The News of the World reports that if the Conservatives win the election David Cameron will bring Ken Clarke into the Cabinet in charge of the Cabinet Office. The argument in favour of this centres around he need for a few greybeards around the Cabinet table, and there are few with more Cabinet experience than Ken Clarke. The arguments against are simpler and more numerous.
1. Would he sign up to Cameron's European policy?
2. Is he really in touch with the zeitgeist?
3. Can he really be a team player?
However, there is another issue. Who exactly would make place for him? Imagine you've been a diligent member of the Shadow Cabinet for three or four years. You've worked your knackers off, for little thanks. You haven't been raking in a six figure salary from outside interests and you've sacrificed a lot for the wider good of getting the Conservatives elected. You're then told, sorry mate, there isn't room for you at the top table. Your place is going to a 69 year old with a history of 'being difficult'. You'd be pretty hacked off.
There are indeed arguments for people like Ken Clarke being brought in, but if they are, they need to work their passage. I suggest that if this move is serious, David Cameron should bring Ken Clarke into the Shadow Cabinet at the next reshuffle. He can then, like the rest of them, demonstrate his commitment and talent in advance of the election. If his outside interests prevent him from doing so, that tells us what we need to know.
UPDATE 12.20pm: Some of the comments in this thread demonstrate that people only read the first half of this post. I am quite happy for Ken Clarke to be in a David Cameron Cabinet (as long as he is not Minister for Europe!) but only if he has previously agreed to serve in the Shadow Cabinet. I think that's an entirely reasonable view to take.
59 comments:
Clarke's committment to Bilderburger makes him entirely UNsuitable to be a Conservative minister. If he becomes one, it would be too revealing of David Cameron's own true stance, which is ... what ?
We already have far to many hidden governments in this country, we don't want any more. Rather, the opposite.
Alan Douglas
No, no, no, no.
And all MPs over 65 should be seriously considering standing down to make way for fresh blood, fresh ideas, no matter which Party.
Electoral gold. Non-habitual, new tory voters, who are at least a little plugged-in, and likely to vote, will be swayed by his measured, centrist charms. notwithstanding alan douglas @10:27am he might prove a tasty carrot indeed...
...oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was still at PB...
Since when have the people that vote against 3 line whips and never pass up an opportunity to put the boot in the party been cabinet material?
Ken Clarke has a strong electoral pull. It isnt so much the swing voters, they are in love with Cameron, but the voters and non voters like him, they like his honesty, they give him credit for the economic turnaround. They are willing to look over is euro fanatacism.
If Cameron can get him to fall in line (which is what collective responsibility is!!! And Clarke knows that) within the cabinet he can stop doing damage from the backbenches.
The young turks who have worked hard can cut the mustard on the ministerial ladder, they will be plenty of jobs to go around.
No, he'll make more trouble than he's worth and send out the wrong signals. Ok, he'll do the same from as a backbencher, but not for long!
Can't they find a trophy position for him where he can do no harm?
yes for Ken Clarke in cabinet and while you are there lets put in Nicholas Soames.
I have not voted Conservative since Maastricht and won't until you come out clearly and do something about the EU takeover. When i hear that Ken Clarke may be coming back i think the COnservatives deserve more time in Opposition.
Judith said, I am afraid caused a major interuption in the breakfasting of one parliamentarian's family this morning.
Whilst eating his normal full English Breakfast with kippers and cereal, Sir Patrick, having read the News of the World article, had spent a few happy minutes contemplating the forthcoming call from David (Cameron) for him, the blessed Sir Patrick, parliamentarian supreme and voted Constituency MP of the year some time ago, to be asked to head some Cabinet post. His time in the wilderness of the backbenches would, at long long last, be rewarded. He had often considered himself right for any and every cabinet position.
The party could not, indeed would not, turn back to Clarke. They would, though, need a wise head, a man of substance and he was that man! Yes, he thought, my time is approaching.I am a man of the people. A man who has presence and breeding.Someone whom the whole house always listens too with reverence and deep appreciation. Yes. My time, he thought, was coming and he had better make up his mind which ministry he would prefer.
He then, whilst eating his whole hog sandwich, had turned to his computer -he was an on the ball MP- and read Sir Iain's blog- and that is when, upon Judith said's comment- nearly choked when the hog was caught in his throat.
Only copious amounts of champagne saved Sir Patrick from entering his heaven.
Judith said.....you must be kinder to your elders.
There should be no place for europhile dinosaurs like clarke. he will be in his 70's by the time cammo forms a govt
Peter Adams.
You may well believe that "Conservatives need more time in opposition" but we, the country, certainly do NOT need any more time under a Labour government.
11 years is already too much of this mob.
I fervently hope you are disappointed.
I've always liked Clarke. Even on the 1983 election programme in BBC Parliament the other day he came over well.
Calm down Iain. If your party is to win the next election it will have to attract many voters who see Clarke as the only Tory to have remained consistently sane, balanced and normal over the last fifteen years. And no-one else can put the knife into Labour more effectively. The more we see paranoiac rants about his ideological purity or lack of commitment, the greater the risk that New Labour will be able to suggest that behind Cameron there remains the shadowy skeleton of the mad Eurosceptics. I know many of your friends won't like this, but the moment the electorate sees the Tories interpreting their current success as validation for Palaeolithic views from the past, the greater will be Miliband's chance to restore Labour's chances. As for the age issue, focus on performance please. When Ken can't cut it, put him out to pasture. But at the moment he still delivers more than most of the Tory front bench in terms of credibility. Every time a Tory attacks Ken, it reminds us all of the flapping of white coats time.
1. Would he sign up to Cameron's European policy?
What is Cameron's European policy?
While I appreciate that Ken is a man of experience and considerable charm, the absolute last thing I would want as a Conservative voter is any pro-European anywhere near CMD's cabinet.
We need to leave the EU, not play its pink oboe with more enthusiasm.
Ken Clarke has always been a team player and was an excellent Chancellor.
It's idiots (unfortunately the majority) within the Tory Party - wittering on about the "EUSSR" and similar drivel - who've castigated, excoriated and abused him because he has a perfectly honourable, principled stance on Europe which he's never hidden.
I can think of at least six Shadow Cabinet nobodies Clarke would do a much better job than. Poor show Iain.
Points taken, but the shadow cabinet does need culling if it is to become a credible government.
We cannot go forward with Osborne as Chancellor. And as for 'oil trader' and 'property speculator' Duncan at Industry, nuff said.
No No No
Cameron's talk at the CPS indicates he knows the implementation problem facing him. The answer cannot be Clarke, likeable though he seems.
It is Clarke who has done all he can to undermine Cameron on EU matters.
It is Clarke who has made the democracy task force little more than a meaningless bureaucratic legalistic joke.
It is Clarke who uses the arrogant phrase the 'Ruling Political Class' when talking about Parliament as if it is some rightfully privileged elite.
It is Clarke who has defied the whip more than any other Conservative MP under Cameron.
It is Clarke who described the party position on Europe as delusional and described David Cameron's comments on the WLQ as Xenophobic.
Whatever, his positive characteristics and listening to the likes of Edwina Currie (in an interview with Mr Dale) it takes something serious to stir the complacent Clarke sufficiently to use them his negatives far outweigh his positives.
Offering him a post in Government of any sort let alone the Cabinet would suggest.
1) We are doomed to an existence of Europhile serfdom.
2) Nothing substantive will be done about the WLQ or improving our democracy and localism is no more than a ploy of the ruling political class to keep the electorate under their control.
3) Loyalty means nothing
4) It's fine to abuse both the party and the party's leader
5) The ruling class is alive and well and intent subjugating the electorate even further.
If Cameron wants to send out those sort of messages then fine but I can't see him being anymore successful as a leader than John Major was.
Clarke must not be brought back. He should be put out to grass with the rest of Major's 'old nags' in the HOL and in Clarke's case the sooner the better!
Clarke is a lot younger than me but really he is far too old and has been far too difficult with Tory leaders in the past to make him a worthwhile member of any cabinet (tempted to add "of any party"). The fact that he was an excellent chancellor under Major is greatly to his credit. His views on Europe are probably a bit too extreme for most voters. He has as much right to them as the rest of us do to ours, but I suspect Cameron would probably find him more of a hinderance than a help.
1. What is Cameron's European policy exactly for Ken to sign up to or not?
2. Ken is far more in touch with the Zeitgeist than many Tories I'd say.
3. Yes of course he can be a team player. Look at his work for BAT.
The Cabinet is likely to be bigger than the Shadow Cabinet - does anybody shadow the person currently in charge of the Cabinet Office? - so there is room.
If he is there just as a wise old head, then he serves a purporse for a couple of years, by which time all the ministers will have at least 2 years experience.
Alan Douglas - Agree with every word. No to Ken Clarke. And Cameron should, but definitely will not, promise to pulverise every one of the 1,200+ quangoes in this country.
G Man - "They are willing to look over is euro fanatacism." That is a total misreading of the mood of the country.
After the Lisbon Treaty is ratified the sellout is complete and it all becomes a non-issue, so why worry about what Cameron does with Clarke?
It's time for Ken Clarke to declare his hand on the English Question.
The Democracy Task Force has been pondering this for 28 months now, and all we've heard is whispers.
The Tories are dithering like Brown.
Ken Clark in office gave us VAT on electricity and gas bills. He brought in self assessment and advance payments of income tax to the self-employed. The economic recovery that took place during his Chancellorship happened because of the collapse and abandonment of his ERM strategy. I'm by no means sure that he is a Tory at all, and that's BEFORE you take his Euro-mania into account.
If John Major had had any balls at all he would have fired him. Yet the suggestion is that this serial-incompetent should get another Cabinet post?
Utterly ludicrous.
Iain, You seem to forget that whilst Ken Clarke has not been on the front bench he has done things for the Conservatives such as the "democratic task force". This is likely to become a key part of the Tory genda for government.
Ken Clarke leant his support to Cameron by doing this. It was probably better for Clarke to work from outside the frontbench in the early years.
I would also say to those who rage about Clarke that he correctly called the Iraq war. You need people like Clarke on side in government who have more experience of making government work than the rest of the tory frontbench put together!
Clarke was an extremely able Chancellor & a popular & trusted man of talent the party should not try to do without. He clearly could have ben Tory leader had he been willing to change his EU views & I am not sure how many at the top of the party people think would have resisted that temptation.
I say this as somebody who thinks we should leave the EU & considers the Bilderbergers a threat to democray. Nonetheless I believe there should be room, even at the top table, for individuals of independent mind, even when they disagree with me.
Iain's point about him working his passage is reasonable - though none of us know what job is on offer & I assume he & Cameron do or this statement would not have been made.
As was pointed out in "Attitude" gayer mag this week it is 20 years since Section 28. If the Tories are genuinely reformed they will admit their mistakes as Tony Blair's New Labour did in '98 and move on. If Clarke has something to add to the mix then let him do it from the sidelines.
very few people have the opportunity to influence public policy in their life and those who do, should, if they fail, quietly retire from public life and go back to gardening or being an apologist for tobacco companies. Clarke is one of them. There is enough talent in the current lot and they should be allowed to make their own mistakes - not repeat the mistakes of their seniors. A future Tory Party cabinet doesnt need him.
it is often said that the Right won the economic argument and the Left won the social argument. I dont know - is that true? I do (as a gay Tory) worry if Cameron will try and reverse some of the gains made by the gays in the last ten years. I dont think he is personally homophobic but there does seem to be a tendency by both parties to attack minorities to get votes in extremis.
Cameron's support for not removing the "right to a father" seems like an admirable thing or maybe it is a dog-whistle attack on single women and lesbian families? Which is it?
I hope in the forthcoming election that the issues being debated are around the living standards of people, support for families, and reduction in crime but I have a sneaking suspicion that, as usual, minorities will be the losers.
Suffolk writes: "I have a sneaking suspicion that, as usual, minorities will be the losers."
Are. you. serious?
Which minorities have been the losers during the past 11 years. The losers have been middle class indigenes. The wrong and criminal "positive discrimination" has ensured that every council and big corporation is employing people purely on the basis of their skin pigment. Indeed, some jobs are reserved solely for them. No job is reserved solely for an indigene or any other white person.
The Muslim immigrants have been elevated in "rights" above the indigenous people. If you have a sharp exchange of words with a gay man on any subject under the sun, the gay lobby will label you "homophobic" even if the subject of the sharp exchange of words was over a parking space.
It's this atomisation of our society that needs to cease. The socialists operate under the divide and conquer meme.
I am genuinely baffled by your strange perception.
Well, Verity, fair enough - where did my mistaken belief in the persecution of gays come from? I dont know. I must be making it up.
I actually asked if Cameron would try and use a reversal of gay rights as an election platform. Or to be honest a minor part thereof.
It is a legitimite question. If you reread my post you will see that I am asking questions not accusing people of being homophobic.
Please tell us, Iain... what is David Cameron's policy on Europe?
Tim, a simple Google search will tell you.
Ah, my dear Strapworld, you are psychic; I once had the misfortune to sit next to the Pompous One at a Tory dinner - he should retire to some leafy golf club and take Clarke with him.
Can't understand all this talk about Ken's charm - at political meetings and in interviews he comes across as smug and arrogant.
Whatever Clarke is really like, he has the common touch in spades. He had a good record as Chancellor which would be a bonus come election time.
Of course, he has a gigantic ego, so despite taking a serious pay cut, I doubt that he would be able to resist the call of the grease paint and lights.
Suffolk - You said the minorities are always the losers, which is patently absurd.
You also ask whether David Cameron would "reverse gay rights". Given that gay people have exactly the same rights as every other citizen, how could he reverse those rights for one segment? And is there a demand for such a quixotic move? Who is demanding a "reversal of gay rights"?
I can't stand David Cameron, and I certainly don't over-rate his intellect, but he is not that stupid.
What an absolutely bizarre question.
Ian you say do a Google search
David Cameron European policy.
At the present time that search produces 1,990,000 results and I still can not see what Dave's European policy is.
Would you care to explain to your readership just what Dave's European policy is and why Ken Clarke would be wary of it?
Iain,
That's a slippery answer.
I understand you're going to be standing for parliament. Why don't you know what the website address is for your own party's policy on Europe?
I've checked the Conservatives site and clicked where it says "policies" and searched the page for "Europe" and there's nothing.
Where is it Iain, or am I to assume that the Conservatives would rather offer fool's gold over Europe - criticising Labour while actually having policies that would make no difference.
Of course he should be in the cabinet, if he's willing. Should he have to be in the shadow cabinet first? No. He has a track record, the public know him; he has nothing to prove. Let those who are currently little known have their chance to prove themselves, and don't give the socialists the chance to make mischief picking out some of Ken's past quotes.
As for the hardworking shadow cabinet ministers being miffed if they don't get a cabinet job after a Tory win.... well, tough. Some of them come across as quite inept (e.g. Paul Hammond) and if there are better candidates after the election, they should get the top jobs.
Tim, If you want to know what the Conservative Party policy is on Europe, I suggest you ask the Conservative Party. I am not a Conservative Candidate and am not applying for seats. I do not write this blog to provide a research service.
I just did a Google search myself on the subject and it provided some very good sources which can tell you all you need to know. I suggest you do the same.
Do stop panicking, people. David Cameron is a politician. He needs Ken Clarke to refrain from wrecking Conservative chances of winning the next election - solution is, promise him a role senior enough to appease his vanity. After the election Ken won't have any leverage, or any job either. DC has the steel to do this, as did TB (just ask Paddy Ashdown, or for that matter Gordon Brown)
Verity - two men or women cant get "married" in a legal sense so they clearly dont have the same rights. Even if they undertake a civil partnership it is still not recognised as a marriage in this country or many others. Clearly they dont have the same rights as other people. Or are you interpreting "rights" in a different way from me? I include recognition of a gay relationship as being the equal of a heterosexual relationship. Maybe you disagree?
verity said
"Suffolk - You said the minorities are always the losers, which is patently absurd."
really you believe this? What about people of colour in the US until the 60s? Or gay people?
are you blind or just ignorant.
'Two men or women cant get "married" in a legal sense so they clearly dont have the same rights. Even if they undertake a civil partnership it is still not recognised as a marriage in this country.'
Well, it isn't a marriage, so how could it be "recognized" as such. Nobody cares what men do with each other. Isn't that enough? All this clamouring for victim status is nauseating.
verity said... G Man - "They are willing to look over is euro fanatacism." That is a total misreading of the mood of the country.
You have no idea what the mood of the country is.
Ian's opinion on Dave's European policy when Dave has not gone public about his European policy seems rather odd.
Anonymous said...
"Ian you say do a Google search
David Cameron European policy.
At the present time that search produces 1,990,000 results and I still can not see what Dave's European policy is."
If you apply a bit of common sense and put "David Cameron" and "European policy" in quotes then it comes down to a more-manageable total of 992 results in Google.
Alternatively, you could go to the Conservative Party website (www.conservatives.com).
Not odd at all. He's made a couple of speeches on it. Seems very clear to me.
I've certainly heard Dave say on more than one occasion that membership of the EU is 'absolutely the right thing for Britain' and that he would rather tackle various issues from within it (and look where that's got us over the years). I don't get the impression that he's just saying this to prevent headlines about the Tories & Europe, which suggests Ken is unlikely to have any problems with the policy; it is, after all, that we're 'Better In than Out'.
Clarke is a man of honour and decency. He would deserve place in the cabinet.
Mr Cameron does not have a coherent policy on the EU. He does not even have an incoherent one - that he is publically backing anyway. The minute he does, we will all be very aware of the 10 word or less soundbite.
I must be the biggest idiot going, surely I am the only man in the UK who was willing to back the Tories in the last two elections and am completely offended by the new PR savvy, policy lite "Team Blue".
I want my country back, and as soon as I can find a [non-racist, policy heavy] party that wants to see a strong Britain independant of the EU, they can count my vote as the first.
Clarke was up on stage with Blair when Bill Hague was campaining for Sterling. Clarke voted for the EU Constitution when his party rallied against on the grounds theat he found it unbelievable that his constituents would have believed he would follow party lines on that matter. (Cameron will not give any assurance that if elected he will do anything to reverse the EU constitution, not even a belated vote)
Clarke; he is no heayweight, he is a tobacco pushing, back stabbing, manifesto denying lighweight who was built up by the last Tory government because he held the purse strings and because they needed a stand in, in case Major folded. I have watched Clarke in Parliament on TV, each time I have he has never once convinced me he is a good public speaker or that he has any conviction at all. In fact at the last conference he sounded montone and bland, he did not even seem like he knew what he was saying, like he was reading unprepared from a script.
Sure, bring him back, it won't affect my vote. The Tories are obviously looking to pick up where they left of in 1997. They may be riding high in the polls now, but as soon as a general election is called, and people want to know more about them, it will suddenly become a lot more uncomfortable for them.
Ken Clarke should be persuaded to stand down and take a seat in the Lords. From there he can speak with knowledge and freedom on issues which are of concern to him.
Cameron doesn't need him in the Shad Cab or the Cabinet. There are people of some considerable talent. And expereince of the business world is a good grounding for expereince in cabinet - which is essentially the 'board room' of Britain PLC!
However, if we could choose which member of the Shad Cab to sack, can it please be Andrew Mitchell - who everyone I have ever mentioned him too dislikes because he is such a rude, arrogant and mostly useless arse!
you know what else, telling people to "google it" to find out what Mr Camerons position on the EU kinda proves their point. Cameron should be stood out side oarliamnet with a megaphone decrying the EU. The CAP IS A WMD is kills thousands every year. We do not make our own laws and the EU can lock people away without trail for a lot longer that 42 days. Google, should not be required to now what the next PM thinks on such matters.
I have no personal opinion either way on whether Clarke should rejoin a future cabinet.
I will though say I have a lot of admiration for the man. My interest in politics began while leafleting for Ken as a 12 y/o boy. I owe him a huge debt for instilling the importance of fighting for what you believe is right... and the time he spent with a snotty nosed kid when he obviously had better things to do.
Ken is a maverick to be sure... but he has always been guided by principle and belief rather than the moment or necessity. On that, you have to respect the man.
Cameron will continue the nulab policy of betraying Britain to Europe.
But it still won't be enough for Clarke.
So bring back Ken. I'm getting bored of all this tory harmony.
I admire Ken Clarke. He is the best leader the tories never had. He stood up to the Iraq war supported the euro, and seems pretty understandiong on issues of race, and class.
The tories would be mad not to have someone of his calibre in the cabinet if they won. I would support him being deputy PM.
Could Clarke sign up to the Tories EU policy? Of course. His views are in fact the Tories' EU policy, and always have been, even under Iain Duncan Smith. They are not the editorial position of the Mail and Telegraph newspapers, but that is not the same thing at all.
Clarke voted against The Referendum That Was Never Going To Happen Anyway, but that was only ever a distraction, with Cameron never saying that he would campaign for a No vote.
Clarke and fellow referendum "rebel" John Gummer were the only two people to hold Ministerial office continuously from 1979 to 1997. Neither has ever run the slightest risk of deselection, not even now that they are both really quite old by the standards of today's politicians.
Indeed, the only Tory MP ever to be deselected because of his views on the EU was Sir George Gardiner, removed on account of his Euroscepticism.
So not only is the Tory high command not even vaguely Eurosceptical (quite the reverse, in fact), but the same appears to be case of, such as there still is, the rank and file.
Post a Comment