Should David Cameron be old pope Clarke's young cardinal?

Some time ago I was on a BBC Radio programme with Tim Allan, who used to be Alastair Campbell 's Downing Street deputy. He was of the clear view that the Conservative Party had been foolish not to choose Ken Clarke in 1997 or 2001. He was the one Tory politician who had had the potential to worry Labour and to restore the party's reputation for economic competence, he argued. Mr Allan was unsure if Ken Clarke was now too old but thought that he still might be the Tories' best hope.

Attempting to counter such doubts, Ken Clarke's campaign aides are promising an 'old pope, young cardinals' regime. Given other things that Labour insiders are saying a 'young cardinal' (to Ken Clarke, David Davis or other possible winner) may be a good option for David Cameron. Some Labour insiders reportedly believe that David Cameron will probably be the Tories' next Prime Minister - but in eight or so years' time. They see him as the Tory with the skills and public touch to reconnect with middle England. They do not think he is yet ready for the testing job of Leader of the Opposition and has too many gaps in his knowledge and experience. If he was to become leader now they think he could be ruined and that, of course, would suit them nicely.

There is Westminster village speculation that Paul Baverstock, Director of Tory Communications under Iain Duncan Smith, may be appointed to Ken Clarke's campaign team. Mr Baverstock was a principal architect of IDS' 'fair deal for everyone' strategy and his one nation commitment to relink the basic state pension to earnings. 2001's Clarke campaign was notable for its lack of bold ideas. If Paul Baverstock joins the 2005 bid Mr Clarke may be suggesting that he's readier to advance a bolder leadership prospectus.

Also on the personnel front is news that David Willetts has strengthened his team. Atticus in yesterday's Sunday Times, reports that Penny Mordaunt, of Media Intelligence Partners and Tory candidate for Portsmouth North at the last election, is to be Chief of Staff to Mr Willetts' leadership bid.

Comments

[Simon C]

"They do not think he is yet ready for the testing job of Leader of the Opposition and has too many gaps in his knowledge and experience. If he was to become leader now they think he could be ruined and that, of course, would suit them nicely."

To the extent that you can take a New Labour assessment at face value, I agree entirely. Cameron needs time to develop, and the space to make and learn from mistakes. The leader's job is not the place to do that. He would face a near vertical learning curve, unremitting scrutiny and unforgiving critics. It is too harsh an environment for someone with so little front-line experience.

The reality is that, whoever wins, Cameron is as certain as can be to have a prominent role. He is clearly a coming talent, and any new leader wishing to demonstrate that the Party is united behind him would be most unwise to leave him out of the Shadow Cabinet. You can pontificate about a "young cardinal" policy if you like, but all that is doing is to recognise the inevitable.

[Selsdon Man]

It would be foolish for David Cameron to withdraw in favour of Ken Clarke. It would damage his chances in the future. Mr Cameron should only withdraw if he believes that he cannot win.

If he is to mount a serious challenge, he needs to clarify views on key issues - crime, tax (including flat tax), Europe and the role of the private sector in health and education.

Only then can the Party, especially the grassroots, make an informed assessment of his leadership potential.

[AnotherNick]

It seems strange that such heavyweights as Chris Pattern & Oliver Letwin would make the error of backing someone who was supposedly not ready. Cameron is a new face, but that doesn't mean he isn't ready. We want our best prospect for PM as leader. He may even relate better to the public due to not being in the front bench battles. Hauge is a tremendous parliamentry speaker, but he failed to connect with the general public (admitedly at a very tough time for Tories). Cameron for leader.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

In a way its a Goldilocks and the three bears scenario. Lets try Ken Clarke.... oh no he's just a bit too old and has been out of front line politics for a good few years. Lets try David Cameron ..... no he is just a bit too young and lacks experience, but maybe his day will come.

If the party really wants a fairytale ending what about David Davis. As Goldilocks said, "Now that one's just right!"

[The Political Thinker]

I have to agree with a comment above, I think it'd be ridiculous for Cameron to withdraw in favour of Ken Clarke. Anyway, if he did withdraw, why not in favour of Fox? ;-)

Seriously though. Although the public seem to like Clarke, I believe they would like Cameron just as much, if not more. Cameron may be young, but it's better to be young and ambitious like Cameron than to be old and getting on like Clarke.

Many people say the party must move on, and choose a new and fresh leader who has no baggage. Why on earth choose someone who is old enough to have served in Heath's government?!

[James Hellyer]

"If Paul Baverstock joins the 2005 bid Mr Clarke may be suggesting that he's readier to advance a bolder leadership prospectus."

I think there's a problem if leaders are trying to sell a big idea that they themselves don't passionately believe in. We could see this with Michael Howard, where he delivered some nice speeches written by Francis Maude, but never followed up on their ideas because they weren't his own. Why should Clarke be seen as more platable because he mouths Baverstock's words, or for that matter Davis because he mouths Nick Herbert's?

Mrs Thatcher may have had Sir Keith Joseph as her font of idead, but there was no doubt she believed in them. That's why she so doggedly saw them through. Can we be certain of the same with the current crop of leadership candidates?

[Simon C]

"It seems strange that such heavyweights as Chris Pattern & Oliver Letwin would make the error of backing someone who was supposedly not ready."

So that's it then. Now that Patten and Letwin have spoken, game over.

Great fan though I am of Oliver Letwin's intelligence, integrity and personability, he would be the first to admit that his political antennae have not always been 100% acute.

There is though a serious point to be made about endorsements, which has been touched on before on this blog.

None of the candidates has yet to make a decisive breakthrough. This is a particular problem for Cameron & especially Davis, who have had all the early media interest. If they cannot get some momentum going after the recess, their campaigns will quickly become becalmed, and might even sink.

The "canaries" (by which I mean senior members of the parliamentary party, respected for their character, not particularly aligned to one faction or another, whose presence indicates healthy air in the mine of Conservative politics) have not yet settled on any one candidate. If and when they do, that could provide decisive momentum behind that campaign.

I am thinking here of people such as Hague & IDS (who might as ex-leaders decide that they should not publicly support any one candidate, although if they have strong views about this I would argue it is their duty to let their views be known), Ancram, Lilley, Willetts (once he bows out).

[malcolm]

Agree with everything you say Simon but the important thing is that Ken Clarke (attractive character and skilled debater though he is) CAN'T be leader. If the MPs elect him there will be civil war in the party. I hope wise heads will prevail and prevent this happening.

[Graeme Archer]

I don't know where this "The only problem with Ken Clarke is that the membership [ie us] can't stick him - if we swallowed our pride and supported him he'd be so amazingly popular in the country" rubbish comes from. It gets quoted so often, or paraphrased, in nearly every newspaper comment about us that it's become the received truth. The latest source is some nobody who worked for New Labour. Let's drop everything we believe in and listen to him, then.

Quite apart from the sheer stupidity of thinking that our enemies like the BBC and the Labour party would ignore the fact that practically nobody in the party agrees with him about Europe, there is the small matter that he makes a lot of money out of, err, selling cigarettes to poor people in the developing world. I couldn't care less who sells what to whom (within reason) but, please, in a country where the nanny left set the cultural parameters we're allowed to operate within (like it or not), why doesn't this curious facet of cuddly Ken's background get more scrutiny?

And I'm sick of the "David Cameron is too young" assertion too. First of all, in any normal world, late 30s is not too young to assume a leadership position. Secondly, "he's too young" is precisely the sort of vacuous, information-void statement that we're all supposed to loathe like the plague (to judge from some postings).

[Simon C]

It's not a question of youth Graeme, although if you are young, a question that resonates louder is whether you can demonstrate that you have the authority not only to lead the party but the country.

On TV in particular, Cameron does not generate that sort of authority. He comes across as a pleasant, sometimes earnest, young subaltern. He may well acquire that authority one day, but he hasn't yet.

There's also a difference between having a leadership position within the party, for example in the Shadow Cabinet, and the Leader's position.

Experience is an issue for Cameron. Has he the experience to lead first the party, then the country? That is what my post above was aimed at.

There is no point in us choosing somebody only to be Leader of the Opposition. That is preparing for failure. We need to aim higher and choose the person the country will see as the next Prime Minister (or next but one if Blair steps down).

Authority, vision, character and experience are some of the keys to winning the country. It is harder for somebody in his late 30's who has been in Parliament for less than 5 years to have acquired those attributes than it is for others who have been around longer.

That is not to say that experience trumps everything. Ken Clarke, as posted all over this site, would be a disater for all sorts of reasons.

[Wat Tyler]

Graeme- like you, I'm highly suspicious of advice from well-wishers across the street, but I guess we do have to recognise that Ken still seems to top the various polls that have been done on potential leaders- even among Tory voters ( see eg http://daviddavisleader.blogspot.com/2005/07/new-leadership-poll.html).

But we know what party MEMBERS think of him from the 2001 poll, so he'd be pretty disastrous for us.

As for DC being too young, I think the point is more his lack of experience- frontbench and in leadership roles. That's what rules him out, this time at least.

[Graeme Archer]

I've just read Simon's first post again - you are not dissing Oliver Letwin are you? He was once a Hackney candidate, is clearly the most intelligent and all round lovely member of parliament, and shoo-ed off the loathsome libdems in Dorest last time around (so not as bumbling as the media like to make out). His endorsement of David Cameron - given that I'm unlikely to meet any of the candidates in person - means a great deal to me (and I suspect I'm not alone in finding one of the offputting things about the Davis campaign the "calibre" of the MPs who back him ... shades of Planet Redwood?).

[Graeme Archer]

Wat you are right -- I voted for KC last time, but I held my nose while I did it -- so I suspect the 2001 poll actually OVER-estimates his popularity within the party (you know, I'm a statistician, so that extrapolation-from-my-n-of-one anecdote is pretty appalling, but there you go)

[James Hellyer]

"you are not dissing Oliver Letwin are you? He was once a Hackney candidate, is clearly the most intelligent and all round lovely member of parliament, and shoo-ed off the loathsome libdems in Dorest last time around (so not as bumbling as the media like to make out)."

He did however let a burglar through his front door lste on night. He was also driven into hiding at the 2001 election. He's not as bumblefree as you make out ;=)

Slightly more seriously, Letwin's article endorsing Cameron was essentially praising a speech Letwin wrote for Cameron. Now I wonder why Letwin liked it?

Now I like Oliver Letwin and respect what he as to say on a number of issues (his speech on "The Conveyer Belt to Crime" for example), but he often displays an amazing lack of judgment (see his comments on the need to... keep the CAP).

I'd need an awful lot more than his endorsement to persuade me of the merits of DC.

"you know, I'm a statistician, so that extrapolation-from-my-n-of-one anecdote is pretty appalling, but there you go"

You heard it here first! 100% of Clarke's supporters voted for him in 2001 while holding their noses!

[Simon C]

Wouldn't dream of dissing Oliver Letwin - as an aside I am eagerly awaiting his views on what a properly conservative environment policy should look like - merely trying to make the point that he doesn't always get everything right, and I think this is one of those occasions.

BTW that was my second post - my first one is right at the top & is the one I was referring to.

[Graeme Archer]

"You heard it here first! 100% of Clarke's supporters voted for him in 2001 while holding their noses"

Well I certainly did. And that makes two of us! (Similar logic applies to any BBC radio opinion "poll").

I note that none of you refute the overwhelming reason for agreeing with everything that Oliver says: that he was once a candidate in Hackney North (this may have something to do with his response to the burglar) (and will certainly have informed his views on the conveyor belt of crime; again seriously this was one of the best pieces of thinking from a Tory in the last parliament no?).

Simon I've now read your FIRST post properly and I am in awe at the beautiful punning of "pontificate" with "young cardinal".

[James Hellyer]

You're not allowing the Hackney thing to influence your decision are you, Graeme?

[Simon C]

Oliver Letwin had a very good parliament until IDS was deposed. He never found his feet as Shadow Chancellor, and seemed much less assured. His "Conveyer Belt" to crime analysis was spot-on. Does the current Shadow Home Secretary share it by the way? Wat, can you help with this?

"I am in awe at the beautiful punning of "pontificate" with "young cardinal". "

Thank you.

[Graeme Archer]

I've spotted a chance for the party to reclaim the media's interest ... Big Brother finishes this Friday on Channel 4 ... surely we're well-positioned to take over? A few weekly tasks for the remaining candidates ("Who can sell the most cigarettes to the poor in order to win a luxury meal?" "Who can shin down tall buildings and date the most fading pop stars?" etc) would get us back firmly in the public gaze, while the voting system for BB seems admirably clear and democratic compared to the "don't ask, we won't tell" mess we're sleep-walking towards (I know, I've changed my mind on this, that's what you get if you expose someone with the attention span of a fruit fly (that's me) to people who think about these things properly (that's you)).

Week by week we could vote out the least popular candidate (sorry Ken) who would move swiftly onto E4 to be interviewed by cross-dresser Kemal about their views on making poverty history (sorry Ken) ... then in just 5 short weeks we'd have a winner. In time for conference! Imagine that!

Can we expect more from the increasingly lucid and sensible Theresa May on her ideas for primaries, an idea whose time has surely come?

[Graeme Archer]

"You're not allowing the Hackney thing to influence your decision are you, Graeme?"

How can I put it? :-0) I know I'll get in troub from the ed for this but if you want to see why Hackney Tories are so "special" have a butchers at

http://www.blog.co.uk/main/index.php/eastendlife/2005/07/18/shoreditch_parade_17_july_2005

[Simon C]

"Can we expect more from the increasingly lucid and sensible Theresa May on her ideas for primaries, an idea whose time has surely come?"

I would turn up to a ConservativeHome fringe event at the Party Conference on this theme with Teresa May fronting it (hint Editor...). At long last her shoes are not the most interesting thing about her.

More seriously, we need to keep the pressure up on this - if we don't get primaries this time, we mustn't drop the idea.

The only real question I have left to resolve about primaries is what happens when we get back to power if we have to choose a replacement for a Prime Minister, for whatever reason. Would it be right to leave the country leaderless whilst we went through a primary? Probably not. In those circumstances we might have to let MPs decide.

[Graeme Archer]

Hear hear Simon. I've also been hinting to the editor that a fringe meeting for this community (dread word) would be one of the best reasons for going to conference this year. What about it Mr Ed? And I copywrite the name ("Conservatives-not-at-home.com").

Some ideas for a fringe debate:
-- Are we from Soho, or Easterhouse, or Notting Hill? (you know where I'm from :-0))
-- Is a religious revival key to a Conservative revival?
-- How many communities can a nation contain? (We could explore a Tory view of society - in contrast to the socialist or liberal's view of boxes of communities to be set against one another)

[malcolm]

I know this is not really on this subject but I'd be grateful if someone could help me.How can I get a ticket for the Conference?I am a member of the party but haven't been to a conference since I was a student 20 years ago!

[James Hellyer]

Malcolm, try this link:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.event.detail.page&obj_id=113520