It looks not beyond the bounds of possibility that Ken Clarke will stand for the Tory leadership.
As he is one of the very few candidates with the clout, public recognition and plain political guile to do some considerable damage to the Labour government, I'm rather surprised that so many cyberspace Tories (including quite a few of the folks at Once More) seem so hostile to him.
Labour would certainly hate a Clarke victory more than that of any other. His major impediment - Europe - seems now less of a problem given recent events.
When in power, Clarke was as much a Thatcherite as anyone, although he has rather skillfully managed to soften the public perception of him since 1997.
Subsequent Tory history suggests a rather poor track record in leadership selection. The anti-Clarke bandwagon seems to imply that once again the Conservative Party will fail to choose the candidate most likely to bring them success.
Short term success, but that's all we'd get - he's not Prime Minister material, and he wouldn't be able to offer a significantly different programme and hold the party together. We've had enough of civil war now - we want a leader not from one of the party's fringes.
Plus, as much as it's true (and it's doubtful) that he "was as much a Thatcherite as anyone" - you're assuming we want a 'Thatcherite' as leader. We don't. Thatcherism is something that happened once, but we will only return to power once we Get Over Maggie - and that doesn't mean hiring an Anti-Thatcher, either.
Posted by: Blimpish | 21 June 2005 at 08:20 PM
"Subsequent Tory history suggests a rather poor track record in leadership selection"
Ha ha - an elegant understatement.
I agree with what you've said about him being Thatcherite in office: the notion that being pro-EU in and of itself makes someone a moderate really annoys me - he was absolutely awful as health secretary and education secretary.
I have to say, I don't share your surprise that a lot of Tories are hostile to the idea of his leadership. They think he's passed it and doesn't have what it takes to revive the party. I think they're probably right - that's why I'm backing him :-)
Posted by: Shuggy | 22 June 2005 at 05:33 AM
To be honest, I think you're both right. Had Clarke been elected in place of Duncan Smith, I've no doubt we would be in a very different world now; but the Clarke moment has almost certainly passed.
He might appeal to the electorate, but he no longer appeals to the Tory party. Ironic, but true.
But who else is there? David Davis seems a strong favourite for many Tories - but I just can't see him pulling off what Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard failed to do. Perhaps the only option is to stick it out another ten years or so for a Cameron or an Osborne to reach 'full maturity'. If I were a Tory, I'd be pretty depressed now (so thank goodness I'm not...).
Posted by: Third Avenue | 22 June 2005 at 08:18 AM
"but I just can't see him pulling off what Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard failed to do"
Neither can I; maybe I should back him instead.
Can't be doing with Cameron or Osbourne on the grounds that I'm slightly older than both of them. I mean, I can cope with policemen looking younger but I'm not ready for teenage Tory leaders.
Posted by: Shuggy | 22 June 2005 at 09:29 AM
To be fair to Davis and to Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard, the next Tory leader has three great advantages over where they started: (1) the Tory Party's no longer the object of universal hatred across all parts of Britain - we might provoke indifference, but no longer venom; (2) the Party is, on the whole, fairly unified and returning to discipline - thanks to Howard; and most of all (3) Blair isn't going to be there next time, and New Labour is no longer New anymore. The best mark of the last point is that the media no longer giving them the benefit of the doubt on everything - my, I even find myselves having sympathy for them sometimes... So, it's all to play for.
Posted by: Blimpish | 22 June 2005 at 04:14 PM
What do you think of Rifkind's chances? I've always liked his intelligence and dry wit but thought him a bit too removed from the populace to be likely to succeed. However, his performance on Any Questions recently went down well with the audience (can't remember where it was coming from) and he has something that Howard/IDS never had -- a sense of humour.
Posted by: The Digester | 22 June 2005 at 05:49 PM
Sense of humour, fine, but as you say, quite detached and removed - and worse still, a throwback to the Thatcher-Major years. And as a result of that, he's got baggage on domestic policy (Scottish Secretary during the Poll Tax) and on foreign policy (Bosnia).
Posted by: Blimpish | 22 June 2005 at 06:22 PM
I think Rifkind's like Clarke - his star has past because he represents the past...
Posted by: Shuggy | 23 June 2005 at 08:32 AM