettes, especially in the Balkans in order to cope with unfavourable tax positions in different markets.
Is this really activity that a prospective PM can seriously permit himself to be associated with? Big Tobacco- i.e BAT and its peers- is a pretty morally compromised business, which is why many City fund managers will not invest in those companies
You mean Mr Gummer wants to de-establish the church of england, well I never, I know theres many lefties there now including my new Curate. Im shocked a member of my party wants the Bishop of Rome to have all control over our churches, what about low church chaps like myself.
Our Curate took her first service Last week, a low church and she conducted a high church service with no prayer to the soverign queen. The old colonel and most of his party just got up and left. The old ladies wouldn’t though. Think It quiet upset her, almost as much as I was when she basically told our congregation (very conservative) to vote Labour (at GE). The only time i’ve shouted in church much to my shame. I do think she thinks of herself as a slime line attractive version of ‘The vicar of Dibley’. Even our trendy leftie vicar gives the prayer to our queen and although supports Labour keeps out of endorsing candidates, nice chap to have a beer with.
i remembered what I had to ask before I left
Jack W
What did happen at St Albans count. I would be very grateful if you could tell me.
14 - Max, I take that comment as a personal sleight
I think Ken is probably onto something here; he can spin what to die-hard Tories looks like opportunism as good old-fashioned British pragmatism. Most of the British Public are against the Euro (a) because they have vague notions of tradition, but (b) mainly because they don’t think its yet in our interest. If they were all misty eyed about British traditions they wouldn’t be wandering around in jeans and baseball caps, munching on burgers.
20 - No, sorry, I probably phrased it poorly. My point was that Gummer is, I suspect, a robust antidisestablishmentarianist (he is a General Synod member or at least used to be as you know). But he presumably wouldn’t have a problem voting for a leader who was a disestablishmentarianist because the issue just isn’t on the political agenda so the point is moot. The same is now true with the Euro, in my view (perhaps less strongly so as it may come back in a few years).
Book Value - do I get a special prize for use of the longest word ever on PB.com?
I am still very much undecided on the leadership.
I think David Davis is being clever keeping out of this tit for tat from Clarke. But I am still not convinced that when push comes to shove the wavering MP’s will follow him.
Regarding Clarke’s efforts I am really not too impressed. I am still disappointed that a man who wants to be leader shows little respect for most of that party’s members, has no desire to assist the shadow cabinet should he lose and has failed to tell us what he stands for. I do not really hold much stock my polls saying he is most popular in the country for the sole reason that most people will just go for the person they recognise. I also think the Labour rumours about them fearing Clarke may well be good old spin. I really do not think it will be hard for Labour to paint Clarke as some old has been and try and probe the European issue at every turn - testing him for his real views. To me this would just de-stabilise the party.
In the end I think you could argue the Conservative Party is going through the same kind of situation as the Catholic Church in Europe. Does it embrace a style of politics and culture it does not particularly like for the sake of becoming popular again - or does it fight for it believes is right at the risk of narrowing, but hardening its support base?
I know politics is in essence a popularity contest, but I do think the Conservative Party should take a risk and actually elect a conservative as leader! You never know it may actually gain some respect again.
Thank god for that, I thought you were telling me he had switched, a la Widdecombe.
Book Value, good well-balanced main article, could I congratulate you? It highlights well the “good and the bad” aspects of the Clarke’s candidature.
21. S Penketh, he doesn’t want to reveal anything about the St Albans count. I asked him, with no success, lots of time to give us something.
Big move on Betfair.
Cameron - last price matched 7-1 (had been under 5-1 till very recently).
Clarke now second favourite.
OT, but after a trying morning- hence bad tempered post earlier, I find my mood lifted by this:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article308960.ece
All I can say is, it does not seem to have bothered Boris any…
26 - Andrea, is he keeping you in suspenders?
24 - But that raises the question of what the Conservative party stands for. It seems to me that many on the right of the party think that Conservatism begins and ends with Lady Thatcher. It is patently obvious that a more right wing small-c Conservative platform is not going to capture the imagination or votes of the Britih people. We have tried that before after all.
What the party really needs to do is identify the most pressing issues facing the British people and address them in whatever way works best, irrespective of ideological dogma. We need to move away from strict ideology and towards a more pragmatic approach. Its what the party has done throughout its history and its what won us so many elections.
24.”I know politics is in essence a popularity contest, but I do think the Conservative Party should take a risk and actually elect a conservative as leader! You never know it may actually gain some respect again. ”
Don’t they have elected a conservative leader the last 3 times too?
You could adapt your beliefs and values to the times that has changed, but still reaming a conservative. The tories don’t have to make U turns over their core values, but only to adapt them to today’s society.
25: Wikipaedia says that John Gummer converted in 1993.
Thanks Andrea
Dear Jack W, come on we have all (well the better contributors, have) had to release information that has been embarresing to our parties or ourselves.
21/26 S Penketh/Andrea. Enough already !!! I’ll post the Mystery of the St.Albans Count a little later. But you should realize that as the Manager of JOCKS I’m pretty busy now and most generously I’ll wave my usual fee ! …. I must have been in the sun too much today.
34. I’ll wait with tredidation…..
(I’ve a Miss Murple’s movie to see tonight too)
23 - “Book Value - do I get a special prize for use of the longest word ever on PB.com?”
Sadly, only the admiration of your fellow contributors. You’d been waiting for a chance to use it, hadn’t you?
26 - thanks Andrea.
32 - Blimey! I stand thoroughly chastened and corrected. Tragic mistake by John to leave the One True Church. If only the Church of Rome hadn’t so impetuously decided to break away in 1534, we wouldn’t have all these problems now.
36 - I think you mean “contempt” rather than “admiration”. A dog-eared copy of a “Don Foster for Leader” leaflet I have knocking about at home somewhere for the first correct use of floccinoccinihilipilification (probably not spelt like that). You may well want to use the word in the context of Don himself.
I don’t think Ken Clarke has been any more misrepresented on the Euro and the Euro Constitution than he intended to be. As in 2001 he still wants his cake and eat it. In his last leadership bid he offered free votes and free debate on the Euro, in 1997 he teamed up with a extreme sceptic to try and win. Now he wants us to think he has given up on an experiment that did not work. But in none of the three attempts at the leadership so far has he, as James points out, actually denied his Euro enthusiasm nor has he said he will not go back to it in the future. This suggest to me that far from being a pragmatist he is rather a stubborn and unbending politician. Certainly this was his reputation in the Thatcher years and Douglas Hurd famously said of his that he was the sort of politician who would cross the street to get into a fight. Not a clever trait for a leader.
The best his supporters could come up with in 2001 was this email: Headed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the group (of self defined ‘Eurosceptic’ MPs) issued a statement that confirmed their support for Ken “without compromising [their] beliefs on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union”. The statement continues, “On many aspects of European policy, Ken Clarke’s views are the same as, or similar to our own. He has made clear that he is not a federalist. He will oppose any attempt to end the British veto in order to impose tax harmonisation. He is against any Rapid Reaction Force that would harm NATO. He supports enlargement and has called for the radical reform of the CAP.” Among others the statement was signed by Ann Widdecombe MP, Andrew MacKay MP and Greg Knight MP.
Shortly after this he again consistently roots for the Euro and the Euro Constitution which, if it is not federalist, I don’t know what it is. This old lion in Hush Puppies has rolled in the dust again and still hopes he can persuade us that he’s really a tiger. Wrong continent, Ken.
Ken won’t scare the LibDems as he is an easy target. You can see the yellow ‘whining here’ tide marks from the party spin cycle now: greed, death sticks to children, child labour in the tobacco plantations, opportunist, budget cutter in the NHS, police and schools. And Labour would love Ken to be Tory leader for the same reason.
DD is in the same position for different reasons: he, too, has quite a number of hostages to fortune, not to say enemies.
The one that the LibDems and Labour would find hardest to deal with is Cameron. He has no significant baggage. He is inexperienced? Against whom? Blair when he became leader? Charlie? He is from a public school? Blair wasn’t? Fettes sets itself up as the Eton of Scotland I understand? His family is well off? Bair and Charlie had poor parents? He’s too young: well that loses votes all round from young and old. And his age on him becoming Tory leader and Blair Labour leader: there would not be much difference in it. Does that make him the best choice of leader. Well, no, but it is an important weight on the scales.
38.”He has no significant baggage. He is inexperienced? Against whom? Blair when he became leader?”
Blair became leader after more than 11 years since entering the Commons. Blair entered teh Shadow Cabinet 6 years before becoming ledear (in 1988) and he became PM after 14 since his first election in Sedgefield.
He had more political experience than Cameron.
Out of interest, I would like to ask the Tories on the site what they would do if somebody other than their man (I don’t think there are any May-ites) got it? I mean, would it be public burning of the party card, a quiet retreat from very active duty or a c’est la vie approach?
My impression from comments over recent weeks is that most Davies people could live with Cameron as could Clarke people and Cameron and Clarke people would be pretty wary of Davies but may give him a year or two. But Clarke seems to really antagonise people. I must say that genuinely surprises me as I think if (big “if”) you all rallied around him he would be the most dangerous - but increasingly I think there is no way you ever would.
40. I’m firmly in the Davis camp but I’m loyal to the conservative party so as long as they don’t start advocating anythings that’s too far right or left then they’ll have my support. I don’t think any candidate will lead to mass buring of membership cards although there may be a few activists who might lose some energy should Clarke win the leadership.
I’m a Cameron man and although would prefer not to see it, could cope with a Davis leadership. I would have real problems if Clarke took over because he’s strongly opposed to half the things that mean I’m a member of the Tory Party rather than Labour.
Whether this means I would rescind my membership, I have no idea, and to be honest, I don’t really imagine it will happen, but I should imagine there are plenty of people in the party who feel just like me.
40 - If anyone other than the man I voted for won, I would continue ti support my party. As I said in my post there is not one candidate which has really stood out to me. I see positives and negatives with many of the candidates and if Ken Clarke wins I would support him.
30 - I do not believe that right-wing conservatism begins and stops with Lady T. I am 22 and was in small shorts when she was in power. I also agree that undiluted ideology can be a big turn off. The point I was trying to make is that I believe that conservatism still reminds popular in our country. The Conservative Party have failed though to both sell conservatism and decided to embark on a process of generally agreeing with New Labour’s policy agenda e.g. levels of taxation.
I believe that conservative policies and ideas do offer many of the best solutions to the genuine concerns the general population have, but I do not want those policies to be framed in old fashioned ideological claptrap.
But in the end we have to remember 40% of people did not vote and I would guess only a few people who did vote passionately supported the party they chose, rather than feeling they were simply the best of a bad bunch. As such it is very hard to know what the British public want.
31 - Andrea I fully agree. I probably did not make this clear in how I phrased my first comment however. But out of the last three leaders, Hague was overly obsessed by the Euro, IDS had very little time and was a poor salesman and Howard felt that quick slogans were the answer and had decided to copy the general taxation policies of Labour for example - I do not think any of them passionately and sensible espoused conservative views.
My apologies for some woeful spelling in that last comment!
- ‘ti’ should be ‘to’
- ‘reminds’ should be ‘remains’
Better editing needed by me in future!
44. don’t worry, in my comment @31, I wrote “reaming” instead of “remaining”.
Re tory members leaving if their choice won’t won.
Did leftwinged Labour members leave the party after Blair became leader and abolished clause IV?
40. I’m backing Clarke, but principally out of pragmatism - with apologies to James O, he is by far the most popular Tory amongst the general public and running around shouting “But he sells fags!” is more likely to damage the accuser as a censorious moraliser rather than actually inflicting any harm on Clarke.
Policy-wise, I’m perfectly happy with any of the three, but my instinct is that DD will not attract suppport for centrist floating voters, and DC is a bit of a gamble due to his lack of experience. As Andrea rightly points out, Blair had been in the Commons for 11 years and held a senior Shadow Cabinet position before becoming leader; Cameron is a political novice by comparison.
Ultimately, I feel that KC is most likely to deliver a Conservative victory in 2009. Should DC or DD do so, I would be just as delighted.
46 - I just wonder, do you not think that Ken Clarke is more popular at the moment simply because he is still the most well known candidate? One of the failings of the Conservatives in the last 8 years has been that they have failed to sell themselves well, and that failure is best seen in how very few Tories are actually recognisable.
Second, do you not think that Labour will find it very easy to pick apart Clark because of his age, previous links to the Major government and also Europe? Surely they will keep testing him, hoping to cause splits in the party?
Finally, do you think a leader who does not trust his members and has not helped the party while in opposition deserves the leadership?
I just want your views, because I am desperately trying to work out why I should support him becoming leader of my party.
47.”Finally, do you think a leader who does not trust his members ”
The other candidates who are supporting the new rules (members not choosing the leader) don’t seem to trust their members very much too.
“and has not helped the party while in opposition deserves the leadership?”
That’s a good point. Clarke is probably the only politician in today’s UK who has refused to help his own party.
Even John Bercow, when he attacks the tories, or Clare Short, when she attacks Blair, are probably thinking that they’re doing a good thing for their own party.
39 Andrea Although MPs like to spread the concept that political experience only counts if you are in parliament, it doesn’t hold water. Some of the best operators have never been near parliament, and would be horrified by the thought.
Cameron has been working in and around Downing Street since the end of the Thatcher years being in the Conservative Research department from 1988, and was part of the PMQ briefing team. He continued that with Major and then became a political advisor in the Home Office. After 1994 he went into business but never really gave up on his policy wonkdom. He stood in Stafford in the disastrous GE1997 and managed a bigger vote share than the Tory got in 2005. In 2001 he got into parliament and in 2005 doubling his majority. Blair was longer in parliament but so what? He was beaten into the carpet regularly by Michael Howard when he (Blair) was shadow Home Secretary.
But the thing about Blair (and I recognise his quality here) is that he was learning all the time, learning inside and outside parliament where the Labour party and ‘Middle England’ really reside, and then put what he learnt to good use. Blair had no experience of or through government before becoming PM. Cameron has been involved with government and top table politics, if not always senior player, since 1988. A precocious fellow. Unlike Blair he has seven years experience of working in the real world as Had of Corporate Affairs for Carlton Media: not a small outfit.
So overall, I think his experience pattern is more relevant than a simple score of parliamentary years might suggest. And I have a suspicion that Cameron is in that learning mould but with rather more integrity I hope.
47 - Without wishing to answer Alex point for him I think it says something about Clarke that he is a well known member of the Major government but in spite of this remains popular. Being well known can be a double-edged sword. OTOH its not altogether inspiring that MP’s who have been around for 10-15 years are almost unknown to the general public.
I personally don’t care what KC thinks of me all I know is that had he been leader at the last election we would have returned more than one MP from Scotland. I just do not see another leader who will appeal to as broad a group of people across the UK as Clarke will.
40-As a Tory voter for most of my life with the exception of the 1974 elections when I voted Liberal and then Labour,I would take the c’est la vie approach.
Ken Clarke is my least favorite option as I consider his recent comments on the €uro to be either opportunism or incredible lack of judgement on his part in the past,if he had had his way we would now be locked into what is now being universally acclaimed as a disastrous single currency which in all probability will fall apart in the next few years.
Other factors that turn me off are his unbelievable comments on the ‘NO’ votes for the european constitution referendum in France & Holland ‘It was absurd to let the electorate vote on the constitutiuon,it should have been left to the national parliaments to decide’.
Other turn offs are his age and the fact that many Labour and Liberal posters / commentators let it be known that he is the Tory leader they most fear,I believe the reality is probably the reverse.
At the end of the day I believe whomever is leader in percentage terms is worth around 20/25%,the state of the economy 50/60% and other policies making up the rest,as we approach the next election I would expect some of the ‘other’ policies to become much more significant.
49. Working behind the scene is different from the “front camera” politics. Take for example Mandelson: he has always done a great behind the scene job, but he has ofter been a disaster in his front camere career.
“Blair was longer in parliament but so what? He was beaten into the carpet regularly by Michael Howard when he (Blair) was shadow Home Secretary. ”
well, I suppose it depends from the perceptive. I don’t have enough material to judge, so I will leave to others if Blair was always beaten by Howard.
“He stood in Stafford in the disastrous GE1997 and managed a bigger vote share than the Tory got in 2005. In 2001 he got into parliament and in 2005 doubling his majority. ”
I don’t think that the results got by a candidate in his constituency should be used to see if someone will be a successfull leader. Otherwise Andrew Rosindell should become the tory leader and Dennis Skinner could challange Blair for Labour’s leadership.
48 - Andrea, thanks for the comments. You make a good point about how some of the candidates also do not wish to see the members elect the leader. I can only say you have got me on that one!
I personally am still undecided (indecisive I know!) on whether the members (like me) should have the vote. I think the current system has flaws, one of which is that it takes too long. But one difference between Ken Clarke and the others is that he has made it quite clear he is not a big fan of many of the members - at least most of the others are not so open with their lack of respect!
Second, I agree that MPs should not blindly support their party if they are wrong, but I happen to think that the best way of getting your way is to get stuck in and help them out. While John Bercow and Clare Short may well have criticised their party’s they still help them where possible. Clarke seems more than happy to indulge in some business operations and ignore any requests for him to use his vast experience to the greater good of the shadow cabinet. Furthermore as far as I know neither John Bercow or Clare Short are contemplating leadership bids.
There seems to me a subtle difference between criticising your party knowing you will never lead it and criticising your party and still hoping they will trust you to lead it!
Clark’s candidature lacks all credibility.
This whole contest lacks all credibility.
God help us!
Wow Richard - you sound like how I feel after Burnley lost again away from home yesterday to Reading!
But do not worry the party will live on, even if they have to wait a few more years for the right leader!
Ken Clarke would be a disaster, his whole approach appears to be to want to turn the Tories policy to be the polar opposite of what has gone before. This is clearly not sensible when the feeling is that Tory ideas are acceptable but the Tories themselves are not. All that is needed is a leader that can neutralise the detestability of the Tories or turn it to a strength…..
33/35 S Penketh/Andrea. The Mystery of the St.Albans Count.
The mystery being why the events overnight on 5th/6th May at the count in St Albans haven’t become public previously !
The count itself took place in the Alban Arena a revolting concrete rabbit warren from that excellent period of British architecture the 1970’s ! ….nb !!
The weeks leading upto the election were a whirl of lies, distortion and fibbery and that was from the voters , bombarded as they were by endless leaflets, canvassers both personal and on the dog and bone. Kerry Pollard the sitting Labour candidate (maj 4500) had in turns thought that he’d lost and then at the start of the count won , having he believed seen off enough of the Lib Dems and their banker candidate Michael Green to prevail against nearest challenger “Tubby Main” (more later) the Tory candidate.
To say the count was slow was to say that Ken Clarke likes a cigar. Indeed the pedestrian nature of the proceeding was a factor in events that followed. For Pollard it became clear that burnishing his anti war credentials throughout the campaign had not helped to stop the flow of votes to the Lib Dems and after an hour or so he knew he was in the electoral clatz. Fraternal greeting were exchanged between members of the Labour and the Lib Dems such as :
Are you of to Mablethorpe this year and are your hardy perenials suffering from white rot ……… and fuc*king Liberal spoilers ! and that was just from a senior Labour staffer to the Lib Dem assistant agent. More heat than light ensued and in the corridors by the latrines a party political punch up ensued - more handbags at five paces than Mike Tyson , but eyes were swollen and pride punctured.
In the main body of the hall the Tories scented and saw blood as not only the result turned blue. A svelt Anne Main, who to stunned amazement had lost several stone, was resplendent in her victory.
However several members of respective teams had ….. well removed themselves from the fray ……. to more quieter areas for post election activity of a non parliamentary nature !! One Lib Dem gent and two Labour ladies of tender years decided there’d be no representation without copulation - I suppose two was company and three was a result !! He certainly lost a deposit or two. One of the security guards interupted this cross party meeting of mind and body , after a complaint about the noise:lol: However the erotic electoral exchanges were not restricted to heterosexual non Conservatives . A pair of gay Tories decided to brighten proceedings by investigating their members ……. interests more closely ! exit stage right.
Result at a few minutes past 4am ….. yes there were a few ….. and Anne Main, now St.Albans supermodel wins by 1,361 votes. Pollard exits stage left bemused, angry and a momument to anti Blair invective. Five party members leave exulant , not caring who won or lost. Best line of the night :
Security Guard : I don’t care that you’ve been fuc*ing, but no after sex fag here, we’re strictly “no smoking”.
50 - Max, slightly OT but how highly do you rate the chances of survival of senior figures within the Scottish Party under any of the possible new leaders?
53.”Second, I agree that MPs should not blindly support their party if they are wrong, but I happen to think that the best way of getting your way is to get stuck in and help them out. While John Bercow and Clare Short may well have criticised their party’s they still help them where possible. ”
I agree with your concern about Clarke not helping the party.
I wasn’t very clear in my previous post. I pointed out Bercow’s and Short’s examples, becuase someone could have pointed out that they’re not very useful for their party too(I had just said that Clarke is the only British politician not to help his party). But when Short attacks Blair, she probably thinks she is doing a great favour to her party (in her mind Blair is probably the Devil), so her situation is different from Clarke’s one. Clarke just sits there waiting the party will come to him (I doubt Clarke is thinking that he’s useful not to do anything).
shocking, positively shocking
57 - makes you proud to be a Lib Dem!
My order of preference is currently standing at:
1. Fox (n/c)
2. Clarke (+1)
3. Cameron (-1)
4. Davis (+1)
5. Rifkind (-1)
I wouldn’t leave the party if any of them got it - for goodness’ sake I stayed during the IDS years - any of those five would be a squillion times better.
As an aside, I have my voting paper for the constitutional college at home. Together with a nice personal letter from Michael Howard. I haven’t entered the competition elsewhere but if I did I’d be plumping for 75-80% yes vote, based on conversations with other members of the college. Read into that what you will.
57. Entertaining as always, but so no blood and injured people?
61. Is socialize with the enemy allowed?
63 - it’s coalition politics. We know it might come in useful one day.
We didn’t have any of that in Bury the closest was the labour leader coming up to me asking if I was the sailor, as I had the sailors limp. On saying yes he said he saw many like that when he went booating on the lake. I and a Labour councillor thought he was taking the micheal but he was being quiet serious never knew lake boating was so strenious.
There was a bit of a scuffle between our candidate for Sedgley ward and Ivan about the Jewish posters, Our candidate (sneer) being orthodox jewish.
There was some hatefull words said to Yvonne Cossack (independent) from the Labour camp, I rode to her defence and she along with the Labour Leader of the council (boating man) came to mine when a Labour member took the micheal for me using my walking umbrella as a aid for, by this time, a serious and painfull limp.
Also 2 spotty Liberal boys (16 yrs old), I thought you had to be 21 on the election floor (but Ivan had his 8yr old as a scruitneer!) Called the Candidate for Holyrood a B@&th, and her mother who was the councillor there in the 70’s and 80’s. They said they wished the mother was dead. They happened to be my mother and gran. A scuffle ensued and words exchanged. Two counters 1 was a Labour sympathiser and 2 were tory sympathisers (one who knows my mother) along with the Labour scruitiner backed me up and had the Liberals boys escorted out by a policeman who I was in Biology A level with, intrestingly the pc’s name was Stuart to.
57 -I wonder if the the Lib Dem gent imagined himself to be the rider in a two horse race?
57 - I’m sure he thought that he was “winning here”!
63 Andrea. It was more bruised egos, reputations, passions and thighs than anything more physically serious . Love or perhaps more appropriately sex conquered all that night.
Strewth, you lot should be writers for 70’s porn
69 How appropriate:lol: Stuart , you clearly know a great deal about 70’s porn !
64. A new meaning of “coalition politics”
69. Don’t be prude! If you want I could write the dialogues for the tory gay couple. “Oh, yeah, I like it!” and “More” are the standard.
65 - I’m imagining most of the people in the story as characters from Phoenix Nights. SP, are you Max or Paddy?
Nothing prudish about it I was just commenting on the cheesyness of the puns being put out. Anyway of home now, still no Internet so cheerio. Will be in the Whitefield Tory club tonight from 8 if anyone is in Bury.
40 - James. I have been on record on this site for some months now in support of David Cameron for leader. I will support whomever emerges as my leader without rancour and without reservation. We are all Conservatives in the end.
I like the way Andy has ranked his preferences at 62. My order would be as follows:
1 - David Cameron (youth - potential - no previous baggage)
2 - Ken Clarke (well known and affable, age probably a detractor)
3 - David Davis (safe choice, but sceptical of his electoral appeal)
4 - Malcolm Rifkind or David Willetts (long shots)
5 - Liam Fox (just hasn’t got it)
I also echo his optimism for the approval of the changes in the rules to return the final vote on the leadership to our MPs. I would be surprised if it were to be rejected.
68-73. Talking about erotic activities after the count, the Honourable Member for Rhondda, Chris Bryant was allegedly part of one of them after the 1997 GE:
http://www.rainbownetwork.com/News/detail.asp?iData=19113&iChannel=2&nChannel=News
Definately Paddy old chap, canvessed Peter Kay when he was living in Ainsworth. Good man voted tory. Moved to Chesire now he is supper rich.
Were quite a @league of gentleman’ bunch. Met Orange Maurader (Bury North) from vote 2005 at the count, nice chap lost touch with him if any of you know him can you tell him to get in touch.
76 - Any chance then of Peter Kay as the next Tory leader?
77. If he won’t accept, you could always ask to one of your other
celebrity supporters.
A fresh face. Well, maybe more different than fresh.
76 - That might well be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, Stuart. I am not sure the consequences are all that serious though and anyway a lot of people have produced some of their finest work in prison (Wilde, Solzhenitsyn, Archer etc).
Anyone else canvassed any famous people whose confidences they would care to break? Can’t say I have - or maybe I have but don’t know enough about popular culture.
79 James. “…A lot of people have produced their finest work in prison - Archer ….”
80 - I think I am right in saying he hasn’t published anything since his release - or at least his output has declined. And to think there are some wooly liberals on this site who would seriously argue prison doesn’t work.
According to the Guardian, Clarke is to stand on an anti-war platform
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1559181,00.html
11- and what was it in particular about Gladstone, Grimond and Thorpe that means Old Etonians are such a bad idea?
83 - The difference is that, historically, Conservatives have a credibility problem amongst less privileged members of society. Such people often believe - and opinion poll evidence tends to bear this out - that Conservatives do not understand issues that are important to them. For Labour and (in Gladstone’s time particularly) the Liberals, this has been much less of a problem because the Labour and Liberal brands have been less associated with privileged classes and individuals. So Labour can fairly easily go for a clearly “posh” leader (as indeed they have in Blair) without worrying about suddenly becoming “the party of privilege which doesn’t speak for people like me”.
Having said that, the point can be over-played. People form impressions of people fairly quickly based on what they are now, not where they came from several decades ago. Although they have very different backgrounds I doubt there is a very strong feeling among the public at large that Cameron is a stuck up toff whereas Davies is a solid working class boy. They are both well spoken, middle class, middle aged men in suits at the end of the day.
On the original question, the truth about Clarke’s change of mind is this: as a rule, those in the Tory Party for whom euroscepticism is the overriding principle want a leader who - like Hague, IDS and Howard - will not impede efforts to move the party towards an eventual position of withdrawal. That’s why Kenneth Clarke merely recognising the obvious about the euro and EU Constitution is no enticement whatsoever.
BREAKING NEWS **** BREAKING NEWS ****
Ken Clarke states he WILL run for the Conservative Party Leadership.
Source AP/Sky News
86. Jack, it’s not a so surprising news.
It’s as surprising as Tim Yeo announcing he won’t run.
OT for Jack W: do you know at what time will Murray play? It’s not a great day for the Brits so far. Will the Scots rescue the country?
87 Andrea. Exactly. Ken will announce his bid for the leadership in the “Daily Telegraph” tomorrow in an interview with George Jones, their political editor.
Andy Murray plays next on the Grandstand Court after the Nalbandian match is completed.
Henman was awful , utter dross. Rusedski played OK but James Blake was inspired. I think one of your Italian chaps went through.
88. Thanks Jack W. I saw Henman’s last set. He was horrible. One of the Italian boy went through the second round yesterday, while today we have had 2 losses so far. Two girls won yesterday (your tennis girls are a disaster)
Miss Murple is beginning!
88 Moi. Sorry Andrea I gave you some duff gen - two of your chaps Volandri and Starace are out in 4 sets . Sanguinetti ? is on court presently two sets up against Wayne Arthurs of OZ.
Latest YouGov, according to Anthony Wells: Lab 40 (n/c), Con 33 (+2), LD 22 (-1). Subsidiary questions show the pro-Government surge after the bombings subsiding. About what we’ve sensed in by-elections and the like - Labour and Tories doing OKish, LDs slightly off the boil, nothing to get excited about. Note though that (a) the Tories are not suffering at all from their long period of introspection and (b) Labour has not so far suffered from a run of fairly negative economic news (consumer spending well down, for instance).
Maybe I’m being dangerously complacent, but I’m struggling to care whom the Tories pick. I’d find Ken Clarke a bit of a threat but I don’t think it will happen. The others seem all much of a muchness with what’s gone before in different ways, though Cameron is at least generationally different.
Anyway, I’m off for two weeks from tomorrow, mostly in the wilds of Northumberland where we’ve rented a cottage - have fun everyone.
91. Nick, thanks for the polls’ update.
Have a great holiday in Northumberland.
90- Jack, Murray has started his match.
91. Although YouGov weren’t doing polls in 2001, comparing this with other polls from Sep/Oct 2001, Labour are doing very badly and Tories and Lib Dems rather well.
If Nick Palmer hasn’t left for the grouse moors
already he may care to know that Watlington of the SAU is reporting that his Tory opponent is now Malcolm Rifkind’s press officer
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/
My word, all this naughtiness at counts, some of it might even be true! By contrast the count at Rushcliffe was a most genteel and sedate affair; much fortified by some rather attrocious coffee, the nearest I came to controversy was discussing the finer points of Marcus Woods’ defeat with “wor Ken”. Having said that, the prudishly-named Matthew Faithful (no s3x please, we’re UKIP!) had a bit of a tin-foil hat moment during his thank-you speech.
95. Tabman, British counts should be really funny and really exciting. They make the election night very interesting.
96 - sadly there’s not too much exciting about the vote counts at most of them, so I guess the participants have to lay on (and I use term advisedly) their own entertainment.
Perhaps Jack was the septuagenarian Lib Dem “acivist”
so speaks from experience.
97. Just the chance to see the declaration live and the faces of the candidates in marginal seats is already enough.
An election night in Italy is watching the Home Office’s website waiting that they’ll update the results. Can you see why I find exciting UK’s election nights?
We don’t have the chance to see Bob Marshall Andrews being out of control live on TV.
97 - Tabman - are you looking forward to the possibility of having the next PM as your MP?
99 - Vino, I think KC is too rich a dish for the palette of his most important electorate, which isn’t the electors of Rushcliffe!
100 -Tabman -I thought the same at one time as KC reminds me of the Major years but I sense some voters need an excuse to vote Tory and since KC appears to be more lefty trendy than his rivals he could be the one to drag them out of the 33-35% bracket.
100 - I do think the conservatives appear to be a lot more “organised” these days(probably from MH) and may do the unthinkable with KC.
102-”I do think the conservatives appear to be a lot more “organised” these days(probably from MH) and may do the unthinkable with KC. ”
35.1%?
Still can’t see Clarke winning. The forces that stopped him in 1997 and 2001 will emerge again and hand victory to whoever goes up against him in the final round (if he makes it that far).
103 - Andrea - but he held the tory vote together,there was a danger before MH became leader of the conservative party of the tory vote going into free-fall,there are still many voters who like the conservative policies but will not vote for them because of the Major years.
105- Vino, I was joking about the 35.1%. Next time I should put a
As a lifelong Labour voter,I am quite alarmed to realise that Ken Clarke (could) just about enamour myself to at least consider voting Tory-as someone who was raised by working-class grandparents who knew the 1930s depression(admittedly few would share that sense of perspective),it does prove what a 52 year-old lifelong Labour voter said in a pub I frequent a few weeks ago-’The Tory Party are’nt dead,they’re only sleeping’.Mind you,if David Davis or David Cameron were elected,I’d recoil-too crude and too snobby respectfully-to my mind Ken Clarke is the only person who could stop Gordon Brown winning in 2009
107 - Patrick - I agree entirely,KC is not my cup of tea but talking to similar like minded Labour voters KC appeals to them,he appears to be untainted.
Having just watched ‘Newsnight’,and seen the fronts of the morning nationals,its amazing how the blue rinse ‘Daily Mail’ embraces Ken Clarke with warmth,when previously they have slated him;perhaps the right of British politics is finally waking up to the fact that the Labour government’s hemogeny could outlive the 1979-1997 Conservative government unless they take a very drastic step-like holding their breath,and electing a man they’ve twice rejected-who had he been elected Tory leader in 1997,would probably now be the oocupant of Downing Street-any thoughts?
Having just flicked back through the threads,I could see Ken Clarke breaking the Tories free from their 33% ceiling-he is one of only a few Tories who does not make the marrow of my bones freeze in horror-come to think of it,were he elected leader,he’d feel duty-bound to have a wad of right-wingers in his Shadow Cabinet-no doubt between now and (probably)May 7th 2009,a hatful of blunders would occur(As a school caretaker in a state school,I was incensed by Oliver Letwin’s jibe 2/3 years ago that he would ‘rather beg than send his kids to state school’-my disappointment at his holding Dorset West was tempered by the contrite expression on his face that said’Phew,I’ve had another chance’
109 - I think the tories are becoming “street-wise”,they must elect a leader who can appeal to all - I’ve read Jack W posts re the conservative leader and what he says is correct,electing DD(who I favor)or DC will not work.
My apologies for stating the blee*in obvious. It like sigh that has to come out in response to an earlier post.
One of the great British political traditions is that you argue like hell and then vote. Who wins the vote is in and deserves recognition. Blair has a majority in parliament and legitimate laws ensue. He got a minority of the votes but that is our constitution and until it legitimately changes it has my support.
In a political party leadership election it means you accept the new leader legitimately elected and work for the party’s success. You might also work to ensure the new leader follows the ‘right’ policy but all within the tent, something some Tory MPs forgot in the recent past.
All three main candidates( Cameron, Clarke and Davis) will get my support if they win and are a sight better than the likely Labour alternatives.
I will be disappointed if the leadership voting is limited to MPs but if the change is within the constitutional rules and the vote is properly conducted then I accept that too (and my contributions to the party will continue). That will not stop me pushing for a change in the system in order to re-enfranchise the ordinary members and to modernise the party management concepts and structures nationally and internationally, because I agree with Thomas Jefferson: Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?
But when the argument is over we Tories must all be aware of how right JK Galbraith was:Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory.
I never thought I would be shoulder to shoulder with Red Ken. But I am. This silly Standards Board needs abolishing. Its the voters that must decide if Red Ken stays in office not self important bureaucrats.
If the Standards Board is so useful why is it not in charge of MPs too (rather than their fairly flexible current arrangements: but oh no, not for us they cry).
Tory policy should be to scrap it and introduce recall provisions that are truly democratic and give the politician’s employers, us, real power.
Even if the ‘dream ticket’ of a Ken Clarke leadership does happen for the Conservative Party,he will lead a party of 198 MPs(209 in a 650 seat chamber after the boundary review);as its reasoanble to assume George Galloway in Bethnal Green and the winner of Blaenau Gwent will have the Labour whip restored upon a Brown premiership,according to my data,on a uniform swing away from Labour and the Lib Dems,it would take a 6.0% swing to take the 116 constitencies required to win half the seats in the new chamber-and that’s befor allowing for the fact that the Labour fall in the popular vote,of 1.18 million was almost perfectly mirrored by the 1.17 million rise in the Lib Dem vote-so effectively,say on a n average 65-70& turnout,the Labour Party can expect to ‘recover’ 2000 votes,thus making the 2005 GE a mathematical ‘fluke’ of sorts(also,18 of the Tories 31 gains from the Labour Party are attributable to the rise in the Lib Dem vote-I’d foresee the Lib Dems being severely squeezed next time,to 30ish seats,and whilst Labour and the Tories sharing the spoils,realistically,hung parlaiment territory is the best even dear cuddly Ken could hope for-thoughts,please!
The 200 votes I referred to in(114) represented the 5% average shift from Labour to the Lib Dems in an average 70000 seat-constitency,on a 65-70% turnout
The 2000 votes I referred to in(114) represented the 5% average shift from Labour to the Lib Dems in an average 70000 seat-constitency,on a 65-70% turnout
114 -Patrick - “Lib Dems being severely squeezed next time,to 30ish seats” the Lib Dem posters on this site will argue against that line!However I do take the point that KC will take votes from Labour instead of them going to the Lib Dems.
114.”as its reasoanble to assume George Galloway in Bethnal Green and the winner of Blaenau Gwent will have the Labour whip restored upon a Brown premiership”
There’s no way that Brown will let Galloway back into the party and Gorgeous George won’t probably want to come back. He’s enjoying the spotligh too much to want to come back an anonymous backbencher. Than Galloway said he won’t stand in Bethnal Green again next time (he’s making enough money with his speaking tours with Jane Fonda and his books that, with 22 years as MP, he could have a confrotable retirement).
118 - agree - if Galloway is ever readmitted to the Labour Party then I personally could never vote Labour.
Having just read various pages on Google,my moment of insanity in thinking Ken Clarke could wave a hagic wand and transform a demoralised,downtrodden party,with all its factions has re-affirmed my pledge to myself that I would personally rather being pushing up daisies in my coffin than vote Tory-they are roughly where Labour were in 1987-a good decade from office,at the very least.A thought occured to myself earlier-Gordon Brown could go early,in say summer 2008,and thus neatly co-incide the election after that with the London 2012 Olympics,and play the patriot card to the hilt-he’d still only be 61 in 2012,so I’d say the Labour government can be virtually assured of office till circa 2012/3,and possibly longer still-I’ll leave with a crumb of comfort for the Tories-John Bercow(still only 42),will be their next PM,between 2015 and 2020!
Galloway: no way are we going to let him back. Forget it! I’d sooner take Ken Clarke, and frankly it’s no less likely.
Innocent at 94: so he is! A good choice by Rifkind - he really knows how to use the media.
So long, children…
B2W [113] - IIRC there already are recall provisions for the London Mayoralty, it requires a 2-1 majority in a no confidence motion of GLA members. Daresay someone else knows more or can put me right if I’m wrong…
A Brown-Clarke fight might squeeze the Lib Dems, especially since the easy line for the media to take would be that Kennedy was left over from the previous elections. However, if Clarke failed to make an early impression in the polls and by-elections, there would soon be mutterings from the “keepers of the flame” no doubt including black propaganda about his health as well as defections actual and threatened.
I think i might vote LibDem if Ken wins.
121 - Nick have a great holiday .
114 - It is much too simplistic too state that the effective result at the last GE was caused by around 2,000 votes in each constituency moving from Labour to Lib Dem . Yhe result was the outcome of a number of votes changing all ways between parties and new voters replacing ones who no longer voted . Around half the increase in Lib Dem votes was the result of a big increase in the Lib Dem vote amongst students , voting for the first time , and cannot move back to Labour as they had not actually voted Labour before anyway . Yes , of course it is possible that Lib Dems could be squeezed at the next GE more likely with KC as Conservative leader but the Lib Dems too have 4 years to formulate new policies , campaign and still have the option to trump KC and GB with a new leader themselves .
I’m not surprised that KC announced his leadership bid in the Daily Mail IIRC they backed him for the leadership against IDS the last time. As Vino mentioned its only when you speak to people outwith the party who previously voted Conservative, or are not particularly loyal to one of the other parties, that you realise the popular appeal that Ken Clarke has.
If he does become leader I have no doubt that Labour will bring up the issue of Europe time and time again but I’m pretty sure the public will see right through it.
125 Max. Has “The Mail” endorsed Ken this time or are they holding their powder dry ? Also what line have the “Telegraph” and “Express” taken ? There’s a fairly straight report in “The Times” nothing more.
Our Ken has certainly stolen a march on the opposition and has hogged the political headlines. It may bring forward other declarations from DD and DC.
The big beast roars from the jungle , let battle commence !
126 - On the Today program this morning they had Oliver Letwin (supporting DC) and Anne Widdecombe (supporting KC) battling it out. Personally I thought Letwin did far better in the exchange - made positive comments about Cameron whereas Widdecombe just sounded like she was harking back to t