Hague set to return as Shadow Foreign Secretary

According to your Fantasy Cabinet predictions William Hague should be Shadow Chancellor.  Today's Guardian suggests that Mr Hague will return as Shadow Foreign Secretary, however.  Mr Hague is reported as saying that existing commitments - including a forthcoming book on William Wilberforce - would mean that he would not have the time for the demanding finance portfolio.

If Mr Hague becomes Shadow Foreign Secretary he will be responsible for timetabling the promised exit from the EPP but such an appointment would deprive Liam Fox of his current - and favoured - post.  The obvious place for Dr Fox to go is Shadow Home Affairs but that would mean moving David Davis.  The Cameron Camp are waiting to see the scale of their victory before deciding what to do with Mr Davis.  If they only win by 60-40 they may have to keep Mr Davis in his current job and, perhaps, give him the deputy leadership if the race ends up even tighter than that.  If their margin of victory is bigger than 60-40 they will offer a diminished Mr Davis a lesser portfolio - like defence.  Mr Davis may refuse this position and cause Mr Cameron the first major headache of his leadership.

George Osborne, DC's campaign manager, is apparently only prepared to give up the Shadow Chancellorship for Mr Hague.  The differences between Mr Cameron and Mr Davis on tax would, in any case, make it difficult for this post to end up in Mr Davis' lap.

Either Fox or Davis at the Shadow Home Affairs post will reassure social conservatives who believe that Mr Cameron's drugs policies are too soft.  Mr Cameron has promised to decide drugs policy with his shadow cabinet.

If Mr Osborne remains Shadow Chancellor there is an increased possibility that Francis Maude will stay in charge of CCHQ.  Today's Telegraph reports a speech in which Mr Maude (a regular contributor to this site's Platform blog) calls on Tories to form a broad alliance with Blairite Labour MPs and Orange Book LibDems in favour of public service reform.  Mr Maude echoes Mr Cameron's more consensual approach to opposition.

Comments

[Rob]

I missed this infamous comment? What was it about?

[wasp]

I do know what the event is and as I understand it the party intends to do it whichever wins on Sat Dec 10th and its not very exciting.

Oh, I bet it's to abolish the annual conference.

[worried about a weak team]

"According to your Fantasy Cabinet predictions William Hague should be Shadow Chancellor. Today's Guardian suggests that Mr Hague will return as Shadow Foreign Secretary, however"

Tell us it isn't true. A Cameron-led shadow cabinet is going to need to be surrounded by people with experience. Having two new MPs and brand new members of the shadow cabinet in the two top jobs doesn't make sense. It was one thing for Michael Howard to promote them during a period of caretaker leadership, but the top jobs now need to go to Hague, Fox and if not Davis then someone substantial like Rifkind--if Cameron wins as is widely predicted. Gordon Brown has flattened every Shadow Chancellor who has crossed his path. Only William Hague is equal to the task.

[calling for the party's top talent]

"George Osborne, DC's campaign manager, is apparently only prepared to give up the Shadow Chancellorship for Mr Hague"

Shouldn't these jobs go the best people for them? We've had leaders not up to the job (IDS), Shadow Chancellors (Maude and Letwin), Shadow Foreign Secretaries (Maples), and others. Can't we now have the three strongest people filling the top three jobs assuming Cameron wins? If Hague were to turn down being Shadow Chancellor, that would be a shame but in that event someone experienced should be asked to do it.

We won't look like we're serious about government until we start ruthlessly allowing merit to rise to the top instead of placeholders that no member of the public can see dropping the "shadow" from their title.

[Jack Stone]

The reason the Conservative party were the natural party of government in the last century was because members showed loyalty to the leadership and everyone had the sense not to talk about other conservatives as if they were our opponents.
If Michael is not prepared to accept David Cameron as leader and as gone elsewhere then I for one think the party will be better off with out him. If others hold the same opinion I hope they follow him out of the door!

[TC]

One other difference: IDS was widely seen as having been elected for not being Ken Clarke.

Whoever gets elected this time will have been elected for their strengths.

[michael]

TC - where does that leave poor David Davis? Shortlisted because he wasn't Liam Fox (ie easier for the mods to beat) and beaten in the end because he IS David Davis.

Politics can be a cruel game.

[TC]

That is a witty and amusing reply, Michael. To be fair, if Davis does loose it will be more to do with Cameron's appeal.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"If others hold the same opinion I hope they follow him out of the door!"

Seeing as you're the one so keen to see people leave the party, I suggest you should be the one to hit the road, Jack (and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more...).

[not a one way street]

"not prepared to accept David Cameron as leader and as gone elsewhere then I for one think the party will be better off with out him. If others hold the same opinion I hope they follow him out of the door!"

Loyalty includes not just from members to leader but also from leader to members and from member to member. Loyalty is not a one way street.

[let's not turn members away]

Jack Stone's comments are not very clever. Shrewd leaders have done everything in their power to keep even the discontented inside party ranks. Mrs Thatcher, for example, deployed high profile Tory Wets to persuade MPs who thought of defecting to the SDP not to do so. We need to reverse the traffic of Tories leaving for other parties, not increase it.

[Selsdon Man]

All members of the shadow cabinet should be full-time, i.e. no other jobs, including journalism and investment banking.

[Rick]

he reason the Conservative party were the natural party of government in the last century was because members showed loyalty to the leadership and everyone had the sense not to talk about other conservatives as if they were our opponents.

Absolute drivel.

The reason was simply that the Anti-Conservative Vote was spilt between Liberal and Labour; the rise of the SDP kept Thatcher in power..............if Liberal voters vote LibDem Labour has a harder time winning seats.

[gingeral]

I would be disappointed to see George Osborne stay as Shadow Chancellor, he's a talented young man but bear in mind that no party has ever won a general election while being behind on the "who do you most trust to run the economy question". So far Gordon Brown has faced Clarke, Lilley, Maude, Portillo, Howard, Letwin, and Osborne. Only Clarke and Howard have come close to besting him. Hague would have a good chance of gaining the public's trust on the economy, but if he doesn't want it I would suggest that either Willetts or Rifkind would be a better substitute than merely keeping Osborne where he is. I think he would be best suited to the party Chairman job, with Davis and Fox both keeping their jobs, Hague as Shadow Chancellor and Rifkind on Deputy and Defence (personally I am of the opinion that Sir Malcolm is twice the politician that DC is and will be most irritated if they relegate him to a relatively minor role).

[malcolm thomas]

One other difference: IDS was widely seen as having been elected for not being Ken Clarke.

Er maybe not. The real shock was that IDS knocked out Portillo by one vote in Parliamentary Round 1. No one will know precisely what happened, but many MP's had had a shock in the 2001 general election at the resurgent campaign from UKIP, who were biting Hague's heels badly in the run-up to the poll.

If you remember Hague was a bit panicked by it and began to sound more and more eurosceptic to stop voters wandering off to back UKIP.

The episode convinced many MP's then that the next leader had to be eurosceptic, and IDS was the main man there at the time.

Once in front of the membership Clarke was all for more euro-integration, and that handed the leadership to IDS on a plate. Policy had the edge over personality.

The IDS leadership is often disparaged, but the new localism grew out of the policy unit at that time, and the Social Justice movement was all his. Under IDS the Party declared permanent opposition to the Euro. IDS set the course. Cameron is now catching the wind, and the very talented Hague after a good long break will hopefully play a big role.

But it wasn't Hague that sorted out the Conservative strategy which has enabled the Party to start reassembling in a big tent. Funnily enough the much maligned IDS - the self-styled 'quiet man', still hardly noticed in the background, set up the victory which is sure to come.

[James Turner]

I do hope that Hague comes back. While I don't share this almost evangelical adoration for him (some of the older female activists I know respond to him as if he is Thatcher's son) he's far too talented to sit on the backbenches. If he's not going to do anything I'd rather he gave up his seat altogether and let someone who is willing to be a fulltime MP do it.
I have always supported Cameron but DD has been effective as Home Sec and there is no way he can be 'constructively dismissed.' Defence (even with deputy leadership) isn't in the same league. I do worry about loyalty though. While I think DD himself will be as loyal as can be expected his core cronies have shown they can barely control themselves. If DD won Cameron's supporters and all the modernisers would simply be sacked because Conway, Forth and Mitchell would demand it.
I have to say that I'm fascinated by the personal loyalty that DD can inspire in the people who work with and for him - his circle are the people who were whips with him, mainly, but also his CCO staffers at Home Affairs have been fanatically loyal. Yet if you haven't met he doesn't come across very well to many people.

[serious about public services]

How about this rule for the next shadow cabinet? All of its members should send their children only to state schools and use only the NHS?

[John Coulson]

testing

[James Maskell]

Wasnt John Coulson banned on more than one occasion in the past? I know we are a caring party and all that but repeat offenders should be punished, wouldnt you think?

[John Coulson]

I wish to make it clear to everyone on this site that I was a Ken Clarke supporter before switching my allegiance to DD. This is perfectly reasonable - yet the stirrers here seem hell bent on labelling me a right wing lunatic. I am not. I, however, get very annoyed by some of the smug comments on here. I do apologise if i have offended anyone at all.

[John Coulson]

Maskell, please don't try and whip up trouble. I want to contribute to these debates. If people actually engaged with me rather than attempt to get me angry and says things i later regret the level of debate would improve. Tim runs a very pleasant website and I hope he will allow the debate to be free. We have a right to a voice in the UK. Blair hasn't smothered all our liberties.

[carol42]

Am I the only one concerned about what will happen if Cameron doesn't work out? what if he is destroyed as effectively as William Hague was?
I have not been very impressed with him myself but I can see the attraction.It is a very great gamble and I would appreciate some discussion on what do we do if it all goes wrong.

[malcolm thomas]

Have faith carol. Cameron'll do it for us.

BTW all credit to Hague for the leadership election rules which have brought the Conservative Party from relative media obscurity to top billing. Now we're up there with the X Factor and 'I'm a Celebrity...'

[John Coulson]

Now the I'm a celebrity format would be an even more interesting format to choose a leader. Although I am sure none would be as entertaining as Carol Thatcher.....

On Carols point, he will have to be replaced if it goes wrong. There is no point in keeping lame duck leaders. My biggest regret is that Michael Howard choose to step down.