Ken Clarke trounces rivals in Newsnight poll

Tonight's Newsnight commissioned an ICM poll on the Tory leadership race.  It found strong support for Ken Clarke's leadership bid.  ICM asked one thousand people 'who would make the best Tory leader?'  These are the answers:

Ken Clarke: 40%
David Davis: 10%
David Cameron: 4%
Malcolm Rifkind: 4%
Liam Fox: 3%
David Willetts: 2%

ICM also asked who would make them more or less likely to vote Conservative.  Mr Clarke won a positive rating of 12% (20% more likelys minus 8% less likelys).  David Davis got a -3% rating (7% minus 10%) and David Cameron got a -4% rating (3% minus 7%).  Figures for the other candidates weren't broadcast (if they were sought).

Ken Clarke welcomed the survey:

"It is nice to know that such a wide section of the public hold me in such high regard and have confidence in me.  The poll shows that under my leadership, the Conservative Party would have the prospect of winning the next election."

'12% more likely' doesn't actually show that, Mr Clarke, but it does show that - at this stage - you appear more likely to help the Tories than the other candidates.  'At this stage' is the vital caveat.

Michael Gove MP, a Cameron supporter, interviewed on the Newsnight programme, said that it would be unhelpful for a 21st century Conservative Party to be led by a man who first held ministerial office in 1972.  Mr Gove said that the poll only proved one thing - After thirty years in politics Ken Clarke is much better known than his rivals.  Mr Gove was echoing the views of Oliver Letwin MP.  On last Wednesday's Today programme Mr Letwin said that if someone other than Mr Clarke is elected as Leader of the Conservative Party, they will be subject to a huge amount of publicity and will become at least as well known as Ken Clarke is now.   The key question is not 'who is best known now?' but 'who can best lead the Conservatives on the long road back to government?'

The other missing ingredient of the 'at this stage' polling is that it does not capture the possibility that Mr Clarke could split the Conservative Party from top to bottom.  How will Bill Cash and the party's other Eurosceptics react to having a leader who disagrees with the direction of the last eight years?  How will supporters of the Iraq war cope with Mr Clarke's long-held opposition to the US-led intervention?

What would voters think of Mr Clarke after a renewed period of Tory civil war?

Comments

[James Hellyer]

My ghut feeling is that this is another poll that shows recognition levels rather than reflecting the attractiveness, or otherwise, of the candidates.

Ken Clarke is the best known candidate. He's a former Chancellor and has had the BBC bigging him up for weeks. He's also the Conservative most likely to appeal to die hard Liberal and Labour supporters, as he's most to the left. However that does not mean they would ever consider voting for him.

Davis is likely to have been noticed in recent weeks, but won't get any nice comments from the people who'd never dream of voting for him.

As for the rest, this poll is more a reflection of the amazingly Howard-centric party we have seen in recent months.

Nobody knows who they are. Recognition can change, suitability for the job does not.

[AnotherNick]

While polls aren't always a good indicator, this result is so clear it cannot and should not be ignored (an I speak as a Cameron supporter :-()

[James Hellyer]

Yes, the result clearly shows that if you take a well known candidate and big them up, more people will recognise them. That's all it shows.

It's like the BMRB poll from the start of July that let people name who they wanted as the next Conservative leader. Well known Ken won, of course, but Lord Coe came second with a score of 20%. Was this an endorsement of Coe's policies or a reflection of his media profile*?

* Hint - the poll was run in the week of the successful Olympic bid.

[Rob]

I'd accept Gove's point that Clarke is better known, but being well known doesn't always translate into being well liked, and the fact that the public know and like Ken Clarke is something that shouldn't be overlooked as not important.

What I find interesting is that David Davis has been one of this country's most senior opposition spokesmen for four years and is neither well known or well liked.

[Disraeli]

I think the argument about recognition linking to popularity is pretty limited and represent clutching at straws by supporters of candidates who come nowhere near Ken's popularity rating. Ken has been largely off our TV screens for years whereas the likes of Liam Fox (for the past 8 years) and David Davis (the past 4 years) have been a regular presence on TV news. If this has not increased their popularity or public recognition then shouldn't we be asking why? Michael Howard was well known but still a deeply unpopular leader. The same could be said, after they had become leader, for IDS and HAgue.

Ken was the most popular candidate in 1997 when most of the other candidates were at least as well known and was more popular than Portillo in 2001. Isn't it time we grasped the obvious and realised that Ken represents easily our best chance of actually gaining power next time round?

[James Hellyer]

"being well known doesn't always translate into being well liked"

... but if you only recognise one name on the list, that's the one you plump for. Ken Clarke is that one name.

[James Hellyer]

"I think the argument about recognition linking to popularity is pretty limited and represent clutching at straws by supporters of candidates who come nowhere near Ken's popularity rating."

I think you're the one clutching at straws. Ken Clarke gets picked because he's the former Chancellor whom the media likes to lend coverage to. Moreoever as the most left leaning candidate, he is naturally most popular with Liberal and Labour supporters who would never vote Conservative no matter who the leader was.

Michael Howard was known and unpopular, but in a line up of most of the Shadow Cabinet would still have topped the poll simply because people wouldn't have known who the others were.

There's nothing strange in this. Polls have shown most people can't name the Cabinet, never mind the Shadow Cabinet.

The real question isn't who people recognise and respond to today, it's who is best suited to lead us into a general election in 2009 or 2010.

[Disraeli]

Well, I cannot recall a single poll where the recognisable Mr Howard came top of a 'best potential Tory leader poll.' You also do not address the question of why the likes of Davis and Fox are still apparently not recognised despite years of sustained media coverage.

Personally, I think that the future of our party as a party of government is at stake in the next few years. Taking the gamble that somebody will become popular once elected (the same flawed argument was used about IDS and Hague) is not a gamble our party can take in this precarious state. We need to pick the man who is nest placed, on all known form, to lead us back into Government which is, after all, what the Conservative Party is or.

[James Hellyer]

Here's what Anthony Wells at the UK Polling Report has to say:

"Both polls found - as all previous polls have - that Ken Clarke was far and away the most popular candidate amongst the general public, most due to the fact that he the only candidate with broad public recognition...

...ICM found that 20% of people said that they would be more likely to vote Conservative if Ken Clarke was leader, with only 8% less likely to vote Tory. In contrast only 7% said they would be more likely to vote Tory under David Davis’s leadership, while 10% said they would be less likely.

"I always view figures like this with some scepticism - how many of those people saying they are more likely to vote Tory vote Tory anyway? How many of those people saying they would be more likely to vote Tory would actually vote Tory, or are they just using the question to express a preference for Ken? Either way, it does suggest that the idea of a Ken Clarke leadership would win more votes than the idea of a David Davis leadership. The reality of a Clarke or David leadership would not necessarily have the same effect."

http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php

So... sceptical but not dismissive.

[Rob]

James - It's true that the public would be unlikely to be able to name the whole Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet, but there should always be "stars" who are able to have some kind of resonance with the public. Hadn't the public all heard of Prescott, Cook, Straw, Beckett and Brown before '97? If Liam Fox and David Davis are not well known by now, I'd have to wonder if they ever will be. David Cameron can be excused, being fairly new to the Shadow Cabinet.

"He is naturally most popular with Liberal and Labour supporters who would never vote Conservative no matter who the leader was"

Isn't it disingenuous to say he appeals only to people who wouldn't vote Tory anyway - the polls today show that the net effect of his leadership is that 12% of those surveyed would be more likely to vote Conservative.

[James Hellyer]

"Well, I cannot recall a single poll where the recognisable Mr Howard came top of a 'best potential Tory leader poll.'"

I never said he did. Clearly you weren't paying attention...

There were no polls on potential leaders while Howard was leader, because there was no prospective leadership contest. However, if he was placed alongside his shadow cabinet he would have been the one picked out, as he was the one people knew (see the amazingly Howard-centric election campaign).

"You also do not address the question of why the likes of Davis and Fox are still apparently not recognised despite years of sustained media coverage."

Actually I did. People do not recognise politicians. Most people cannot name members of the cabinet. It therefore follows that members of the Shadow Cabinet would be similarly unknown.

It's also extremely disingeneous for you to claim that these people have had years of "sustained media coverage." Appearing on the Today programme or Newsnight does not equate to huge media exposure. It equates to exposure to people who are already interested in current affairs, and would therefore likely know who you are anyway.

"We need to pick the man who is nest placed, on all known form, to lead us back into Government which is, after all, what the Conservative Party is or."

So in 1992, you'd have recommended the Labour Party sent for Lord Healey...

[James Hellyer]

"Isn't it disingenuous to say he appeals only to people who wouldn't vote Tory anyway"

Isn't it disingeneous to add the qualifier "only" and then claim I used it?

"the polls today show that the net effect of his leadership is that 12% of those surveyed would be more likely to vote Conservative."

How many of those vote Conservative anyway? How many are more likely to vote Conservative, but that more likley still translates to *never*?

"should always be "stars" who are able to have some kind of resonance with the public."

I refer you again to the Howard-centric media representation of the party over the last 18 months.

Really all this is, is an example of soap opera politics. People are arguing that we should pick a leader on the grounds that some polls *now* show that he's popular, and hope that successful and popular policies will flow from there.

This is really putting the cart several miles ahead of the horse! We need to decide what we represent and then argue for it with conviction. As Ken Clarke himself said, people value authenticity in their politicians. Surely then it's the greatest folly to decide our future based not on conviction, but on the superficial grounds of what polls say?

[Selsdon Man]

It would more helpful if polls focused on who swing voters would support.

It is likely, statistically, that most of the +12% ( at least two thirds) for Clarke are swing voters. Theoretically that would take the Party up to, or even over, 40% support in the country.

These polls cannot be ignore and they are likely to have an impact on any members poll. Many Party members and MPs are fed up with Opposition and are hungry for power.

The Party, to the public, would appear stupid to reject a candidate with a huge lead in public support. The other candidates will need to raise their game - fast!

[Selsdon Man]

I should add that recognition, if positive, is extremely important. That is why advertising agencies hire celebrities to promote products and brands. It is also why political parties seek celebrity endorsement.

If any candidate is geniunely popular with the public, the Party brand can expect an immediate boost. It will become associated with the personality of the leader - just as Blair's and Brown's personalities are key to the fortunes of Labour.

The major issue is whether Ken's popularity is temporary (linked to his campaign and Iraq stance) or can be maintained. It is vital that polls are run throughout the campaign to tackle that issue.

In the meantime, the other candidates must reveal more about their personalities to the public rather than focus on communicating policies to MPs and the Party (preaching to the choir as the Americans say)

[EU Serf]

Ken is not a Conservative, he is a big Government Europhile, which is not at all representative of the party's core beliefs.

He may well be able to win an election, but you really have to say, WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT? We may as well let Labour continue.

[John G]

If I understand James' point, he's saying that this poll has no validity because those who effectively supported Clarke are not Tory voters and therefore should not be expected to vote Conservative in a general election.

Leaving aside all the disingenuity that's going on, I think that that is a flawed argument. The Tories have plateaued on 30% of the vote for 10 years now. We need a leader that other parties' supporters will be more likely to vote for. A poll shows that KC is that man and it's immediately derided.

I also don't think James has fully accepted the point of media exposure. If the same poll was taken, only MH substituted for KC, I bet he would score worse than DD, DC, LF or anyone. As otherrs have said, the media exposure helps, but only helps if the man is liked. MH's self-centred campaign, which has been referred to, did nothing to boost his personal image.

I'm not saying Ken is the best man for the job. In some ways, people have fallen for his bloke-ish narrative, even while we all complain that DD's narrative needs to be fleshed with substance. But if KC can begin to articulate real ideas - maybe in partnership with Willetts - this poll suggests that he would be a formidable opponent for Labour and the Lib Dems. I think to dismiss it becuase you don't like the outcome is absurd.

[James Hellyer]

"If I understand James' point, he's saying that this poll has no validity because those who effectively supported Clarke are not Tory voters and therefore should not be expected to vote Conservative in a general election."

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying Clarke is buoyed by left leaning supporters of the Liberals and Labour, who pick him as the least objectionable Conservative candidate, but nevertheless still would never vote for him. I've not generalises that to all of his support, that's what other people have disingeneously done to try and ignore that point.

"Leaving aside all the disingenuity that's going on"

You mean the misrepresentation of my points?

"I think that that is a flawed argument"

Good, because it wan't mine.

"We need a leader that other parties' supporters will be more likely to vote for."

No, we need a leader that doesn't alienate our core support and also appeals to swing voters.

"I also don't think James has fully accepted the point of media exposure. If the same poll was taken, only MH substituted for KC, I bet he would score worse than DD, DC, LF or anyone."

I think you missed the point entirely. Michael Howard would still have scored more highly than his Shadow Cabinet, even though people didn't like him, because people do not know who members of the Shadow Cabinet are. Indeed Davis has only got noticed now because of the iminent leadership election and a few high profile issues in his brief. That wasn't the case previously.

But feel free to insist that polls that weren't conducted would have shown that people with single figure recognition figures would have scored more highly than anyone who was known.

[James Hellyer]

"I think to dismiss it becuase you don't like the outcome is absurd."

I think it's absurd to start from the position that polls should dictate what the parties do. We tried that in May, remember...

[James Hellyer]

Further comments from Anthony at the UK Polling Report:

"...as I said in the longer Ken post I made last week, there are three reasons for Ken’s good showing in polls like this (1) his greater recognition, (2) he is likely to be the favoured candidate of voters on the left (though that isn’t to underestimate the vital importance of voters in the centre ground) (3) genuine likeability.

"That said, the recognition factor cannot be underestimated here - there is quite simply not a level playing field. If we assume that 80% of respondents have a vague idea of who Ken is, then half of them think he’s the best leader. Say only 6% of the sample have a clue who David Cameron is, if he then gets 4% of the total poll, then assuming that none of those who’ve never heard of him would pick him, that actually means that two-thirds of those who know who he is think he’s the best leader. What would such a hypothetical poll show?"

http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php?p=484

[malcolm]

No EU Serf. Whichever leader is elected a Conservative goverment will be preferable to the current rabble for a multitude of reasons.
Despite Blairs best efforts we don't yet live under a presidency and Clarke would find it extraordinairily difficult to maintain a Europhile agenda as unlike the Major years we are an overwhelmingly Eurosceptic party.
Our relationship with the EU is an important issue,it is not the ONLY issue.

[James Hellyer]

"Clarke would find it extraordinairily difficult to maintain a Europhile agenda as unlike the Major years we are an overwhelmingly Eurosceptic party."

That's true. If Clarke tried to pursue a federalist agenda... well, it would be like Major vs the bastards with brass knobs on.

[malcolm]

James,I think it would be more like Clarke versus the rest of his cabinet,most of the Parliamentary Party including the whips,the vast majority of constituency chairmen and almost all the activists.In other words it ain't going to happen.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

James, I really think you need to let this one go - the result of the poll is as clear as the area between George Bush's ears.

No matter how much spin you use to dismiss the outcome, the facts are that Ken's proportion of the votes was four times as big as Davis, ten times as big as Cameron and he outscored all his rivals put together by 17% (Ken 40%; others 23%)!

I accept that what you say about recognition factor, support from people who like Ken but won't vote Conservative, etc has some validity, but surely even you will admit that the factors you point out do not wholly {sic?} contribute to the outcome of the poll?

As an aside, interesting to see the Cameronites (Gove, Robathan et al) cranking up the volume on their stuck record yet again in response to the poll result.

At least Rifkind has finally had the good sense to do something interesting (his tour of the country, visiting marginals and areas where Conservatives have struggled) rather than play the same Clarke-response card again.

[a-tracy]

My colleague said that he thought Ken Clarke should lead the Conservatives and I was amazed at his U-turn as he actually voted UKIP in the European Election in 2004. When I queried his support of a pro-european candidate he said "is he?" Personality wise, and with the benefit of immediate recognition - a friendly face - a good narrator and an extremely good speech writer (United in our determination to defeat terrorism) he could pull it off.

The die hard Labour supporters that celebrated Blair winning them the election were soon po-faced when he supported pfi, semi private purchasing of NHS services, foundation hospitals and top up fees. What makes you think Mr Clarke isn't simply telling people what they want to hear.

[Selsdon Man]

As a free-marketeer, like EU serf, I have many reservations about Ken Clarke's past views.

Having studied and worked im marketing for many years, IMO it is impossible to dimiss the results of the poll.

Polls should not dictate what we do but public opinion should not be dismissed. Statistically, only one third of those polled by Newsnight would be Conservatives. Therefore a minimum of 8% (two thirds of Ken's net of 12%) say that they would be more likely to vote Conservative. That is very significant.

It may be that a "Stop Ken" coalition emerges (rather than "Stop Davis") to try to halt the Clarke bandwaggon. Who should that candidate be - Davis, Fox or even William Hague?