More momentum for Ken

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK

Liam Fox (+2) has had a better week and should be delighted at getting generous treatment from this morning's Sun.  Of all the candidates he comes closest to conservativehome's And Theory Of Conservatism.  Dr Fox is combining Euroscepticism with a commitment to a genuinely global Conservative foreign policy (emphasising human rights and the environment, for example).  He is tough on crime but also aware of the role that strong families play in helping vulnerable young people to exit from the conveyor belt to crime.  It's a thoughtful balance of faithfulness to core Tory beliefs with an awareness of the need to broaden the party's appeal.  Commentators on this blog have been right, however, to point out that Dr Fox hasn't provided much detail on any policy front.  The human rights group, for example, hasn't been heard from since it was launched.   Also worrying is that he could only announce two new parliamentary endorsements for his big launch day.  He promises more announcements and they need to emerge reasonably soon if he is going to have a hope of being in the final two of this contest.

David Cameron (-2) has had another disappointing week.  There have been concerns about his attitude to drugs and there have been no new endorsements from parliamentarians.  A letter to the FT from senior businessleaders was good news but the endorsement letter from unsuccessful candidates to Wednesday's Telegraph verged on the platitudinous.  "We need a leader who will set out a Conservative vision for Britain and build wide support for that vision, " the letter stated, "David Cameron is young, intelligent and charismatic. He is a modern, compassionate Conservative who understands the challenges of our age and is on the way up, rather than on the way down."  Such mush wouldn't matter if his campaign had a strong theme but it doesn't.   Mr Cameron needs more of the boldness that characterised his Iraq intervention and of the kind displayed by his friend and supporter, George 'flat tax' Osborne.

Although courted by other leadership contenders David Willetts (-3) has had another invisible week.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind (-1) has embarked on a nationwide tour but has done nothing to break into the front rank of leadership contenders.

Ken Clarke (+5) is my 'winner of the week' again.  Surveys have found that he is very popular with the public and enjoys a, perhaps, surprising level of support amongst Tory Association Chairmen.  I understand that there is a divide in the Clarke campaign between those who think that their candidate will do best amongst MPs or best amongst the rank-and-file in the constituencies.  I fear that Clarke may do very well amongst the rank-and-file.  Tory activists don’t like many of Ken Clarke's views but they want his popularity.  Even The Telegraph is warming to Mr Clarke.  The Telegraph's largely left-wing journalistic staff chose a flattering 'Women love him, so do the young - and he scares the pants off Labour' headline for the newspaper's Wednesday interview with the former Chancellor.  After three massive defeats the members of the 'natural party of government' want power again.  They rejected Ken Clarke by about 60%-40% in ’01.  The combination of Europe being less of an issue, Iraq becoming an issue (the war is unpopular with many Tories who see it as 'Blair’s war') and that hunger for power could make a grassroots election very competitive.

I hope David Davis (+1) understands this.  At the moment his campaign is pretty lifeless and yesterday's World at One programme wondered if he had got caught in the slow lane.  His tiptoe steps towards party democracy on Monday and yesterday's critique of Gordon Brown were welcome but he has still not yet done anything to capture the public imagination.  He was right to say (on yesterday's World at One) that this contest is a marathon and not a sprint.  Perhaps he is saving all his inspirational ideas for the real battles of the autumn months?  But we need to see something a little more dramatic and a little more persuasive very soon.

David Aaronovitch, writing for The Times, provided this week's best indictment of Ken Clarke.  Mr Aaronovitch is one of the few left-leaning columnists who understands the importance of fighting the war in Iraq.  He noted that "Clarke is an attractive man, a latterday comfy-bummed Stanley Baldwin; his motto — like Baldwin’s — being “safety first” in a world in which there is no safety."  That line is so worth repeating: “Safety first” in a world in which there is no safety."  'Safety-first' is the wrong foreign policy for Britain.  'Safety-first' may also be the wrong leadership election strategy for David Davis.   Caution may not protect his frontrunner status if Clarke (and maybe others) continue to make such a dramatic impact. 

Comments

[Selsdon Man]

Malcolm, Howard's final polling numbers were worse than IDS's pre-Betsygate. After a good first few months, Howard's personal and the party's ratings plummeted. Take a look at Yougov's political tracking figures.

There is no doubt that Howard worked hard but it is the quality, as much as quantity, of the work that counts.

By his own definition, Howard's leadership was not a success - hence his speedy resignation - and he was the unopposed choice of the MPs.

Performance in the Commons is not a good guide to performance at the polls. It is media performance that is a better guide. Howard's media performance has not been good and that was reflected in his poll ratings and the general election.

The members are a better electorate than MPs - we get feedback from friends, relatives and colleagues rather than the Westminster village.

[Sean Fear]

I'm sure that's not right Selsdon Man. MH was always the clear second choice for PM, according to Yougov, while IDS often came third.

MH did a pretty good job in dire circumstances IMO.

[James Hellyer]

Howard was seen as more substantial political figure than IDS, but under his leadership the Conservatives never recovered their pre-Betsygate levels of support.

Michael Howard did manage to impose discipline on the party, he made us look professional, and he certainly revitalised my interest in politics. Beyond that it's hard to see what he achieved.

The Conservative Party under his leadership never seemed to develop or offer any real vision or senseof conviction. Instead it offered a narrow set of grievances that sounded more like a one note manifesto for opposition then the agenda of a government in waiting.

Admittedly he didn't have much time before the election to set out what he was offering Britain, but even that time seemed wasted as strategy after strategy was still born and rapidly replaced.

It was a terrible shame. Howard was a transformational Home Secretary, and I had hoped he would bring some of that edge to the leadership. As Home Secretary he said what he wanted to do and exactly how he was going to do it. Then he delivered. His leadership never had that sense of purpose.

In the end, Howard failed by own standards.

[Peter Stitt]

I have not voted Conservative since 1992, I am a Thatcherite and want to vote Conservative.

If the Party elects Ken Clarke, I will vote Conservative again.

Need I say more, the man is no weak lefty, he is a man who could be, and should be, our next Prime Minister.

[Jules]

So you base your vote on the leader of a national party, not the polices of a party, or the local candidates and what he or she does?