Ken Clarke to sever lucrative directorships

Philip Webster, in today's Times, reports that Ken Clarke will sever "business links and directorships worth several hundred thousand pounds, including his deputy chairmanship of British American Tobacco" as he makes his final bid to be Conservative leader.

The fact that Mr Clarke's tobacco interests were controversial when he last ran for leader has encouraged some Davis supporters to point to David Cameron's pub industry links.

Mr Clarke, The Times continues, will attempt to neutralise the Europe issue by taking euro membership off the agenda so long as he is Tory leader.

Comments

[Derek]

If this doesn't wake up the members of the National Convention then they are beyond hope. Would the MPs dare to elect Ken Clarke as leader? Clearly it looks as though Ken himself thinks so, and although he is a europhile, he is not a fool!

However he must be very arrogant if he ignores the fact that he was overwhelmingly rejected by the members in the 2001 leadership election. To run again is to treat the members with contempt. How can he possibly "take the EU off the agenda" for the next eight years, presuming he wants to stay as leader for four years in opposition followed by four years as PM? There are bound to be some major developments in the EU during that time, and Ken will want to lead the Party where the majority of the members do not want to go, i.e. along the path to further integration.

There is only one sure way to stop him, and that is to retain the mass membership vote for the leader. Any member of the NCC reading this should contact A Better Choice at www.abetterchoice.co.uk and register your support.

[AnotherNick]

Better late than never & I hope Cameron follows this lead. I think it is wishful thinking by Clarke that we will simply forget about / put aside his BAT involvement during a point when he was a high profile politician.

[The Political Thinker]

Derek,

There is little difference between Cameron and Clarke on the issue of Europe – Neither wants withdrawal. Although Davis is seen as eurosceptic, would he be willing to withdraw Britain from the EU like Liam Fox?

If Davis does not take the same stand on Europe as Liam Fox, then you better be prepared for the same sort of integration as you would have with David Cameron – in all but name. Wat has informed me that Davis will soon be making a speech on foreign policy, and I’m really hoping he’ll say some good things when it comes to Europe, the United States and Britain’s role in the world – Let’s just hope it’s not the same sort of stuff we’ve heard from Cameron.

[Daniel Cowdrill]

Oh dear. I think someone should have a word with Mr Clarke. Firstly, if at all possible, it would be a good move to have a leader who is not associated with the last Conservative government. Secondly, I think he is too old, and third I fail to see how he can take Europe off the agenda.

On Europe, I think that people on the whole do not want further integration but still want the UK to remain a member of the EU. Therefore, while I think it would be a mistake for the party to elect a leader in favour of further integration, it would also be a mistake for the Conservatives to support withdrawal. As a Davis supporter I hope he takes the middle ground.

www.policy.blog.co.uk

[Peter]

Political thinker.
Have I got this right that you are saying that Liam Fox has said that the UK should withdraw from the EU?

[The Political Thinker]

Yup, you’d be right. Liam has said if the European Union cannot be reformed to the point where it’s nothing more than a free trade agreement, then Britain should withdraw.

“Firstly, if at all possible, it would be a good move to have a leader who is not associated with the last Conservative government.”
You can go a bit farther than that… he even served under Heath!

“On Europe, I think that people on the whole do not want further integration but still want the UK to remain a member of the EU.”
There was a recent poll which showed more than 50% of Britons want nothing more than a free trade agreement. There was an excellent article in The Telegraph this morning where a Frenchman, who campaigned for Britain’s entry 30 years ago, says that maybe now Britain should opt for “privileged member status” if we won’t accept the Euro and European Constitution, and Europe as being a political entity. It’s either we’re a “privileged member” – which means nothing more than free trade – or we’ve accepted it all but in name.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

The problem with the Euro and Europe is that our colleagues in the Labour party will certainly use the European issue to beat us over the head with if Ken becomes leader. They would like nothing better to see a divided Tory party - and would we put it past them to do something like have a Referendum on the issue of Europe - knowing that Clarke couldn't campaign against something he has been so vocal in supporting.

Ken may be prepared to let the issue of Europe lie - but don't for one minute think Labour will be so accomodating.

Is this scenario inconceivable?

[Peter]

Political Thinker.
I'm really surprised that Liam Fox has come out with that comment and is still allowed inside the Cabinet. If it is true good on him as it would make him an option for people like me but still can't believe my eyes at the moment.

[AnotherNick]

In case anyone forgot the original article is about directorships. And people suggest the Tory party is obsessed with Europe! (Just kidding)

[Simon C]

AnotherNick - I am afraid your jest missed the target -the original article touched on Europe as well. The obssession cuts in different ways though.

I remember a dinner that Ken Clarke spoke at a couple of years ago. He was entirely fixated by Europe, and whenever asked a question about anything however unrelated - say for example violent crime - would always conclude with a belligerent "and the party must stop banging on about Europe." In fact, being a well-mannered bunch up in Lincolnshire, and well aware of his imperviousness to logic and sweet reason on the subject, we refrained from asking him any direct questions on Europe at all.

Peter Oborne in today's Spectator reckons that Blair fears Clarke the most because of KC's opposition to the Iraq war.

Even if that is right, so what? Blair won't be fighting the next election, and even if he were to lead Labour into the next election, Iraq won't be the issue that decides it. It didn't in 2005 - why should it in 2009?

Whilst Clarke's outdated views on European integration still present an insurmountable barrier (we need a new vision for the EU and its institutional architecture after all, which he cannot provide, and quite why the collapse of a project in which he has invested so much political capital should in any way enhance his credibility is entirely beyond me) - his antipathy to Atlanticism is also a major problem.

Political Thinker - I would like to see where Liam Fox has gone on record as saying words to the effect of "if the European Union cannot be reformed to the point where it’s nothing more than a free trade agreement, then Britain should withdraw". There is no suggestion of that in this summer's speech on Europe that he made to the Heritage Foundation. Can you help with that?

[Derek]

I too would very much like to have the quote from Liam Fox on the subject of which Simon C refers to above. By the look of things Liam's campaign could use a boost, and if he has said something as important as this we need to be absolutely sure.

[The Political Thinker]

“I'm really surprised that Liam Fox has come out with that comment and is still allowed inside the Cabinet.”
You can make the comparison with Alan Duncan, who believes that drugs should be legalised. It’s a difference of having your own opinions, and toeing the party line.

“Political Thinker - I would like to see where Liam Fox has gone on record as saying words to the effect of "if the European Union cannot be reformed to the point where it’s nothing more than a free trade agreement, then Britain should withdraw". There is no suggestion of that in this summer's speech on Europe that he made to the Heritage Foundation. Can you help with that?”
Ask, and ye shall receive.

However, voters should not make the mistake of believing that Dr Fox would lead his party from the centre ground. He remains a firm Eurosceptic, who refuses to rule out Britain leaving the European Union and says he would send his future children to "the best school" - not necessarily a state school. As a parting shot, he quotes the maxim that: "Smart politicians do not move to the centre - they move the centre to them."

Found in The Telegraph, Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most electable of us all?

[Simon C]

Thank you Thinker. I see what you are saying, although I don't think that this is quite as explicit as your comment suggested.

Whilst Liam has certainly been re-shaping our approach to foreign policy in an interesting and principled way, he is still under the Howard-imposed requirement that none of the candidates actually depart from agreed party policy. I assume that, once the formal leadership race starts, candidates will be allowed to advocate whatever policies they wish.

[James Hellyer]

Simon, you say that Fox "is still under the Howard-imposed requirement that none of the candidates actually depart from agreed party policy." I had assumed this to be the case too, and that per Howard's announcement no new policies or changes were to be made because that should be something for the new leader. It's therefore surprised me that David Cameron and others have signalled switches in policy within their departments.

[Simon C]

"It's therefore surprised me that David Cameron and others have signalled switches in policy within their departments. "

An interesting one this, James. How far can you go to suggest a new direction, without actually formally changing policy? There is a balance to be struck here. It would be good to see candidates setting out their stalls now in a direct way rather than having to drop hints and send coded signals. Yet at the same time they all (bar Clarke) have shadow portfolios and need to pursue a party line. Many in the media seem to find it difficult to understand that in a debate about future direction you can have differing points of view and opinions without wholesale acrimony and division.

(Obviously Clarke has other portfolios to busy himself with too - just not a Shadow Cabinet one. Thought I would get that out of the way.)

By way of illustration, if one of the candidates thought it right, for example, to leave the EPP grouping, now might not be the appropriate moment to say so. It would be a clear change of policy, the media would ask Howard's views on it, and there would be another "Tory splits" story.

But it would be good to know how many of them would subscribe to that policy before the final decision on the leadership is taken (for the sake both of those who would like to stay in the EPP as well as those of us who would like to join our splendid East Midlands MEP Roger Helmer outside it).

I would think that the right time for that is probably once the starting gun has been fired.

In the meantime, candidates need to be able to give an idea of what they are about, but within the constraint of not changing policy. It's not always an easy line to draw.

Another example - marriage. I think it's permissible to say that the party should be finding ways to support marriage, if that's your view. What is probably not (yet) permissible is to spell out precisely how you think that should be achieved in terms of new policy initiatives. However, I would like to see some clear proposals on that from the candidates once the phoney war is over and the real one has begun.

[Disraeli]

Derek suggests that KC "must be very arrogant if he ignores the fact that he was overwhelmingly rejected by the members in the 2001 leadership election. To run again is to treat the members with contempt."

Does that mean that Davis, who was overwhelmingly rejected by the MPs in the same election, is also arrogant to run again? Or does the logic not follow for candidates you may approve of?

[Wat Tyler]

Disraeli- in 2001 Davis was rejected by MPs, not by us members. Those ever lovin' MPs gave us only a choice of Ken (whom we decisively rejected), and IDS.

We have never been given the chance to elect DD, so his position is completely different to Ken's (who, as you will recall, was himself previously rejected by MPs in 1997).

[James Hellyer]

The point is that Ken is going to run because the members are being disenfrachised. He knows they don't him, but will run anyway.

[AnotherNick]

The real problem with that election was that the members never had the chance to vote for Portillo, end result it was a pro-Ken, anti-Ken vote (IDS was simply not well known enough). Effectively the leadership election was little more than a vote on whether you like Ken or not. Members have taken a lot of stick for electing IDS, but it was MPs who'd already ruled out Portillo.

I do though agree that the European issue isn't as sensitive now as it was then, so the unpopularity of Ken has probably dipped a bit. Problem for him is there are also likely to be those who backed him last time but want someone fresher this time.

[Editor]

A story in today's Observer picks up the issue of Ken's tobbaco ties.

The article says:

"Clarke is not expected to sever his business links unless or until he actually becomes leader, meaning they would be fair game in a leadership contest. The issue is already increasingly discussed on the widely read leadership blogs run by David Davis supporters and within other rivals' camps. 'He could kind of get away with it then [in 2001], and say "I'm just a bloke down the pub who smokes" and people think, "Well, Ken's Ken",' said a source close to David Cameron's camp. 'There is a new climate now, a younger set of MPs who take a different view.'"