"Ken Clarke has nothing to prove. He has been Education Secretary, Health Secretary, Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is clear that he is uniquely qualified to lead our party. Ken is the candidate best placed to confront Brown and Blair and to restore trust in Conservative economic management. For years the wider electorate has told us that Ken Clarke should be the leader of our party and Prime Minister of our country. We should not ignore them again."
With those words Andrew Lansley, Shadow Health Secretary, has just declared for Ken Clarke. He met members of his constituency association on Friday night and their clear hope, Mr Lansley reported, was that they would be able to choose between David Cameron and Ken Clarke in the final round.
He has personally chosen Mr Clarke because of his popular appeal and his ability to challenge Gordon Brown on the economy. He dismissed today's polls which suggest that David Cameron is best placed to close the poll gap on Labour. More important, he said, is Ken Clarke's long-established record of being a vote-winner. David Cameron and David Davis had both been favourites but were untested compared to Ken Clarke who had "bankable" popularity and experience.
Earlier today, on BBC1's Politics Show, Mr Clarke said that he was the obvious person to support if the Conservative Party wants to appeal to floating voters. At the start of the contest he said that he was four times more popular than his nearest rival for the leadership. His popularity advantage still stands at two-and-a-half to three times, he claimed. KC, too, thinks that a Cameron versus Clarke run-off would make for the best final round. Conservative activists would then be able to choose between himself who has the undoubted experience to be Prime Minister and David Cameron who has the most potential (of the other candiates) to occupy 10 Downing Street. The Lansley-Clarke hope for a Cameron-Clarke run-off seems to be the preference of voters in conservativehome.com's unscientific online poll. At this time of posting 48% would support David Cameron in Tuesday's first round; 25% would support Ken Clarke. Punters at William Hill, however, have put their money on Mr Clarke being the first to be rejected by Tory MPs in Tuesday's ballot.
During the Politics Show interview Mr Clarke was asked about policy. He emphasised his opposition to the Iraq war, his economic credentials and his support for Lords reform. Trying to explain his failure to win many supporters amongst the 2005 intake he (probably unhelpfully for his prospects) suggested that new MPs were more influenced by the newspapers. Longer-serving MPs had seen his skills at first-hand and were more likely to back him.
Surprising really… still I don’t expect any of this to stop Clark being the first out on Tuesday with the vast majority of his support switching to “young David”… what is more interesting is what Fox will do assuming he gets into the second round but does not succeed in detaching sufficient right wingers from Davis to get into the final two… while the fact that most of Fox’s support will flow to Davis is undeniable, its still possible that Fox himself would endorse Cameron with whom he has better relations than Davis.
Posted by: Owenite Adrift | 16 October 2005 at 15:50
Hello SDP man. I agree with you. Fox will survive round one but will lose round 2 and then back DC, not DD.
Posted by: Editor | 16 October 2005 at 15:53
Why should anyone be surprised by anything that happens when the flame of hope is rekindled?
Posted by: pigmalion | 16 October 2005 at 16:01
We Owneites are lonely breed these days :( , mostly sitting on the left of the Tory Party or just off its edge… the Labour Party remains far too institutionally authoritarian and too far to the left (is there a problem in society that can’t be solved by more money or a new “program” in the mind of Gordon Brown?) while the LibDem’s have been reduced to an opportunistic aping of “old Labour” in order to win votes…
…at the same time some issues place me to the right of many Owenites, I’m a practising Catholic with the social values that often go along with my faith and I’m an Atlantist as opposed to a pro-European…sooner or later I’ll jump one way or another I suppose.
Posted by: Owenite Adrift | 16 October 2005 at 16:09
If you a religious Atlantist then the man for you is Dr Fox - many people 'label' Foxy as being right wing, but this doesnt represent what he actually stands for, this compassionate man would help all people in Britain, protect people's right to faith and bring us closer to America than Europe.
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | 16 October 2005 at 17:27
And there I was thinking the Owenites had been embraced and squeezed dry by Blair........why even Roger Liddle had to move on from No10 to be Peter Mandelson's butler in Brussels
Posted by: Rick | 16 October 2005 at 18:19
" Fox will survive round one but will lose round 2 and then back DC, not DD."
Round 2 could be closer than you think. LF is not involved in the drugs furore and may pick up floating voters who are dismayed by this week's events.
Posted by: | 16 October 2005 at 18:39
As a former Tory voter now with the LibDems I really hope for your sake that KC wins. Knowing recent history though, the wrong man will once again take it (ie: anyone but Clarke). It's funny (and slightly embarrassing) seeing so many of you fall for a 15 minute wonder. Only with Clarke will I vote blue again.
Posted by: Max | 16 October 2005 at 18:40
"Only with Clarke will I vote blue again."
That's the sort of remark that sums up what's wrong with British politics. If a change of leader is enough to make you swap your vote, then your attitudes must be entirely superficial. We are not talking about personality cults, but rather political parties. Ken Clarke wouldn't radically change what the party stands for. There might be a difference of emphasis or tone, but no great sea change in policies.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 16 October 2005 at 18:46
"As a former Tory voter now with the LibDems I really hope for your sake that KC wins. "
But would you vote Tory again if Ken wins?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 16 October 2005 at 18:47
Owenite adrift sounds like he is looking for an excuse to join the Conservatives. Go on, do it. After all Danny Finkelstein and his cronies did!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 16 October 2005 at 18:52
After all, being a former SDP member isn't a bar to heading up the Conservative Research Department!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 16 October 2005 at 18:56
From my experience, not voting Conservative wasn't a bar to being in Conservative Research Department
Posted by: Cutting taxes win elections | 16 October 2005 at 19:01
Was it a prerequisite? It would explain a lot.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 16 October 2005 at 19:13
Liam Fox may back DC if he gets knocked out in the second round, but it won't matter a fig. He'll have just one vote, like the rest of us.
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 16 October 2005 at 19:25
Personally I thought that David Davis was given a very rough ride by Jonathan Dimbleby. There seemed to be a clear attempt to try to discredit him, by implying that he was criticising David Cameron for not answering the drugs question. Davis actually weathered the storm very well, and when he was asked to lay out his policies, he made it clear that he believed in lower taxes and continuing with the choice agenda in education and the NHS. Over all it was a strong performance.
Posted by: Derek | 16 October 2005 at 19:49
James, surely it doesn't matter why voters return to the Conservatives, just that they do !
Why do we seem to need to have political purity from our members and supporters ?
The Lib Dems do pretty well without having purity, ideology or many policies that anyone can actually remember. But they have taken our County Council and have 3 out of 5 MPs in Somerset.
We should stuff purity and concentrate on winning votes. KC is still best placed to do that for us.
Posted by: Bob | 16 October 2005 at 19:55
We should stuff purity and concentrate on winning votes.
Seriously, I never understand that sort of assertion. Why should you bother to get a party elected if it ends up not representing any of your own views, values or priorities?
Posted by: Michael Smith | 16 October 2005 at 20:04
The Lib Dems do pretty well without having purity, ideology or many policies that anyone can actually remember. But they have taken our County Council and have 3 out of 5 MPs in Somerset.
Today, Somerset, tomorrow the world!
They have 62 MPs, we have 198. They have 40 local councils, we have 150.
I think I'll stick to purity, if that's what opportunism brings.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 16 October 2005 at 20:23
I wouldn't be surprised if Clarke squeezed through. Although Fox is running him close, Cornerstone are not going to vote for him (Fox) en bloc (though he can probably count on at least a plurality). Clarke probably has a lot of undeclared support - in 2001, he received more votes from undeclared supporters than declared ones in the final ballot. Lansley and Rifkind are serious figures whose endorsements are major assets: in terms of "big names", Clarke has done pretty well.
Let's just keep our fingers crossed for a Davis meltdown and that wished-for Cameron-Clarke run-off :).
Posted by: alexw | 16 October 2005 at 22:54
Clarke vs Cameron?
My Lord. What an awful choice. Clarke it is then...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 16 October 2005 at 22:57
A Clarke-Cameron run off simply won't happen. In the event of a Davis meltdown it is a sure thing that Fox will make the final round.
Posted by: Richard Allen | 16 October 2005 at 23:00
"Why should you bother to get a party elected if it ends up not representing any of your own views, values or priorities?"
Even a Conservative leader not from your wing of the Party will still reflect more of your own values and views than not. Your chances of your views getting a hearing are better with a lousy, unsound Conservative government, than the most competent Labour one. Isn't that the principle that motivates Party members at election time, regardless of who the leader is?
I would respectfully suggest that the idea that the leader of a major party will reflect all the views of all its members all the time is slightly unrealistic.
Posted by: Alexander Drake | 17 October 2005 at 09:31
I would respectfully suggest that the idea that the leader of a major party will reflect all the views of all its members all the time is slightly unrealistic.
Thank you for that false argument, Alexander. As I had not suggested thatthe leader or the party should represent all the views of its members, your reply is magnificently irrelevant.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 10:18
Richard, the scenario would unfold as follows: Davis is beaten by Cameron in round one, with Clarke third and Fox fourth. Davis goes into meltdown, with former Clarkeites heading home and the Cameron bandwagon picking up Davis waverers. Fox's vote splits between Cameron and Davis, but this is insufficient to save Davis from a narrow edging out by Clarke, with Cameron miles out front.
It is possible, but admittedly a little far-fetched!
Posted by: alexw | 17 October 2005 at 10:21