Ken Clarke might serve the right leader

There have been a few endorsements this afternoon - Douglas Carswell and Bernard Jenkin have both endorsed David Cameron and John Penrose has joined Ken Clarke's list of public backers.  John Penrose is (I think) the first of the 2005 intake to back Mr Clarke.

The hustings of the '92 group are now underway and Ken Clarke has been the first of the four candidates to be grilled.  Interestingly he did not rule out serving the next leader (if his own bid is unsuccessful) - if that leader follows 'the right approach'.  In 1997 and 2001 Mr Clarke ruled out serving his opponents, if he was defeated.  His response could, of course, be merely tactical but let's not be too cynical!

Comments

[kris]

It's do good to see that Mr. Clarke has abandoned the selfish attitude that saw him leave the front benches due to 'sour grapes' in the past. I have no particular liking for Mr. Clarke but he was an excellent chancellor and the party needed him on the front benches during the past 8 years. To my mind, even though i don't want to see him at the helm, he would be an invaluable addition to our frontbench crew.

[Derek]

Presumably he considered the last three leaders were not "right", or perhaps they were too right. I wonder if any of his three opponents would be to his liking. All have espoused eurosceptic views, so my guess is that this is a cynical attempt to appear to be a little more of a team player. I doubt if anyone will be fooled.

[malcolm]

Ken has said that while he turned down a job from Hague in '97 he has not been offered anything since.He also sits on the Advisory Board set up by Michael Howard in 2003.
BTW Didn't DD also reject a shadow cabinet post in '97?

[James Burdett]

Interesting everyone but Davis is getting newbies fairly regularly, just giving more credence to the idea that he has run out of steam....

[greg]

Or that because he looks pretty sure to be in the final 2, that everyone left is intending to use their vote to engineer the favored of their other candidates coming second.

[Sean Fear]

I think David Davis has about one third of the new MPs.

[greg]

Sean i think he meant new declarations, not new mps ;-)

[James Maskell]

I think it would be a great thing to see Clarke involved in the Shadow Cabinet should he not win. As Ive said before, we need all the important people inovlved. For example we need Willets in a strong position as well as persuading William Hague to help out somewhere, even if its just advising the eventual leader. Rifkind perhaps could take a Shadow Cabinet position.

[Elena]

I'd love to see a shadow cabinet comprised of the Tory Party's biggest hitters. Rifkind would be brilliant as Foreign Secretary again.

[James Burdett]

I think every right-thinking Conservative wants a top team comprising of all our formidable talents aimed squarely at the enemy. I think the problem for any leader is going to be how to do that and include the many older talents whilst giving the younger no less talented MP's a reasonable hope of advancement....

[Richard Carey]

"For example we need Willets in a strong position as well as persuading William Hague to help out somewhere, even if its just advising the eventual leader."

Well, some people have expressed concern in comments on this blog that David Cameron would have some big Commons opponents to face across the Despatch Box in Blair and Brown. While I don't necessarily agree that this would be a problem, Hague's particular strength is as a parliamentary performer, and however it translated in the country, PMQs was definitely his renowned area of expertise.

Whether or not he rejoins the Shadow Cabinet, it would be excellent for him to be involved in advising and preparing with our new leader, whoever they are, in this area in the spirit of parliamentary party solidarity. If the election timetable stays as it is, the new leader will have little time between being announced and their very first appearance at PMQs.

[christopher owen]

This is a tactical move by Clarke and I say this as a Clarke supporter. He would simply not serve Davis or Fox, and would view serving under Cameron as a humiliation. And quite right too.

"This is a tactical move by Clarke and I say this as a Clarke supporter. He would simply not serve Davis or Fox, and would view serving under Cameron as a humiliation. And quite right too."

I've heard a few unhelpful remarks like this from and about different people.

I have not heard the above as the personally declared view of Mr Clarke, so the following comment in in no way aimed at him.

As a Party member and active campaigner, I will pledge here and now to continue to work for the Party under whichever of the leadership candidates is democratically elected by myself and my parliamentary and voluntary colleagues in the coming weeks.

I will do this because I wish to see Conservatives win.

And anyone who happens to feel too "humiliated" or self-important to do the same thing would be very wise to just get the hell out of the way!

[Richard Carey]

I really must stop doing posts like the "get out of the way" one above without putting my name to them - it's getting embarassing having to correct them, but I was a bit wound up!!

[pigmalion]

I hope that it's not being suggested that Hague should become Cameron's tutor and give him a short series of lectures on how to deal with difficult opponents across the dispatch box. If that were the case then why not just let Hague do the job himself. There is nothing in the rules that say that the opposition leader can't delegate his duties at PMQ's to someone else.

[EU Serf]

After his 8 year sulk we would be remiss if we did not treat this comment with a little scepticism. It was a great shame to have Clarke missing from the fray at the point of our greatest need. Now however with such a large number of newbies, it may be irrelevant whether he serves or not, a few fresh faces could be better than more of the same.

[wasp]

I don't think this is particularly truthful but that doesn't matter.

There is only one political challenge left for Ken and that is to be leader / prime minister. This is his last chance so why should he serve under anyone else.

Churchill before the war wrote somewhere that there was only the PM challenge left, but he got there by proving himself as first lord of the admiralty. Ken's mistake was not serving under Hague to beef up his support, all he has going for him now are memories.

And Malcolm Rifkind can't be shadow foreign secretary because of his views on Iraq, too much controversy.

[James Hellyer]

"There is only one political challenge left for Ken and that is to be leader / prime minister. This is his last chance so why should he serve under anyone else."

Because he's "desperate" for the Conservatives to win?

[michael]

Clarke has done more to undermine Labour's economic record in the past few months than the combined efforts of Howard, Letwin, Portillo and Maude in the past 8 years. What's UNFORGIVABLE is that Clarke has only done it for his own political gain.

[wasp]

What i was saying is that its too late for ken, he should have been in Howard's shadow cabinet and used that as a platform to launch a leaderhsip bid. As it is if he loses then this will probably be his last parliament as an MP so it should be up to him what he does.

[kris]

I have been a conservative voter all my life and a member for 40% of my life, i am a Cameron supporter in this contest, but i would also support a party led by Fox, or even Davis. If Ken Clarke became leader i would resign my membership and probably abstain the vote, not because of a lack of loyalty to Conservative values, but because the Conservative Party would no longer support the values that i hold dear. I would mourn the demise of the Conservative Party.

[malcolm]

What could Ken Clarke ever do Kris, that would lead you to presumably prefer a Labour Government.