14% of Tory members would resign if Ken Clarke became leader

A YouGov survey of Tory Party members in today's Telegraph produces a number of interesting  findings...

Ken Clarke is the first choice of more members than any other candidate.  Ken Clarke wins 33% of first preferences.  David Davis gets 28%; David Cameron 17%; Liam Fox 8%; and Sir Malcolm Rifkind 4%.

If the final round was between David Davis and Ken Clarke, Mr Davis leads by just 48% to 45%.   Mr Davis would beat Mr Cameron by 53% to 36%.  The Clarke-Davis run-off result is much closer than the Davis camp had hoped and it is no longer clear that Mr Davis can be regarded as this contest's clear front-runner.  As this site's 'Good week, bad week' feature has argued for two successive weeks (here and here), Mr Davis' campaign has been uninspirational.  If the momentum stays with Ken Clarke there is a real possibility that he can win this race.  Watlington's warning of 30th August that "Ken Clarke will be the next Conservative Leader... if the Conservative Right does not unite behind a single candidate" looks more and more prescient.

14% would resign their Conservative Party membership if Ken Clarke became Tory leader compared to just 2% for each of Messrs Cameron, Davis and Fox.  Ken Clarke is clearly the most divisive of the leadership contenders and one in seven members told YouGov that they were prepared to quit if Ken Clarke became Tory leader.  These people clearly feel strongly against Mr Clarke but threats of these kind don't always materialise.   Legions of Man United supporters threatened to rip up their season tickets and boycott MUFC if Malcolm Glazer bought their club.  The last time I looked there were no gaps on the terraces.  In any case, Clarke supporters would say that their man would attract new members to the party but the risk of a loss of members to UKIP or another Eurosceptic party could open up a new flank of opposition to the Conservative Party.  The Referendum Party cost the Tories tens of seats at the 1997 election because the Major-Heseltine-Clarke government held such uncertain views on Europe. 

For those not wanting Ken Clarke to be leader, 97% cited "He is too keen on European integration" as a contributing factor.  Age was mentioned by 69%, his views on Iraq by 52%, his tobacco interests by 48%; and the fact that he was a Cabinet minister during the Major years by 36%.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) said that the "final choice" of who becomes Tory leader should be made by Tory MPs (down from 71% when the question was posed by YouGov in May) and 31% said the choice should be by rank-and-file members (up from 23%).  An online ConservativeHome survey found very similar results to this YouGov survey.  We also found, however, that if members were asked if they should have some direct democratic say in the election of the leader there was a reversal in the split with as many wanting some say as prepared to give the MPs the final say.  If members of the Constitutional College were to vote on exactly the same lines (as revealed by YouGov) Mr Howard's disenfranchisement proposals would be narrowly defeated as two-thirds of those eligible to vote must approve the rollback of democracy plans.  The Party establishment's last throw of the die has been to issue threats to Constitutional College members.   Last week the leading figures of the National Convention, led by Raymond Monbiot, sent out a letter.  It stated: "The Conservative Party is in a very serious position. We have lost three elections in a row. We need a new Leader as soon as possible so that we can take the fight to Labour and the Liberal Democrats and we need him or her to have the support of the Parliamentary Party."  It warned: "If we stick with the current system we won’t have a new Leader until January; if we adopt the proposed system we would have one by early November. And an election under the current system will cost several hundred thousand pounds." If we hadn't embarked upon the Monbiot process we could, of course, have had a leader by now.   Lord Hodgson has also demolished the other two Monbiot arguments.  The last ballot of party members was profitable and an election under the existing rules need only take eight weeks - producing a new leader by late November.  What is absolutely clear, however, is that if the Howard-Maude-Monbiot reforms do secure last minute passage it will be because of last minute threats and not by force of argument.

Comments

[Dave J]

"These days a candidate basically needs to do the job of the MP but while he or she is fighting the sitting MP. That way people will say, I might not like all what the Tories stand for - but that Joe/Josephine Bloggs works hard..."

That's something that, to me as an American, has a very familiar (and successful) ring to it. Hillary Clinton notwithstanding, the idea of "parachuting in" candidates from outside is practically unheard-of here, to the point that its frequency astonished if not appalled me when I (and I am not entirely ashamed to admit this) worked for Tory Central Office just as Major's government was in the midst of its final bouts of self-obliteration. One can over-generalize, of course, but races here are much more about the candidates as well as (if not more so than) the parties. That's especially true in Senate races in battleground states, which of course can't be gerrymandered...and which are therefore in many ways the closest analogy to exactly the kind of target seats the Tories should be looking towards picking up.

[Selsdon Man]

Oliver, I am a Clarke cheerleader - merely pointing out that such threats are idle talk. You say that, if he became leader, you would join the socialists - that would be a bizarre choice and says much about your own views.

Meaningless personal attacks on individuals undermine the integrity of the party and this site. We need a mature analysis of what is happening. Theresa May may be mistaken on certain issues but she is certaily not brainless.

It is surprising, however, that no one has pointed out that Clarke was the original stealth tax Chancellor. For example, he introduced air passenger duty and insurance premium tax. Gordon Brown got most of his ideas from Clarke.

[Selsdon Man]

Oops! That should have read I am NOT a Clarke cheerleader - how embarrassing! I will reveal my real preference in due course.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"For the record, I'm twenty-six, and if Kenneth Clarke became Tory Leader I'd join the Socialists tomorrow... I have never, ever, ever heard a young person (or, for that matter, any person) say that they'd join the Tory Party if Kenneth Clarke became Leader. Got it? The people threatening to leave the Party DO NOT WANT KENNETH CLARKE TO BE PRIME MINISTER." - Oliver McCarthy

Oliver, I don't really know where to start in pulling apart your narrow-minded, hysterical, frothing-mouthed rant.

You're clearly suggesting Ken has no youth appeal - WRONG! I'm 22 and can tell you now that Ken has more appeal amongst my contemporaries than any of the other candidates (yes, James Hellyer, it is because he is better known, before you start) and almost universally agree that the Conservatives would be a much more credible electoral force if they chose somebody with broad popular appeal instead of another right-wing but unknown nobody as leader.

As for your fatuous assertion that you've heard nobody say they would join the Conservatives if Ken became leader, have you heard anybody say they would join the Conservatives if any of the other candidates became leader? I know I certainly haven't.

You say that you would leave the Conservatives and join the Socialists if Ken becomes leader. Frankly, I find this somewhat baffling. If the candidate furthest from the right becomes leader, you will leave the party to join a party even further from the right? I'm afraid I don't understand your logic and to be honest, I'm not entirely sure that anybody with socialist sympathies should be a Conservative in the first place.

Finally, your point that the people threatening to leave the Conservatives (I assume you mean in the event that Ken becomes leader) do not want Ken to be PM is surely taking stating the obvious to a new level. However, the question that needs to be asked is would these people prefer Gordon Brown as PM? I would argue that even though these people do not want Ken as PM, they want Gordon Brown as PM even less than that, but I'm sure you and your socialist friends will disagree...

[James Hellyer]

"yes, James Hellyer, it is because he is better known, before you start"

You missed out that it's easy to be "popular" whan you're anti-Iraq war and nobody is having a go at you!

[malcolm]

Oliver,I don't wish to be rude but we normally try and have a higher level of debate than your post demonstrated on this blog.Think, before you make such wild assertions,they really don't impress anyone,and at the grand old age of 26 you really ought to know better.

[GaffaUK]

So where would this 14% go if Ken Clarke became leader? UKip? Good luck