toryleadership

Sir Malcolm Rifkind quits race - and endorses Ken Clarke

Sir Malcolm Rifkind has quit the leadership race.  Sir Malcolm was only able to gain the support of six of his parliamentary colleagues and the timing of his decision is thought to reflect the need to pre-empt a series of hustings that begin tomorrow.  Despite differences with Mr Clarke on the issue of Europe, Sir Malcolm has endorsed his former Cabinet colleague.

I'll blog more later and will update the 'Who's backing who?' list when the dust has settled...

In the meantime a couple of questions for you...

1. What is the legacy of Sir Malcolm's bid?  A reaffirmation of the party's one nation tradition?
2. Will the endorsement of Mr Clarke revive the former Chancellor's bid?

Ancram and Cormack declare for Sir Malcolm

Earlier this week Michael Ancram failed to get the support of Cornerstone for the leadership bid he wanted to mount.  The Deputy Tory Leader told Wednesday's party conference that he would not be standing and he has today declared for Sir Malcolm Rifkind (see within this PA/ Guardian story).  It seems extraordinary to be courting Cornerstone's traditional rightists one day and then backing the anti-war Rifkind the next.  Michael Ancram was Shadow Foreign Secretary at the time of the invasion and enthusiastically backed the liberation of Iraq.   Crispin Blunt may have been crucial to securing the endorsement.  Mr Blunt is Sir Malcolm's campaign manager and helped Mr Ancram mount his own unsuccessful 2001 leadership bid.

Also declaring today for Sir Malcolm is another knight - Sir Patrick Cormack.  Sir Malcolm now has the public support of six other MPs in the Who's backing who? list.

(A 4.45pm postscript: Camp Clarke have just announced that John Greenway will be supporting Ken).

Crispin Blunt MP: David Davis fears Rifkind

Crispin Blunt MP, campaign manager for Sir Malcolm Rifkind has emailed the following to me regarding my post of last Sunday suggesting that 'Team Rifkind' were encouraging tactical voting:

"As a member of Team Rifkind I enjoyed your suggestion that Team Rifkind were encouraging Davis supporters to vote for them to ensure a Davis victory over Rifkind in the final.

A moment's reflection on putting Davis and Rifkind head to head would scotch this idea.  It is the only contest David Davis should fear.  He is superior in political positioning over Clarke, in experience over Cameron and in political stature over Fox.  None of these apply to Malcolm Rifkind. As politicians of the same era, less than three years apart, Rifkind is far superior to Davis in experience and there are no doubts over Rifkind's capacity to be Prime Minister.  Rifkind is a one nation Tory tempered with a hard headed understanding of Britain's national interests.  This is a platform that can unite the party and appeal to the country.  No one's dignity will be affronted by working under Malcolm Rifkind so he should be able to call on all the talents of the party.  He also shares with David Davis the ability to give his subordinates the room to perform to their best without over controlling them.  Faced with a choice between a Brown-Davis contest or a Brown-Rifkind contest, on current form and political record, most observers would regard one as a trifle one-sided and the other as a battle of political heavyweights. Rifkind's presentational skills are already legendary whilst Davis's remain a source of concern to his supporters.  The more prolonged the contest the more these factors will become apparent.

If I thought David Davis's supporters didn't appreciate this I might be tempted by your strategy, but my colleagues supporting David Davis are much too shrewd.  It is for the undecided and the supporters of the other candidates to work this out for themselves and arrive at the obvious conclusion."

Malcolm Rifkind: You Rightists aren't serious about one nation Toryism

Sir Malcolm Rifkind doesn't pull his punches.  During August when he could have been snoozing on some sun-drenched beach with a copy of The Sunday Philosophy Club he attacked the "deeply, deeply defective" last eight years of Tory opposition.  He was on the TV this afternoon attacking the Iraq campaign as the biggest foreign policy failure for fifty years.  Bigger than Suez, he said, because Suez was over in a few days.

He uses an interview in today's Times to rubbish the one nation credentials of Iain Duncan Smith and other "right-wingers".  "It pleases me," he tells Philip Webster, "that candidates who are traditionally associated with the Right feel it necessary to dress themselves in One Nation clothing.”  That expression "dress themselves" suggests he's not convinced that "right-wingers" like Mr Davis and Dr Fox are committed to social justice.  Sir Malcolm doesn't attack his leadership rivals directly, however.  His attacks are reserved for the current and predecessor Tory leader:

“I have a tremendous admiration for Michael Howard. But I remember when he became leader he made a marvellous One Nation speech. That is not the basis on which the party fought the last election. I remember Iain Duncan Smith delivering some impressive One Nation sentiments. That was not the character of his leadership.”

Has Sir Malcolm crossed the line between frankness and rudeness?  See this post for an assessment of Sir Malcolm's own 'one nation credentials'.

What is 'one nation conservatism'?

Anthony Howard asks this question in this morning's Times.  It's a good question to ask.  Unfortunately Mr Howard responds with a circuitous (and not particularly helpful) history lesson.

It's a good question to ask because all of the leadership candidates are claiming to be 'one nation conservatives'.  David Davis has said that he is a one nation Tory but his one nation beliefs have so far focused on improving social mobility rather than addressing chronic and intergenerational forms of poverty.  Does Sir Malcolm Rifkind believe that DD is a real one nation Tory?  Surely the Shadow Home Secretary was one of the people that Sir Malcolm had in mind when he said that the leadership race was a choice between one nation and right-wing beliefs?

Sir Malcolm Rifkind gave a whole speech on the subject on Thursday night.  Addressing one thousand people Sir Malcolm said that he joined the Conservative Party because the one nation tradition reflected his beliefs, values and aspirations.  The expression derives from Benjamin Disraeli's time.  As conservativehome.com's definition notes, Disraeli introduced the idea in his 1845 novel, Sybil.  Disraeli wrote:

"Two Nations Between Whom There Is No Intercourse And No Sympathy; Who Are As Ignorant Of Each Other's Habits, Thoughts, And Feelings, As If They Were Dwellers In Different Zones, Or Inhabitants Of Different Planets; Who Are Formed By A Different Breeding, Are Fed By Different Food, Are Ordered By Different Manners, And Are Not Governed By The Same Laws."

The material squalor of Disraeli's time has been banished to the history books but other forms of poverty have emerged - as Iain Duncan Smith and other Tories have been increasingly arguing.  Sir Malcolm's speech emphasised four objectives for a modern day one nation conservatism:

1. The eradication of residual poverty within Britain: "While the country is more prosperous than ever before and while the old class divisions have been significantly eroded, serious social problems persist and poverty can be seen in many communities."
2. An end to racial discrimination: "Only when Asian and black Britons are as likely to vote Conservative as the country as a whole will Britain be able to assume that we have achieved true racial harmony and successful integration."
3. A United Kingdom: "One Nation Tories have always found it easier to accept the devolved Britain that now exists and to work for a healthy balance between the component parts of the United Kingdom."
   
4. The fight against poverty in the developing world: "The principles of One Nation apply with equal strength to One World and we have an obligation as well as an opportunity that we must not ignore."

Few Tories could disagree with these aims but, as always, the disagreement comes in discussing solutions.  In addressing domestic poverty Sir Malcolm emphasises (1) "radical simplification and reform of the tax system to take the poorest out of tax" and (2) "increasing use of voluntary organisations rather than the state's Job Centres to match people to available employment".  These are policies Labour are unlikely to imitate but other compassionate conservatives would also emphasise family strengthening, zero tolerance policing, harm avoidance approaches to drug use and school choice.  Where does Sir Malcolm stand on those issues?

More controversial criticisms can be made of his international aspirations - which he sums up in the attractive phrase of 'One Nation in One World'.   He talks unspecifically about "global injustice" and about the "the need to see the rule of law in international relations as well as in national affairs".  Is this a reminder of his opposition to the Iraq war?  Opposition rooted in the US-UK-led coalition's failure to get legal approval from enough of the dictatorships and compromised democracies that sit on the United Nations Security Council?  Sir Malcolm's leading role in the Major Government won't help his 'One Nation in One World' credentials either.  That administration displayed pusillanimity in Srebrenica, armed repressive countries like Suharto's Indonesia and made deep cuts in overseas development expenditure. 

Bottomley, Lait and Pelling join Rifkind

I've long suspected that Ken Clarke's decision to stand would force Malcolm Rifkind out of the race and that Sir Malcolm would endorse Mr Clarke.  Sir Malcolm is showing no signs of confirming my suspicions.

Earlier today he was questioning Ken Clarke's European views. 

And in the last few hours he has unveiled his campaign team.  We already knew that Crispin Blunt was Sir Malcolm's campaign manager and it had been looking like a lonely job.   No longer.  Mr Blunt will now have MPs Peter Bottomley, Jacqui Lait and new boy Andrew Pelling for company in the campaign HQ.  The BBC reports that: "Aides say the four MPs in the campaign team are just part of Sir Malcolm's support and that he has other backers who will come forward at a later date."

My 'Who's backing who?' list is now sooooo embarassingly out-of-date!  I promise a new list in the next 24 hours...

Michael Ancram’s recipe: fewer blame-games, more party democracy, less cosy consensus

Asked on this morning’s Today programme about Sir Malcolm Rifkind’s incendiary criticism of the Tories’ last eight years Michael Howard politely said that he always wanted the Conservative Party to have a vigorous debate about its future [click here for discussion of Mr Howard’s British dream article of today]. Michael Ancram, who has been Chairman or Deputy Leader for three-quarters of the last eight years, is willing to be openly critical of Sir Malcolm’s remarks, however. In an article for today’s Independent Michael Ancram suggests that “the rather regrettable Tory blame-games of the last few days” are turning people off politics. Sir Malcolm was, perhaps, not the only person in Michael Ancram’s sights. Francis Maude also criticised the Tory brand in a Monday interview.

The main purpose of Mr Ancram’s article is to complain about the growing gap between the political class and the people. He cites passionate opposition to the Iraq war and to the ban on the hunting, plus mass activism in favour of greater development expenditure, as proof that people still care about small ‘p’ politics. The problem, he thinks, is with a political class that talks to itself and ignores Britain’s real problems. Mr Ancram, one of The Telegraph Ten, thinks that the Conservative parliamentary party’s attempt to grab monopoly control of the leadership election is only going to widen this gap. It is notable that the two ‘blame-gamers’ – Maude and Rifkind – support the rollback of democracy. Michael Ancram writes:

"If the Conservative Party in the 21st century is to show that we actually stand for real principles which are rooted in the natural instincts of the British people, we first must show that we are no longer a part of that political class. We need to show that we are talking to people leading real lives in the real world and not just to ourselves. We need to show that we trust people more than we trust political systems. We failed to do so at the last election, just as we had failed to do so in 1997 and 2001. We must do so now. Regrettably that cause is not advanced by a party which, when it should be broadening its appeal and its franchise to attract a wider potential membership, seeks to disenfranchise its members, leaving core party decisions to its MPs regardless of the fact that in opposition they are hardly geographically or socially representative of the country as a whole. That is not breaking out of the political class; it is reinforcing it."

Towards the end of the article Mr Ancram also rejects the idea that a more consensual approach to government will restore the public’s faith in politics. He says that European forms of coalition government and “cohabitation” are “increasingly seen by the public as synonymous with the sort of cosy self-serving political freemasonry they suspect and instinctively mistrust.” The Conservative Party must not diminish political choice, he warns, but instead offer a vision of a low tax, freer, less nannying and more neighbourly Britain.

Malcolm Rifkind ‘will make best party conference speech’ but his leadership bid can’t be successfully relaunched

Columnist Bruce Anderson’s most significant contribution to the leadership race so far has been a strong attack on David Davis. That attack included an unflattering report of a private conversation that David Davis had with Sir Malcolm Rifkind during the Major years (a period of Tory government of which Mr Anderson was a leading defender). In today’s Independent Mr Anderson pays tribute to the speaking skills of John Major’s last Foreign Secretary:

“Malcolm Rifkind is not only a fine speaker; he is one of the very few orators in the House of Commons… Sir Malcolm’s main hope of becoming a credible leadership candidate was to remind those who knew him of his prowess as a speaker; and to astound the young.”

The brief post-election parliamentary session has given Sir Malcolm few opportunities to “astound” the half of the Conservative Parliamentary Party that have been elected since he was ejected from his Edinburgh Pentlands seat in 1997. Mr Anderson believes that Sir Malcolm “will make the best speech at the [party] conference” but “that it will not be enough to relaunch his campaign”.

The Indy’s columnist is unimpressed with the conclusions that Sir Malcolm draws from yesterday’s stinging criticisms of the last three Tory leaders. Sir Malcolm proposed an eighteen month period of consultation on the public services and of professional workers. But “since 1997,” Mr Anderson writes, “every Tory leader and large numbers of shadow ministers have been consulting about the public services.” William Hague had his Listening to Britain consultation (directed by current leadership candidate Andrew Lansley) and IDS travelled across Europe in search of ideas for public service reform. One esteemed visitor to this blog – Wat Tyler – noted that Sir Malcolm’s ‘big idea’ sounds a lot like Tony Blair’s ‘Big Conversation’.

Bruce Anderson thinks that the Tories need much more than “consultation and research”. They have an urgent requirement for big ideas and striking, scintillating phases, he concludes. Has anyone spotted such ideas or phrases?

Michael Howard unhappy at criticisms of his campaign

Yesterday Malcolm Rifkind positioned himself as the leadership candidate most opposed to the record of Michael Howard, Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague. Sir Malcolm was biting about the last eight "deeply defective" years. Sir Malcolm may have decided to make his bold intervention after failing, so far, to win support from more than a handful of Tory MPs.

Michael Howard is said to be unhappy at the criticism of his time in office and his mood won't have been helped by David Cameron's latest intervention. Although the Shadow Secretary of State for Education distanced himself from Sir Malcolm's tactics by warning against "trashing" the Conservative brand, he did advocate a movement away from the emphases that produced Michael Howard's "poor" result. Speaking to BBC News 24 he said:

"There have been times in the Conservative Party when we have played too much particular tunes on perhaps crime and immigration. 'We need to talk about quality of life and the environment and public spaces. I think that is right. Modern Conservatism should be about those things. We have got a lot to say about those things and perhaps only half the orchestra has been playing in recent years and that needs to change."

Some comfort for the outgoing Tory leader came in an article in the Sunday Times, by Lynton Crosby. Mr Crosby, who directed the Tory election campaign described Michael Howard as "serious, determined and experienced". He said the events of 7/7 and 21/7 vindicated Michael Howard's warnings about 'uncontrolled immigration': "The recent bombings have underscored the perils of a chaotic immigration system and the need for secure borders. "

Mr Crosby used his article to advocate seven ways in which the Tories could "storm back" to power. These included the presentation of clear and consistent principles; careful targeting of voters; the adoption of local candidates whenever possible; and internal party unity.

Tories have been "deeply, deeply defective" says Rifkind

Up until now the leadership candidates have appeared determined to measure their words very carefully. Particular care has been taken to avoid very strong criticism of the three men that have led the party since 1997. In a very frank interview with The Sunday Telegraph Sir Malcolm Rifkind threw caution aside and savaged the party's recent history:

"The choice is whether we continue down the cul-de-sac of the last eight years or whether we choose an alternative conservative tradition... The last eight years have been deeply, deeply defective. There is no excuse that is convincing as to why a party that has been in opposition for eight years should be flat-lining in the way we are.... To have seen no increase in the Conservative share of the vote, despite eight years in opposition and despite the intense unpopularity of the Government, is indefensible."

Sir Malcolm encouraged the Tories to focus on "gut" issues of crime and public services. We should not focus on the "classic Right-wing Conservative issues" of, for example, asylum and Europe.

Sir Malcolm used the interview to reiterate his opposition to the Iraq war but, again, he chose much tougher and more direct language:

"I believe it was a wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. The war was an extremely foolish and unnecessary one. The consequence has been to create a political vacuum in Iraq itself. Terrorists are operating within Iraq in a way we didn't have in the past, so the war has certainly assisted international terrorism in Iraq. If you destroy an existing regime - however evil it may be - you create a political vacuum."

Sir Malcolm identified his first priority as the need to reconnect the party with professional voters:

"I would spend the first 18 months bringing to the party the vast expertise of the country as a whole. We have to win over the professionals. We haven't done that in the past."

Click here to read the endorsement of Sir Malcolm written by Crispin Blunt MP for conservativehome.com.