Clarke to chair Democracy Task Force

conservatives.com:

"David Cameron announced that the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP will chair the Democracy Task Force. This will look at the independence of the civil service; the role of political advisers in government; the proper working of Cabinet Government; reform of the House of Lords (in close consultation with the Shadow Leader of the House of Lords); and the ability of Parliament to hold the Government fully to account. The members of this Task Force will be announced in due course. Mr Clarke will speak on these issues from the Front Bench from time to time."

This is a major coup for David Cameron.  He has succeeded in wooing Clarke, IDS and Hague back into centre stage roles.  A very good first day for the new Tory leader (Fox and Rifkind aside).

Comments

[R UK, MEP]

fox appointed to guard the chickens

[Morten Fjeldberg]

This is very good for your party. Kenneth Clarke is one of my favourites, though I´m more eurosceptic (happy that Norway are outside that shambles!) and William hague is an excellent speaker and highly intelligent. With this team, I am sure you can provide a solid Opposition. The best off luck from Norway.

[Goldie]

It's really wrong to see the Fox appointment as wrong.

Obviously, he was going to keep Osborne in one of the three top seats: Osborne being his campaign manager, best ally, nr. 2 lieutenant, part and parcel of new generational wave (and he did quite well against Gordon Brown on Monday).

Equally obviously, he was going to welcome Hague to the Shadow Cabinet.

That, therefore, means that he had a choice to make: either Davis or Fox as Home Secretary. Of the two, Davis is the more senior one, the older one, and the one who ended as Nr. 2 not Nr. 3. Davis would probably not have accepted anything less than a top-3 spot (this was signalled over the weekend). Therefore, he could EITHER have promoted Fox OR he could have sacked Davis.

Why sack Davis? DD personally stopped the "Cameron is a druggie line" and didn't dredge it up at all during the election. His broad approach to conservatism was quite in line with Cameron's call for change (of course with some notable dissents), it's clear to everyone that Davis will never succeed Cameron (if DC were to fail Hague, Fox and Osborne are the putative frontrunners). If Davis would bring his people around to DC's strategic visions, i.e. DD promised in exchange for his position to agree with DC's line on education etc, what upside would promoting Fox have?

In other words, given the situation, DC made the right decision.

Once that decision is made, all that was left to do was to give Fox a top-line position in the Shadow Cabinet, which he did. Health, Education, Work & Pensions, Defence: all of equal stature. Defence is one of the most senior positions in the shadow cabinet, and Fox should be fine with it.

[Selsdon Man]

The remit should include strengthening British Parliamentary democracy by reclaiming powers and vetos from the EU.

[Richard Allen]

This is simply pathetic.

If we need a task force to decide what is necesary to restore proper democracy to this country we have proven ourselves totally and utterly unworthy of being in government.

[JRH]

"Obviously, he was going to keep Osborne in one of the three top seats: Osborne being his campaign manager, best ally, nr. 2 lieutenant, part and parcel of new generational wave (and he did quite well against Gordon Brown on Monday)."

Disagree. Osborne is not yet good enough for that role. I agree with him a lot more than I do Cameron, but he's simply not up to the job yet.

Equally Hague should have accepted the Treasury post he was offered, rather than putting his own financial well being first. Either he cares about the party and country, or he cares about book deals. It's a simple choice.

With all these people refusing to give up jobs they want, this really seems to be a failure of leadership.

[Rob]

Good to see Clarke has been given something, will hopefully keep him from rebellious activity over Europe.

[John Hustings]

"if DC were to fail Hague, Fox and Osborne are the putative frontrunners"

It depends how soon Cameron fails.

[War Room Alumnus]

This discussion pays no heed to the need to put the right people in the right jobs.

Before being appointed Shadow Chancellor Osborne had done the hard yards in Committee for the Child Trust Fund, Finance and Pensions Bills in 2004 and Finance again in 2005. There's no hiding place there and minimal support and he acquitted himself outstandingly. The idea that he should be moved aside for Fox or Rifkind (who has been worse than useless at Work and Pensions for the last 6 months) can only come from those who prefer style over substance.

The whole of CCHQ knows that on the evening the Turner report was published Rifkind had to refuse a Newsnight bid because he had already accepted a dinner engagement! Newsnight declined Waterson, because they had never heard of him, asked for Willetts, who was willing and ready until Rifkind realised how bad this would make him look. So Lilley was put up and did his standard trick of re-fighting the 1997 election - and losing it again.

Big beast? I don't think so.

[James Hellyer]

"Before being appointed Shadow Chancellor Osborne had done the hard yards in Committee for the Child Trust Fund, Finance and Pensions Bills in 2004 and Finance again in 2005."

He'd also demonstrated an amazing lack of judgement by championing the flat tax (aka "a tax cut for the rich").

[Chris]

If War Room Alumnus is right then the sooner many of the so-called "big beasts" disappear the better - especially if they combine laziness, selfishness and arrogance as Rifkind seems to do.
If the public knows who they are they generally don't like them.
The BBC loves them because they are always likely to cause trouble.
I make an exception for Willetts who IMO is generally good.
We have 4 years to establish the new team.
And don't forget we want people who can credibly be around not just in 4 but 9 years.
So far Osborne has performed very well.
And good to see Clarke at least appearing to agree to be a team player - though let's see how long that lasts or how much time he diverts from selling fags to third world kids.

[Disraeli]

Very good to see Ken being brought in to the team. I would have preferred him in a more senior shadow cabinet role but that was obviously not possible for various reasons. Some of the petty comments on here aren't particularly surprising.

I can't help but agree with James about the flat tax idea. It would be horrible to see an election lost with a flat tax as an achilles heel.

All very positive so far though.

[Chris]

Whether petty or not - let's see how long this Clarkean team-playing lasts.
Don't get me wrong - I hope it will.
Unfortunately, history is not onside...but the signs are good so far!

[Coxy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Ken given a "vital role" under Michael Howard, as a member of a special policy advisory committe, along with Major, Hague and IDS. Whatever happened to that?

Answer: It was a token gesture to be nice to Ken and "value" his "talents", without needing him to get too involved.

This new role sounds exactly the same and will be forgotten about in a couple of months' time.

[R UK]

If Clarke isn't deselected for already blatant disloyalty to Cameron on Channel 4 News last week (Come on Rushcliffe - what are you waiting for?) he will be a continuing thorn in the side of any Conservative leader.

Cameron has no choice but to give him a task, and keep him close.

Clarke will never admit he was wrong about the EEC. He personally prepared the Enabling Legislation in 1972. We now suffer the consequences of being locked inside the anti-growth slow lane of the world economy - making us greatly poorer than we would otherwise be. Clarke doesn't want us to get out, so we want him to get out.

DESELECT THE DISLOYAL DON'T PROMOTE THEM. RUSHCLIFFE? ARE YOU LISTENING?