Ken Clarke launches his 'Time To Win' campaign

Wasn't it interesting how Lords Patten and Heseltine - early advocates of the disenfranchisement of party members - became silent on the issue?  They knew that Ken Clarke, their choice for leader, cannot win amongst MPs but just might amongst party members.

Today 'Kampaign Ken' launches its It's time to win campaign.  The campaign has six main messages and I list them below (unedited):

(1) Ken will lead the Conservative Party to victory at the next general election

• 44% of swing voters think he is the best person to lead the Conservative Party [Populus/The Times, Sept. 2-4 2005].
• Ken has the greatest support of any candidate in all regions, amongst all kinds of voters and in Scotland and Wales (ICM/Newsnight, Sept. 2-4 2005). 
• At least 40% of all voters think Ken Clarke is the best person to lead the Party [ICM/Newsnight, Sept. 2-4 2005; Populus/TheTimes Sept. 2-4 2005 ].   

(2) Ken will win back voters who have drifted to Labour and halt the rise of the Liberal Democrats

• As former Labour Party chair Clive Soley has admitted [Daily Telegraph 28.08.09], Ken is the leadership candidate Labour truly fears. 
• As leader, Ken Clarke leader would reduce the gap with Labour to just 2% [Populus/The Times, Sept. 2-4 2005]. 
• 12% of all voters are more likely to vote Conservative under Ken Clarke’s leadership [ICM/Newsnight, Sept. 2-4 2005].
• Ken Clarke as leader would extend the Conservative lead over the LibDems to 15% [Populus/The Times, Sept. 2-4 2005].
• 10 Conservative held Parliamentary seats would be lost if there was a three per cent swing to the Liberal Democrats.  In order to form a Conservative Government, the Party must not only halt the rise of the Lib Dems but take seats back from them.

(3) Ken will widen the appeal of the party across all groups

• Ken has more than twice the level of support of his nearest rival in the Conservative leadership contest amongst 18-24 year-olds and over four times the support of women (ICM/Newsnight, Sept. 2-4 2005).   
• The Conservative Party has particularly lost support amongst younger voters and women voters.  The Conservative share of the female vote actually fell in May’s general election.  In order to win back power the Party has to win support in these groups.   

(4) Ken will accelerate our revival in local government

• The party has doubled its representation in local government over the last few years but success in the shire counties has not been matched in the cities. 
• The first set of elections the new leader will face will be those in May next year, including the important London borough elections. 
• Ken has the appeal to reach voters who live in these urban and suburban areas.  He tops the poll in every age category, social class and geographic region [ICM/Newsnight, Sept. 2-4 2005; Populus/TheTimes Sept. 2-4 2005].

(5) Ken will transform the party into a united modern campaigning force

• More voters think the Conservative Party has changed for the worse since 1997 than think it has changed for the better (Populus/The Times July 22-24 2005).   
• Ken Clarke is the original “moderniser”.  He has always believed the Conservative Party should be a party open to all who share its values.  He will lead the development of an open and professional party through his Shadow Cabinet team.

(6) Ken has the energy and desire to be Prime Minister

• Ken Clarke is the candidate best placed to beat a Government lead by Gordon Brown at the next general election [Populus/The Times Sept. 02-04 2005].

Comments

[James Hellyer]

Does Ken Clarke think we're stupid? Selective citation of opinion polls does not make a case for his leadership.

(1) Ken will lead the Conservative Party to victory at the next general election

ICM poll (19/09/05) - The topline figures in this poll were CON 31%, LAB 40%, LD 21% - the figures for a hypothetical election with Brown and Clarke as leader were CON 30%, LAB 38%, LD 25%, so far from increasing the Labour vote, it suggests that Brown would drive some voters towards the Liberal Democrats.

YouGov poll (11/09/05) - The standard voting intention figures were CON 32%, LAB 37%, LDEM 21%. Asked how people would vote if Gordon Brown was the Labour leader and Ken Clarke the Conservative leader, Labour’s lead would jumped to 11 points with the Conservatives on 31%, Labour on 42% and the Lib Dems on 17%.

(2) Ken will win back voters who have drifted to Labour and halt the rise of the Liberal Democrats

The ICM poll of 19/09/05 offered some support for this, although at the price of a similar number of Conservative voters defecting to fringe parties.

(3) Ken will widen the appeal of the party across all groups

Without rehashing the recognition factor argument here, that does have to be taken into account, especially as the poll cited was taken in the aftermath of Clarke's high media profile campaign launch (which saw his Populus rating jump 12 points) and his Iraq speech (tranmitted on Radio 5 and extensively covered elsewhere).

It's easy to be popular with the young when a) they have just seen you on television, and b) you are critical of Iraq.

As the polls cited above show though, this does not translate into electoral support.

4) Ken will accelerate our revival in local government

We already seem to be doing well there, and have been for some time without the Clarke factor...

(5) Ken will transform the party into a united modern campaigning force

With 14% of the membership quitting (YouGov) or defecting (ICM)? Odd definition of unity there.

(6) Ken has the energy and desire to be Prime Minister

Ken will lose more heavily to Brown than Howard did to Blair. In any case, voting intention polls this far ahead don't really tell us much about the future. What they do tell us is that the high profile and "popular" Clarke can't beat Brown now, despite his "popularity".

[Elena]

A shame that the only thing Clarke is really relying on at the moment is polling data.

It would be nice to hear some more about his policies, his ideas, his visions. Or does he just think he'll beat Labour because of the huge cult of personality that's been built up around him? If he thinks that he's sadly misguided.

Clarke makes some good points, and I do like him, but he needs to do more than keep banging the "I'm popular" drum if he wants to be taken seriously in this contest.

[Tim Hughes]

There is more venom in your comments about Ken Clarke than in your comments about the Labour Party. Surely it would be wiser if this blog stops dividing the party with unnecessary personal attacks so that when whoever becomes leader there is unity?

[Mike]

Quentin Davies signed the letter supporting Clarke but he has not been added to the list of "Who is backing who" on this site.

Clarke should now be on 16.

Also the letter was signed by 6 MPs not 5.

[Derek Buxton]

"Revival in local government?" This is the same Clarke who favours the EU with the regionalisation and destruction of England? K.C.-- no policies,no principles, no morals; ah well, just another politician then, albeit from 1997

[Sean Fear]

KC would certainly have done better to outline his vision, rather than simply relying on (selective) opinion polls.

That said, I can't deny that KC would be the most popular choice among the public. But what does he want for Britain?

[Jack Stone]

The party members really need to decide what they want.
Another right wing leader with no chance of victory or Ken Clarke and victory at the next election.
This country needs a Conservative government and a government lead by Ken Clarke would in my view be a hundred times better for our country than a governemt lead by Gorden Brown.

[James Hellyer]

Except the very polls Ken's campaign cite indicate the option isn't a Clarke government but a Clarke opposition. A much smaller opposition.

[Elena]

I don't disagree with you there, James, but the polls still suggested that Clarke would have the best chance of all the Tory hopefuls of beating Gordon Brown, even if it still suggested that he'd lose.

To be honest, I don't think such polls have much worth. The British Public will only be able to make up their minds when the leader is elected and the Party engineers its policies for government. That is why I feel that Ken would be much better to actually talk about his policies and his vision than rely on samples of British public opinion, that at this time don't really matter.

[Jacob Traff]

Of course he does not even mention any issues. No, we are supposed to accept views we do not agree with just because he thinks he can win. Well, Tony Blair has proved himself really good at winning elections but that does not mean that I think he should lead the Conservative Party.

A Conservative government must have Conservative policies. Europe and Iraq are dealbreakers in my view.

[James Hellyer]

"To be honest, I don't think such polls have much worth."

I agree, Elena. All they tell us is that right now Clarke's "popularity" does not translate into electoral support for his party.

It's disappointing that Clarke has made his campaign relaunch centre on something as superficial as a smattering of selective references to opinion polls. Now should be a time to show that his campaign has substance. These polls don't show that.

[Mark Fulford]

Jacob, what's the Iraq deal-breaker? That KC voted the war?

[malcolm]

Really,really intelligent post that Derek Buxton.You must have thought long and hard to come up with something as good as that. No wonder our party has done so fantastically well with advocates like this.

[Elena]

My thoughts exactly, James.

It would be nice to see what Ken actually believes in and what policies he would want to explore and/or adopt should he be elected leader.

.. Am I being too cynical here - I just can't help but think that he;
a) Doesn't want to say what his policies are because he knows how much they'll frighten away the party members meant to be voting for him.
b) Doesn't actually _have_ any policies, because he's hoping his popularity with the public will carry him through.

In either case, it's not a nice thought.

[John G]

Completely agree it's disappointing that KC's relaunch is so poll-based and less substance-based. Indeed, many of the 6 points seem to be different ways of spinning the same basic argument - that more people across the whole political spectrum will vote for him - rather than positive points in their own right.

That said, apart from Liam Fox, I can't think of much of substance that any of the other contenders have said. It's is all very well, and probably deserved, lamasting Ken because he hasn't said much, but that doesn't mean that he's necessarily the antithesis of conservatism, which seems to be the implied argument. (It may be true but we just don't know).

This lack of knowledge is a problem, but it's a problem with the campaigns of Davis and Cameron too. We don't really know their vision for the future of the party and until and unless we do, Watlington's argument that LF may pop through the middle could be remarkably prescient.

[John G]

Completely agree it's disappointing that KC's relaunch is so poll-based and less substance-based. Indeed, many of the 6 points seem to be different ways of spinning the same basic argument - that more people across the whole political spectrum will vote for him - rather than positive points in their own right.

That said, apart from Liam Fox, I can't think of much of substance that any of the other contenders have said. It's is all very well, and probably deserved, lamasting Ken because he hasn't said much, but that doesn't mean that he's necessarily the antithesis of conservatism, which seems to be the implied argument. (It may be true but we just don't know).

This lack of knowledge is a problem, but it's a problem with the campaigns of Davis and Cameron too. We don't really know their vision for the future of the party and until and unless we do, Watlington's argument that LF may pop through the middle could be remarkably prescient.

[John G]

Completely agree it's disappointing that KC's relaunch is so poll-based and less substance-based. Indeed, many of the 6 points seem to be different ways of spinning the same basic argument - that more people across the whole political spectrum will vote for him - rather than positive points in their own right.

That said, apart from Liam Fox, I can't think of much of substance that any of the other contenders have said. It's is all very well, and probably deserved, lamasting Ken because he hasn't said much, but that doesn't mean that he's necessarily the antithesis of conservatism, which seems to be the implied argument. (It may be true but we just don't know).

This lack of knowledge is a problem, but it's a problem with the campaigns of Davis and Cameron too. We don't really know their vision for the future of the party and until and unless we do, Watlington's argument that LF may pop through the middle could be remarkably prescient.

[Mark Fulford]

Elena, I suspect that you really want to hear KC renounce Europe!

The Conservative party has to accept that our missing voters do not view Europe as a big deal. KC is absolutely correct to marginalise the issue.

We all know where KC stands on the issues that count: taxation, healthcare and education.

[Simon C]

"We all know where KC stands on the issues that count: taxation, healthcare and education."

Please could you elaborate this Mark? I have no idea what Ken's health and education policies are, and only a sketchy idea on Tax.

[James Hellyer]

I can help with tax, Simon. Ken said that we could have tax cuts when we could afford them. First public spending would have to brought under control though.

He's opposed to a flat tax and thinks such ideas aee neo-conservative.

I'm willing to give health and education a got too!

[James Hellyer]

I can help with tax, Simon. Ken said that we could have tax cuts when we could afford them. First public spending would have to brought under control though.

He's opposed to a flat tax and thinks such ideas are neo-conservative.

I'm willing to give health and education a got too!

[malcolm]

I went to Kens launch.He gave a short speech where he talked about the need for principles in politics,the need to have sensible spending commitments,the need to restore faith in pensions, and the need for our party to understand the aspirations of ALL of our people not just those living in the shires.It was a very unidealogical speech and seemed to go down well with the audience.As with all the candidates speeches I wish he had gone into more detail but he promised to do this at conference and beyond.
This is the first time I've heard Ken speak,he really does come across as a very good bloke.

[Elena]

You misunderstand me, Mark (fair enough, maybe I wasn't clear).

I'd probably support Clarke over Davis (although I'd make my mind up nearer the time).

What I'm getting at is that his campaign team is basically reciting the same old mantra "Ken is popular with the electorate, so vote for Ken." That to me isn't reason enough to give Mr. Clarke my vote. If Ken really wants to get party members on his side, I suspect that he should talk a little more about what his vision for the Conservative Party is. I hope we'll hear about this over the coming weeks.

[James Hellyer]

Hmmm. Curious double post.

Anyway, health and education: Ken rejected the idea that Tories should subsidise opting out into private sector services He wants us dedicated to the universiality of the NHS.

As to management issues, his public policy speech gave the somewhat contradictory policy of giving more control to the professionals at the coalface, while controlling them through centralised targets.

[malcolm]

Is it the new fashion to post your missives 2-3 times on this blog to emphasise a point?