The week it didn't happen for Ken Clarke

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK

“The last week started well for Ken Clarke and got better and better.  On Saturday a YouGov poll showed him level-pegging with David Davis amongst members.  Then, in Sunday’s newspapers, four of the new parliamentary intake announced that they were backing the former Chancellor.  He jumped into second place in the list of public parliamentary backers.  Suddenly a Ken Clarke leadership looked possible; even likely.  Two days later all his efforts to woo David Willetts bore fruit.  The most sought-after endorsement in the leadership race landed in Ken’s lap.  A rattled David Davis appeared on TV saying that Ken Clarke’s Europhilia made him an "absolutely unacceptable" Tory leader for the Tory party.  The tactic backfired and the next day’s newspapers included reports that some of Davis’ moderate backers were considering jumping ship…”

Only sentence two in that paragraph is true but I’ve tried to describe the scenario that Ken Clarke’s campaign team needed to engineer.  It had certainly been what they had hoped for.  Yesterday’s Evening Standard reported: "We are 90 per cent confident [David Willetts] will come to us. A lot of work has been done in that direction. We really need a big-name new supporter from the Right and, although a moderniser, David is a Right-winger by instinct and intellect".  For two weeks Team Clarke have run a superb campaign but it has yielded very little…

No endorsements from any new MPs…
No David Willetts endorsement…
No panic from the Davis camp…

David Davis (+5) looks stronger today than at any time since this leadership election began.  I award him the top prize for this week and a zero to Ken Clarke.  The main reason for David Davis’ strength, however, is because none of the other candidates are making significant progress:

• Dr Fox (+1) is presenting many good ideas but is not demonstrating that he’d be substantially different from David Davis.  He attacked Ken Clarke last weekend but it is Mr Davis' campaign he really needs to wound if he is to make progress.  Cornerstone Edward Leigh MP's suggestion that he may run is not helpful to Dr Fox (or, for that matter, to Cornerstone's own influence on the race).
• David Cameron’s campaign (no change) still lacks a compelling theme and a leader in today’s Times suggests that he proves himself in the next fortnight or does a ‘Willetts’.
• Malcolm Rifkind gave an excellent speech on one nation last night but his campaign (-2) is going all around the country but nowhere in particular and may, it is reported, have attracted an ancient Scottish curse!
• And Ken Clarke could split the Conservative Party from top-to-bottom.  On tax, Europe, the family and Iraq he is not in step with mainstream conservatism.  As Bruce Anderson writes in this week’s Spectator:

“Throughout his long career in the Tory party he has never given the impression of holding his fellow Tories in a high regard. He was one of a small group of Heathites who believed that they could capture their party in a euro-coup and use it as a vehicle to lead Britain into a European federation. For 40 years he has been on the wrong side of the biggest question in British politics. That may qualify him for political leadership, but not in the Tory party. A former jewel thief should not expect to become the head of security for De Beers.  The second great issue facing the next Tory government will be the public services. How can we ensure that they actually serve the public, and that every pound spent by the government on the taxpayers’ behalf delivers the same value for money as the taxpayer secures for himself at his local supermarket? Again, there is no easy answer. But Ken Clarke served in government for many years without even trying. Recently, he has been telling us that he abhors ideology. He really means that he has no interest in ideas.”

None of this means that David Davis clearly deserves the leadership.  Wednesday's IPPR speech was solid but he’s yet to inspire.  Many observers – me included – find DW’s blessing (explained in today's Times) very reassuring.  We worry about the people around DD and the thought that DW will be sat at the top table is heartening.  But DD still hasn’t answered Alastair Campbell’s fair criticism that no Tory leadership contender has yet built “a coherent long-term strategy to change party and country”.  Perhaps DW can help DD find it?  Perhaps one of the other candidates can produce it?

Something special is going to be needed to stop David Davis now.  A grand alliance between Cameron and Fox?   Between Clarke and Cameron?

Team Ken will hope, of course, to get to the final two and beat Davis.  This, unexpectedly, looks much more possible if grassroots members choose between the final two.  My guess, however, is that although KC will be more competitive than in 2001 the race won’t end up as close as 48%-45%.  William Hague, still very popular amongst the grassroots, and other heavyweights of recent years, will swallow their doubts about Mr Davis and stop the party falling into the hands of a candidate who is doveish on terror and wrong on Europe.  This week has been a significant week. 

Join ConservativeHome's mailing list

Enter your name and email address below:

Name:
Email:
Subscribe Unsubscribe

Comments

[Selsdon Man]

"A rattled David Davis appeared on TV saying that Ken Clarke’s Euroscepticism made him an "absolutely unacceptable" Tory leader for the Tory party"

Did you not mean Europhilia, Ed?

[Editor]

Corrected, Selsdon Man!

[James Hellyer]

I'm not convinced Ken Clarke will even make it to the final two candidates. As I've said before, of the 59 MPs who backed him in 2001, 10 have left the Commons and 12 have endorsed other candidates already. Moreover he has no declarations from the latest intake of MPs and attracted only Boris Johnson from the '01 intake last time around (and he's lost him now).

We have to be careful not to confuse media coverage with actual support. After all, it's only a few weeks since the media was claiming it was a Cameron vs Davis run off.

[Selsdon Man]

Your analysis is spot on, Ed.

DDs pro-Europe backers may look for an excuse to return to Ken. Several of DD's MP backers may vote tactically for Fox to try to eliminate Clarke from a members vote. That could be a risky tactic.

[Peter C Glover]

I think this is quite the best assessment I have read at any stage of this ludicrously prtoracted leadership race.

The Cinderella Man (Ken) may well have shot his best bolt (so much for the Telegraph's implicit support of him). Though I have much time for Edward Leigh's Cornerstone paper I think his chances would be less than George Galloway's at a Republican Convention.

David Davis is, almost by default, as well as 'true conservative' reason the best man.

Yet, and I say this with heavy heart, David Willett's assertion that he is th eonly to 'ensure' a Tory victory will perhaps prove somewhat wide of the mark in practice (though I hope not).

[Peter]

You still forgetting James that their are still 16 first round Clarke supporters out their still to declare. Whatever you may say about Ken he does have a nasty habit of picking up support from in terms of MPs the "undeclared".
The point know through in terms of David Davis is what will the 20 odd IDS supporters do in terms of voting for him or not?

[James Hellyer]

"You still forgetting James that their are still 16 first round Clarke supporters out their still to declare"

26 final round supporters actually. As the rest of his vote has from 2001 has fragmented, I see no reason why we should think that all of those MPs will still support him.

[Wat Tyler]

Yes, I know I'd say this wouldn't I, but I completely agree with you Ed.

The Times leader effectively calling on Rifkind, Fox and Cameron to withdraw is interesting- especially given the Times' previous support for Cameron. Opinion at DDFL is split on this- I think it would be good for the party if they did so before the Conference; others think it will benefit DD's bid if they stay in sniping away at Ken.

[James Hellyer]

In fairness Wat, the Times did say that Dr Fox had more troops on the ground than the others. It just called on him to unviel more parliamentary support to prove his credentials.

Of course, the real people it should have called time on were Lansley, May and Leigh. I mean... what is the point of them?

[Simon C]

"The Times leader effectively calling on Rifkind, Fox and Cameron to withdraw is interesting".

Err, Wat, that's not quite what The Times said about Liam:

"Dr Fox appears to have more troops and is a vigorous politician. But he too has to show that he has the secure votes of at least 30 MPs before the party conference opens or he will not, ultimately, be the successor to Michael Howard."

That seems to me to be recognition of his qualities, but making the obvious point that he needs to get some more support from other MPs.

[EU Serf]

Calling on Cameron to drop out is unfair. Two weeks ago he was firmly in second place.

If Ken's campaign is as lacking in foundations as some of us think it may be (BBC and Guardian support but lack of real support in parliament & party) then he could soon be in the number two position again.

[James Hellyer]

"Calling on Cameron to drop out is unfair. Two weeks ago he was firmly in second place."

In the sense that he had a couple more endorsements than Liam Fox, yes. But like Clarke was a candidate whose prominence was created by the media who wanted a simple Davis vs. A.N. Other contest to report.

[Peter]

No James First round actually as I said in my post. That support is more than likely to stay with thoughout his campaign like it did last time.

[James Hellyer]

Peter, there isn't a list of how everyone voted in the first round. Of those who did declare their support at that stage in 2001, most have either backed Clarke already or left the Commons. Of his 59 final ballot supporters, 26 still haven't declared.

[Wat Tyler]

I certainly don't have anything against Doc Fox- I've just read the splendid speech he gave to the CPS this week. But DD is my choice and is streets ahead of the Doc on any measure you care to take.

The brutal fact is that Doc has just 10 declared supporters and no obvious momentum. So when the Times says "he too has to show that he has the secure votes of at least 30 MPs before the party conference opens", I think we can interpret that as a polite suggestion that he withdraw.

[Wat Tyler]

And as for "People do not perceive me as dull, not in the slightest" Rifkind, he should withdraw before he embarrasses himself any further.

[James Hellyer]

"The brutal fact is that Doc has just 10 declared supporters and no obvious momentum."

What one less declared supporter than Clarke, a steadily increasing poll rating and favourable coverage from News International equals "no obvious momentum"?

The Fox camp are aware of the need for more MPs to declare soon... and they will

[James Hellyer]

"And as for "People do not perceive me as dull, not in the slightest" Rifkind, he should withdraw before he embarrasses himself any further."

No he shouldn't! He serves a useful purpose in tying up the votes of five to ten people who may otherwise back Ken Clarke.

[John H]

I've not seen anything yet to suggest that David Davis wants to lead the Tory party for any reason other than that he wants to lead the Tory party.

If Conservative MPs and activists think that Davis is the man to lead them to mainstream acceptance and electability then I suspect they may be dreaming. Has it occurred to anyone that the reason Davis is leading a fairly lacklustre campaign is not because the contest is his to lose so he's being cautious, but because he's actually a fairly lacklustre candidate?

In fact, he reminds me of John Kerry - the none-of-the-above, when-the-music-stops candidate. And Kerry has more chance of becoming President even now than Davis has of ever being Prime Minister.

But to be honest, I no longer have a dog in this race. I voted Conservative for the first time in a general election this year, but watching the farcical chaos since then is one of the factors that has got me re-rethinking my position and heading back towards the left.

[Editor]

Out of interest: 'What made you vote for Michael Howard's Tories, John H?'

[Jonathan Sheppard]

John - a very harsh analysis of Dabis. Why exactly do you think he cannot take the party forward? I have posted many times about the fact that he has performed extremely well in his Shadow Home Office post.

One criticism pushed forward was that his leadership would lead to factionalism within the party - yet the Willetts support shows how Davis appeals to a broad spectrum of Conservatives.

I always get concerned when people say they wont vote for a party because of a leader. I can partially understand it when the leader if Prime Minister - as they can be judged on their record - and that of the Government they head - but surely not on a possible party leader who has is not yet in post?

Surely you also take into account policies as well - and these really haven't been set out in enough detail to judge.

[John H]

Well, I was holding my nose a bit, and wasn't that unhappy with the result - slashed Labour majority, a Conservative opposition that (if not quite resurgent) was at least heading in a positive direction, with the opportunity for Michael Howard to continue shaping the recovery before handing over to.... oh. Oops.

But I had been moving rightwards for about three or four years, for a whole manner of reasons. Here's what I wrote on the day of the European/local elections in 2004 (see http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com/2004/06/taking-plunge.html):

This is the first time I've had the opportunity to vote since the 2001 General Election. At that time it was simple: as a Labour supporter for the whole of my adult life, I voted Lib Dem as a tactical vote to "keep the Tories out" (to no avail: the Conservative MP retained his seat by 269 votes). I rejoiced when the Conservatives were obliterated in the 1997 election; I danced on their graves in 2001. My only quarrel with New Labour was that it wasn't left-wing enough.

Since then I've experienced a, um, how can I put this, change in assumptions. For reasons I won't bore y'all with, I now find my political preferences lie as follows: smaller government; lower taxes; less regulation, especially of businesses; a moderate, but definite, Euroscepticism (including an implacable opposition to the euro and to the European Constitution); and an antipathy bordering on rage towards Labour's constitutional vandalism, their assaults on ancient freedoms (whether that be jury trials or hunting), and their policy of firehosing money at public services in a way which does nothing but increase the pro-Labour payroll vote stoke public sector inflation (now running at 7%, compared with 1% for the productive part of the economy). In short, I'm pretty estranged from the current government on virtually any issue you care to mention. Except Iraq, and even there I'm sick of the incompetence, manipulation and outright lies that have characterised Labour's approach to the war.

So you can see that the Conservatives really did have the opportunity to get me for life, the way I was thinking at that stage. I'm not saying I'd disagree with all of that now, but I couldn't write that today.

But I'm still subscribed to the Spectator, even if I have switched back to the Guardian as my daily paper. So perhaps not all hope is lost. ;-)

[Selsdon Man]

It appears that the Times no longer loves Cameron and has an anti-Scottish bias - looks like it will endorse Ken.

[John H]

Jonathan - I'm not sure that policies or personalities are as important as the overall philosophy of a party. I was finding that Conservative philosophy attractive - just as I found, and still find, the New Labour "philosophy" profoundly unattractive, whatever it may be - and was, if anything, disappointed at the lack of radical policies that reflected that philosophy. I'm now less sure about the philosophy itself, but disillusionment at the behaviour of the Amazing Disappearing Opposition hasn't helped.

Anyway, I'm not saying my harsh opinion of Davis is justified, I'm just saying that that's what my opinion is - as a politically aware, thirtysomething, higher-rate taxpaying professional with two children approaching school age. In other words, just the sort of person who should be a shoo-in for the Conservatives. I'm willing to hear the man out, but so far I've really not heard very much of any interest from him.

Even his laudable opposition to ID cards is tainted by the pre-election yes vote "in principle" by the Tories, and an over-focus on money and technology concerns rather than the fundamental principles of personal freedom and opposition to "the database state".

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Selsdon - do you really think The Times will defy Murdoch to support Ken?