If the job to lead the Conservatives were advertised in a newspaper, an employer would spell it out emphatically. The successful applicant must have considerable political experience, charisma, ruthlessness and a clear sense of political direction. He or she must be a team builder, a good performer on the media and in dealing with the media behind the scenes (an altogether different skill).
This is the job description for the ideal Conservative Party leader offered by The Independent's Steve Richards. Margaret Thatcher had these qualities, he writes, but William Hague, IDS and Michael Howard didn't. Mr Richards is of the view that Ken Clarke is the only contender who meets the description but admits to having been told by two shadow cabinet ministers that the former Chancellor does not have a hope of becoming Tory leader.
YouGov found that Ken Clarke was the top choice of the voting public and he is said to be the man Labour still fears. But he is also probably the leader that UKIP are praying for. A few big questions surround Clarke's bid?
(1) Is he too old?
(2) Will he lose as many Tory voters to UKIP as he'll attract floating voters?
(3) Will arch-Eurosceptics like Bill Cash put up with him as leader? Will he reignite party infighting?
(4) Europe isn't the only issue on which he is out-of-step with the Conservative mainstream. He opposed the Iraq war. Doesn't this put him on the wrong side of the war on terror?
(5) Is he energetic enough to deliver new policies for today's challenges or will he accept largely unreformed public services and the welfare consensus?
His love of the EU as opposed to Europe should on all counts disqualify him. We are (or should be) a free sovereign nation not a supplicant region of Brussels. The EU is NOT a democratic entity.
Derek Buxton, Stockport
Posted by: Derek Buxton | 17 May 2005 at 13:41
I don't think Europe is an issue against Ken Clarke being the next leader of the Conservative Party. There are several others. His age and association is one. He will be seen by many, especially young people, as too old by the time the next election comes along and again he is associated with the Major years, especially the ERM. On that day he together with Major, Heseltine and Hurd sat in a room drinking tea while the interest rate was going through the roof and hadn't a clue what was going on until a cab driver told him later. None of them came out to face the media, instead they sent Norman Lamont to do the deed. Also whilst a minister in that government he frequently bragged about the fact that he would often be at Ronnie Scotts till 3am, turn up at cabinet meetings half asleep and didn't read ministerial documents etc and couldn't be bothered with small detail. This does not bode well for somone who wishes to be Prime Minister. Also I think a myth has grown up in believing that Ken Clarke is the saviour of the Conservative Party. Have you ever sat through for example any of his conference speaches? They were on the whole the dullest of the conferences. He is no great speaker. Also when in government he didn't stay in any ministerial job for very long and as he moved on left a trail of disater behind him for someone else to pick up so his managment skills leave a lot to be desired. Again not ideal for someone wanting to be leader. He gave the impression of being Jack of all trades but master of none. I think Labour want him to be leader of the Conservative Party because they know they would run rings round him.
Posted by: Jenny Stoker | 17 May 2005 at 15:43
Ken Clarke comes accross as an affable bloke. That's why people like him. That does not however make him a suitable leader.
Outside the Treasury, his track record as a minister of state is poor at best. When he was at the Home Office he accepted his job was manage public expectaions of crime and so crime continued to rise. Michael Howard thought the job was to cut crime, so he did.
Clarke won't change or challenge the system. At most he'd offer a managerial alternative to Labour. For that approach to succeed, you are reliant on the incumbents being seen to fail (see 1997).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 May 2005 at 16:51
Is not the point this makes that the Conservative party in parliament is hugely out of step with both the voting public and CONSERVATIVE VOTERS. Who were (according to every poll I saw) anti-war to a greater degree than labour voters.
As far as Europe goes being pro-EU would be an electoral boost to Ken because Labour has an approx 5% lead on that issue suggesting that the british people are not anti-EU.
As far as UKIP go, they need to be bitchslapped into the racist corner, then maybe we can realise that its the 10% on our immediate left we need to get back, not the 1% on our right.
Posted by: Edward | 17 May 2005 at 22:08
Why Kenneth Clarke still appears to hold a such an influential position within the Conservative Party in terms of the press and public never fails to astound me. It has been 8 years now since he held any position at all and I'm sure that had he held any position in opposition his reputation as a 'big hitter' that we keep hearing about would have been buried a long time ago. His time spent keeping out of the way and saying nothing, supportive or otherwise, except at leadeership elections has been well spent only to help preserve his own ill gotten reputation.
The facts are that he does have a poor record as a minister at the Home Office, DoH and Education and it was only at the Treasury that he made a name for himself, but with an economist and former Chancellor and Chief Sec to the Treasury as Prime Minister was this success actually down to him, a former lawyer? I suspect maybe the glory he has revelled in is owed at least in part to John Major.
I fail to see any attributes that Clarke posseses that would make him a good leader of the Tory party and how he could help them back to power. With Labour's major players starting to look tired even the Tory party surely are not stupid enough to elect the one person who is ONLY associated with the past! The public may like him now but they haven't had to listen to him for 8 years...
Posted by: Rocco | 18 May 2005 at 12:01
"As far as Europe goes being pro-EU would be an electoral boost to Ken because Labour has an approx 5% lead on that issue suggesting that the british people are not anti-EU."
That would be the case if polls on specific issues, rather than party political issues, didn't show that the majority of people were eurosceptic. The same polls also show that the issue tends to be rated fairly low on voters' lists of priorities.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 18 May 2005 at 15:43
Polls show that those who rate Europe as an important issue prefer the Conservatives to Labour on the issue - which is consistent with the European election results.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 18 May 2005 at 17:43