William Hague uses his News of the World column (not online) to rate the five leading contenders' chances. These are his assessments:
David Cameron: "To win in the race for the leadership he has to stick his neck out even more and spell out in more detail how the Tories would change if he was in charge of the party."
Ken Clarke: "At 65, this is his last chance to lead. It's also his best chance, ironically, because some things he has always supported, like the euro and the EU constitution, have become such disasters that no sane Briton is any longer in favour of them. That tells you how strange politics can be: when what you believe in is discredited, people can actually find it easier to vote for you." I don't think Mr Hague will be voting for Mr Clarke!
David Davis: "His big problem is he's the favourite and the favourite hardly ever wins. To do so he has to show he can inspire people and win their affection just as well as he can fight. He is still the most likely to win."
Liam Fox: "The one thing he has to do to win is bring out his personality and passion in his big speeches and TV interviews, showing people he is the heavyweight candidate they need."
And, finally, Sir Malcolm Rifkind: "Probably the only thing he can do, at this stage, is shoot the other candidates." Hilarious.
Whilst Mr Hague is rating the current contenders the News of the World's leading article is rating him and rating him highly. Mr Hague, it suggests, may yet emerge as "the real saviour" of the Tories... but not until after the next election defeat.
Sounds like a DD endorsement to me...
And for thoose who missed it, the supportive DD profile in yesterday's Times Mag (also not online, but bits at http://daviddavisleader.blogspot.com/2005/10/no-more-mr-nasty-guy.html ) contained the following fascinating nugget:
'William Hague, Davis has always liked. "We went walking the other day, 12 miles up the Dales. He's a nice man, a good man, a very clever man. He'll be Prime Minister one day, it'll happen."
NOW we understand.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 02 October 2005 at 13:09
The one thing he has to do to win is bring out his personality and passion in his big speeches and TV interviews, showing people he is the heavyweight candidate they need.
Well, that tells me which speech to look forward to at the Conference!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 13:10
Sounds like a DD endorsement to me...
No it doesn't! It just says he's likely win, not that Hague would prefer him to win.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 13:12
I can't stop laughing at that backhanded compliment to Clarke!
Yes, I think it's a Davis endorsement. I'm really looking forward to the speeches at conference now though. I think they could really make or break the contenders' chances.
Posted by: Elena | 02 October 2005 at 13:13
Yes, and as you keep reminding us James, William is a great pal of Doc's.
But do the age calcs.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 02 October 2005 at 13:15
I'm really looking forward to the speeches at conference now though. I think they could really make or break the contenders' chances
There's a very good article on that in this week's Spectator (registration required):
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6689
"Despite appearances, David Davis has not quite won. He badly needs to show that he is more than an unusually plausible product of the whips’ office, and capable of becoming a national leader. Next week will be a dangerous time in the Winter Gardens. Any of the candidates could shine and any fail."
And if there's one thing Davis isn't, it's a natural orator.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 13:22
Indeed James, that's the one thing Davis has going against him; he's not as charismatic a speaker as someone like Cameron, and he lacks the 'down to earth' touch of Clarke.
Rifkind's campaign is dead and buried. Will he just get on with it and endorse Clarke already?
That said, it's very difficult to guess who will shine. With Davis, it's all in the content. Clarke will find it difficult if he's going to spout all of that "Look at me, I'm popular" stuff all over again.
Posted by: Elena | 02 October 2005 at 13:41
There's no guarantee Clarke will shine. His address to the CSJ was supposed to have been very flatly delivered.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 13:50
Assuming the Davis figures are right, the big fight at Blackpool will be Clarke vs Fox vs Cameron for second place.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 October 2005 at 14:50
Well Elena, I happened to be at his address to the CSJ.
Speeches to bodies like the CSJ really have very little to do with the leadership race. Rather it was all about policies to help the vulnerable, which of course is what it should've been about. If other candidates wish to make tub thumping speeches to body such as th CSJ, that's up to them but I reckon he pitched it right.
I also went along to Clarke's "it's time to win" thing last Wednesday. For those who like the knock-about stuff there was plenty of that because it was the right time and the right audience. By contrast Cameron and especially Davis' launches were dull, to put it mildly.
Anyway, why should anyone with half a mind on picking a winner take any notice of Wee Willie? The man was a disaster as leader, and I defy anyone to say he wasn't. An endorsement from him to any candidate should make us all very wary, rather like the 'kiss of death'. I think he backed IDS last time; oh yes, what great judgement he has!!!!
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 02 October 2005 at 18:20
Do we know the rules the leadership contenders have as regards their speeches. If Cameron is limited to only talking about Education & Fox about Foreign Affairs due to their portfolio it would give an unfair advantage to Ken Clarke who would have a free hand?
Posted by: AnotherNick | 02 October 2005 at 19:11
That's not very fair, Adrian. He is very talented, and clearly Conservative.
He was just too young. Besides, he fell foul of Robin Cook's wit. And beer, of course.
As a militant teetotaller, I always find it hard to warm to people who enjoy vast quantities of alcohol. Then again, I don't like Death Merchants much either.
One of my purposes in life is to find somebody, like me, who believes vehemently in chastity and temperence, but who isn't either a religious fanatic or a homophobe. It's hard.
Posted by: Ronald Collinson | 02 October 2005 at 22:15
"One of my purposes in life is to find somebody, like me, who believes vehemently in chastity and temperence, but who isn't either a religious fanatic or a homophobe."
Good luck ;-)
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 02 October 2005 at 23:20
"Do we know the rules the leadership contenders have as regards their speeches. If Cameron is limited to only talking about Education & Fox about Foreign Affairs due to their portfolio it would give an unfair advantage to Ken Clarke who would have a free hand?"
Good grief, I hope for Cameron's sake that he won't have to fill 15 minutes talking about education seeing as he's got next to nothing to say about it, judging by his performances so far since he took on the Education brief.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 02 October 2005 at 23:24
Cameron has been too busy making positioning statements to make too much of an impact in his brief.
Exam results, announcements about university drop outs costing £1 billion a year, and record levels of truancy all seem to have passed him by, with barely a press release to show for it.
But at least we got the comedy of him breaking off a family holiday to deliver a speech on work-life balance.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 23:28