Business leaders warm to the idea of a Conservative Government

A survey of business leaders for today's Independent suggests that they are warming to the idea of a Conservative Government and welcome the return of Ken Clarke to the political frontline as shadow business secretary.

The ComRes poll shows that:

• 59% of those questioned believe the Tories offer constructive and realistic policies
• 56% think the Conservative Party is ready for government
• Only 18% back Labour's claim that the Tories are a "do nothing party" on the economy

Asked who they would most want to serve on their board of directors, they replied:

• Ken Clarke - 38%
• David Cameron - 18%
• Lord Mandelson - 15%
• Simon Cowell - 17%
• Gordon Brown - 8%
• George Osborne - 2%
• Alistair Darling - 2%

And, crucially, business is unconvinced that Labour's economic measures will be effective:

• 62% of those surveyed think the temporary cut in VAT is "plain foolish", with only 14% believing it will benefit the economy
• 52 per cent believe the reduction in interest rates to 1.5% will make no difference, 32% think it will be positive and 13% say it will have a negative effect

Some may find the 56% figure a little low in terms of those thinking the party is ready for government. However, I remain of the view that the election will not be until May 2010, which means there will probably be another 16 months for the rejuvenated shadow cabinet team to prove itself worthy of taking the reins of power.

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[John Coles]

Note the 2% ready to employ George Osborne on the Board. The man is and (just as importantly) is perceived to be an inadequate lightweight. He should be sacked before it is too late and either David Davis or John Redwood given the job of Shadow Chancellor.

[Norm Brainer]

That doesn't really seem good... only warming to the idea of a conservative gov't? - After the current lot I would expect them to be superhot on the idea already.

Depends what they mean by business leaders though. I expect the very large businesses like labour as they might as well be nationalised.
If this includes people with real businesses then it's quite worrying.

[GB£.com]

..but they are obviously not warming to Osborne.

[Letters From A Tory]

In all fairness, Simon Cowell is clearly a better judge of talent than Gordon Brown.

[The Huntsman]

The last lawful date for the next election is 03 JUNE 2010: McStalin will hang on until the last minute he can.

[David_at_Home]

So not one of the Tory leaders is seen as board material by a majority of the "business leaders" (whoever they may be).

This tends to confirm the views many of us have expressed here that the leaders of Her Majesty’s Opposition are lightweight and vacuous.

Kick out the Cameroon “boys” and replace them with people of substance. Your predecessors found the courage for this in 1940.

[David Belchamber]

Asked who they would most want to serve on their board of directors, they replied:

Ken Clarke - 38%
David Cameron - 18%
Lord Mandelson - 15%
Simon Cowell - 17%
Gordon Brown - 8%
George Osborne - 2%
Alistair Darling - 2%

This finding gives us tremendous hope - but it also points out very starkly what ConHome has been telling the leadership for many moons.

Let us hope that we get our strongest team out very soon!

[Jonathan Isaby]

David_at_Home: to be fair, they could only choose one of those seven names, so for any one to have got a majority would have been a very big ask

[dcj]

A thought - why aren't we using a Supply Day to hammer home the message of the Government's and the terrible danger the country is in?

Even a motion of no confidence would surely be justified - we would lose as the McLabour Clans would be wheeled in but it would expose the Govt. We don't want to see a No Confidence motion moved by Vince Cable, do we?

Mind you, as Mr Osborne would have to speak in favour of the motion ...

incompetence?

[David_at_Home]

Thank you, Jonathan, for putting me right on the basis of the survey.

I now see that the total adds up to 100% so either there was not a "none of them" option or such replies were excluded. So it now seems to me that the survey was pretty meaningless.

[Steve Foley]

"Business leaders warm to the idea of a Conservative Government"

You will be telling me next that the Pope has been discovered to be a practising Roman Catholic and that bears relieve their bowels amongst the trees.

The time to worry would be if this headline appeared "Business leaders campaign for the retention of a Labour Government at the next Election"

[NigelJ]

Read it and weep Andrew Lilico! Only 14% believe the VAT cut would help the economy - it seems business people are a little more practical than the average economist!

[NigelJ]

On the question of who they would have on their board - this is just a plain silly question. Most companies, except the very largest, would have little reason for wanting a politician on their board. Generally politicians are only ever there if they have a relevent background to the business, or the business feels that there is lobbying or networking potential. So sorry, the Osborne haters on here should really not seize on this as it is meaningless, and is more likely to reflect the political affiliation of the interviewee than anything else. Interesting that the Clarke haters are not commenting though!

[matt wright]

I think this is very interesting as I have had several business people come to me and been keen to volunteer their view about how delighted they were Ken Clarke was back.

[David_at_Home]

Never invest in a company with a prominent politician on the board.

I learnt this lesson when Mayflower plc went bust after a massive hole was found in the accounts which had been wrongly complied for many years. John Major had been a director and member of the audit committee; he resigned a few months before Mayflower went tits up.

Of course many "business leaders" favour the EU and hence Ken Clarke. That is why we are in the protectionist EU.

[GB£.com]

NigelJ,

Please stop talking out of your rear end.

How did the 'political affiliation' of these business leaders lead to Clarke being 19 times more appealing than Osborne?

If you assume that at least half those questioned were Tories, that makes 110 people, and only 4 or 5 of them chose Osborne. That displays a massive lack of faith in him.

I am sure that Osborne is a good man, a good MP, and a good politician, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, but he is a useless Shadow Chancellor.

[DAVID TUFNELL]

We should remember that it is people who elect a government Company Directors are a tiny miority.
Ken Clarke is on the left of the party. Wouldhe serve under a lot of right wingers?

[NigelJ]

GB£ - I don't generally talk out of my rear end, I prefer to leave that to UKIP apologists such as yourself.
I am talking as a CEO ,Company Director and businessman, who had I been asked those ridiculous questions may have answered in the same way. Saying you wouldn't have Osborne or any other politician on your board is not the same as saying he is a crap politician. From a political perspective I don't think Osborne is a great shdw chancellor, but the damage to the party of allowing whingers and the labour party persuade Cameron to remove him would be far greater than leaving him there. People should also remember that it was Osborne who effectively frightened off Bottler from calling an early GE - one that we would not have won (that is we the tory party GB£ - not your ragbag of a party!)

[resident leftie]

Ed,

Could you pleased provide links to poll data when you publish them?

You seem to have missed this Independent/ComRes poll from Sunday:

The Conservative Party is not yet ready for government:
Agree 50% September: 46%
Disagree 41% September: 43%

I expect that Barack Obama will have a better relationship with Gordon Brown than he would with David Cameron if he were prime minister:
Agree 47%
Disagree 35%

[pp]

The 'ready for government' doesn't seem a bad result -- I am not ready for my summer holidays, but it doesn't worry me yet.

Also, I wonder how many would say that the labour party are 'ready for government' ??When it comes to an election you can only choose from the available options...

[james]

Erm...GO scores the same as the current Chancellor. So he's not doing any worse than his shadow.

Interesting to see DC vs GB.

[David Belchamber]

"From a political perspective I don't think Osborne is a great shadow chancellor, but the damage to the party of allowing whingers and the labour party persuade Cameron to remove him would be far greater than leaving him there".

NigelJ, as a CEO, if you were appointing a finance director to your company, would you knowingly appoint someone who was not, in your view, the very best candidate?

As the economic management of the country is of such importance, I believe that only the best team should be selected - which we patently do not yet have - and that you might have to be ruthless in moving someone, whose qualities you respect but whom you do not consider to be up to the top economic job.

Having said that, I would support Cameron's decision to leave GO in place ON SOLE CONDITION that John Redwood or Michael Fallon (who is reported to have turned down the offer) were appointed as shadow First Secretary.

[rugfish]

Surely if an election is called for May 2010, then we'll know about it beforehand. That makes the "16 months" shorter by at least several weeks ( happily ), but what's to say he'll go to the wire on it anyway. He's bound to want to avoid looking as though he has no choice surely so I think ( since he's the man of mistakes ), to take a run a few months sooner.

Hopefully, the Lisbon Treaty will not be fully ratified when he does as David Cameron will be held to his promise. If it is ratified then David Cameron will lose support I feel unless he clears that issue up prior to any General Election as "European Fudge" will simply not do.

[John Coles]

Some sound points have been made on this thread about Mr Osborne's limitations and it is a pity, NigelJ, that you should have reduced the matter to hatred of young Gideon. In fact, I feel sorry for him: it is not his fault that he lacks physical presence, has a reedy voice and displays a limited intellect. Mr Cameron has put him in a position where he is in over his head: the greatest favour he could do for his friend would be to move him into CCHQ to take charge of the profligate spending therein. Having straightened out that particular shambles, he could then be considered for a Front Bench position - after the next election.

[Iain]

"As the economic management of the country is of such importance,"

And when even the lowliest junior has to have passed an FSA exam to pick up a phone, its the height of insensitivity for Cameron to foist his mate on the country to dictate the country's economic policy when he has neither qualification nor experience in the economic field.

[NigelJ]

David - it is a little tricky to draw direct comparisons between commerce and politics as they have different "drivers". As mentioned before, there are circumstances where moving an encumbent to replace him/her with "the best possible candidate" may be more counter productive than productive.

If we extend the analogy of Party Politics/commerce, I am not sure I would appoint Mr Redwood in a post if I were CEO of a public company, of an SME, or leader of the Tory party. This is not because he is not a clever man(and makes very sensible suggestions), but because he has a history of serial disloyalty (far greater than Ken Clarke), and is poor at communicating with those that do not share his view of the world - i.e. he would not present a good image to customers/shareholders/voters and would be highly divisive. Unlike Clarke his appeal does not counter balance his potential for infighting. If Redwood were purely in Commerce he would probably be best placed as an independent consultant to a number of different companies who could use his considerable brains, but not have to be represented by him. Just my point of view, and this of course has to be caveated by the fact that I do not know the man!

[Peter Hain]

Ken Clarke may appear popular with many business leaders and grass roots tory supporters. However a friend of mine has put her membership renewal on hold following the appointment of Clarke to the role of Shadow Business Secretary. Lets us hope she is in a minority.

[B.Garvie]

Ken Clarke has been picked for his experience and ability and I am sure David Cameron consulted George Osborne out of respect for his views. Naturally Ken would have only been invited to join the team if it was harmonious. Consultation will play an effective part in the new Shadow Front Bench team. The nasty critics of the Tory Party will always be looking for ways to undermine the teamwork between Ken and George. However, critics won't fool the British public who are fed up and angry with a duplicitous Labour Government and its supporters. David Cameron will ensure George and Ken will produce the synergy for the winning team and see off Brown and his dysfunctional coterie of Ministers.

It is worthy to note that Obama was only in the Senate for 3 years before being elected President of the United States. (So much for Brown's pathetic remarks about novices).

[David Belchamber]

NigelJ at 13.50:

" If Redwood were purely in Commerce he would probably be best placed as an independent consultant to a number of different companies who could use his considerable brains, but not have to be represented by him".

That is a valid tenable argument but was JR not in fact the chairman of a publicly quoted company?

I, like many others, feel his brain power is vital to the shadow treasury team, based on the evidence of his blogs and recent media appearances, and, since the economy must be top of the list at the moment, I feel he needs to be the powerhouse of the team - if not necessarily the spokesman.

[dcj]

A thought - why aren't we using a Supply Day to hammer home the message of the Government's and the terrible danger the country is in?

Even a motion of no confidence would surely be justified - we would lose as the McLabour Clans would be wheeled in but it would expose the Govt. We don't want to see a No Confidence motion moved by Vince Cable, do we?

Mind you, as Mr Osborne would have to speak in favour of the motion ...

incompetence?

[chris southern]

What people need to remember about Ken Clarke is that he has different opinions to those within the shadow cabinet.
This is actualy a good thing as it makes the shadow cabinet have to think about any decisions made on policies as differing opinions will have faults revealed, something that doesn't happen when every one always agrees.

just some food for thought, that's all.

[The BIshop Swine]

Its a very good thing we must at least have an open mind, and recognise that National interest comes first. We are going into governments with a healthy distaste for the excess of Europe and its wasteful nature.However it could be National suicide to cut off our own noses about what is by far our most important market. I think Ken would be on a hiding to nothing if he rocked he boat to much, but lets say now it's time for sensible debate to be had.

[Steve Foley]

"A thought - why aren't we using a Supply Day to hammer home the message of the Government's and the terrible danger the country is in? "

A very good point but instead Old Mother Villiers is using the next supply day to stick the boot into the Aviation Industry. I bet Brown and Darling are wetting themselves with laughter!