Viewing the return of Clarke from the prospective of the previous post it would seem there are only positives to be gained from his return. That is not the case, however. Although Clarke’s 67 years means he comes with vital experience of government and business-economic issues, he also comes with significant baggage.
To many within the Conservative Party, his Europhile views are an anathema. He is strongly pro-European at a time when the Conservative Party has become strongly Eurosceptic. In the bad old days of the 1990s when the Conservatives tore themselves apart over Europe, the party and Cabinet were much more evenly split. But ever since the 1997 general election, the party has been transformed into a united party on the issue of Europe, with successive intakes of Conservative MPs holding Eurosceptic views. The fear some have about the return of Clarke is that his return with reopen these splits. This is the principal reason why Ken Clarke never became Conservative leader, despite contesting the leadership in 1997, 2001 and again in 2005.
Another fear some have is about his loyalty. Will Ken Clarke toe the party line on Europe? William Hague has recently said a Conservative government would never join the Euro. Would the pro-Euro Clarke adopt this position in interviews, in the Commons etc? However, it is believed the recent hardening of the Tory line on joining the single currency was triggered by the prospect of a Clarke return. Previously, the commitment had been not to join over the course of the next Parliament.
To many within the Conservative Party, his Europhile views are an anathema. He is strongly pro-European at a time when the Conservative Party has become strongly Eurosceptic. In the bad old days of the 1990s when the Conservatives tore themselves apart over Europe, the party and Cabinet were much more evenly split. But ever since the 1997 general election, the party has been transformed into a united party on the issue of Europe, with successive intakes of Conservative MPs holding Eurosceptic views. The fear some have about the return of Clarke is that his return with reopen these splits. This is the principal reason why Ken Clarke never became Conservative leader, despite contesting the leadership in 1997, 2001 and again in 2005.
Another fear some have is about his loyalty. Will Ken Clarke toe the party line on Europe? William Hague has recently said a Conservative government would never join the Euro. Would the pro-Euro Clarke adopt this position in interviews, in the Commons etc? However, it is believed the recent hardening of the Tory line on joining the single currency was triggered by the prospect of a Clarke return. Previously, the commitment had been not to join over the course of the next Parliament.
Ken Clarke is, believe it or not, the most disloyal Conservative MP according to his voting record. This is largely as a result of his supportive stance for the ratification of the EU Lisbon Treaty. But still, can Cameron afford to bring him back when Clarke is most likely to defy the whip on European issues?
Some may argue that once in the shadow Cabinet he will toe the party line. I’m not so sure. Clarke seems to me a deeply principled man who will not put ambition above his beliefs. Otherwise, why did he not pragmatically change his beliefs on the single currency? Had he done so, he, and not David Cameron, Iain Duncan Smith, and William Hague would have most likely been elected as Conservative leader in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
If Clarke is to return, Cameron may have to give him a special dispensation to vote with his conscience on European issues but this would be highly irregular and possibly damaging to party unity, the notion of collective responsibility within a Cabinet, not to mention being a gift to Labour and the media.
Other occasions of disloyalty are worth flagging up. Clarke attempted to sabotage William Hague's 'Save the pound' campaign in the late 1990s and unforgivably, for some Tories, shared a pro-Europe “Britain in Europe” platform with Tony Blair (alongside Michael Heseltine and Charles Kennedy) back in 2000. More recently Clarke attacked David Cameron's human rights bill as "xenophobic" and opposes leaving the EPP grouping in the European Parliament as a "head-banging" policy. Moreover he has also made embarrassing remarks for the Tory leadership regarding the government’s VAT cut. Clarke said that if he was Chancellor, the tax cut he would have been minded to choose was a VAT cut. This does not square at all with the views of his leader who has branded the government’s VAT cut a “joke,” “criminal,” and an "unbelievable and expensive failure."
Furthermore, at a time when Cameron is offering a message of change, some argue that the return of the 67 year old former Chancellor during the Major years undermines this message. It has also been argued by ConservativeHome that this goes beyond presentation as his ideas are out-dated. For example, Clarke does not support the Tory leader's flagship policies on the family and would resist recognition of marriage in the tax system.
As a consequence, ConservativeHome has argued that Cameron would be better off leaving Clarke as a backbencher. The idea here is that the party gets the best of him at present - as a big beast on the backbenches he has no significant influence on party policy but is an active and effective media player. If Cameron wants to utilise his talents further, he can create an economic council of wise men. This could enable David Cameron to acknowledge the contributions of individuals such as Clarke and John Redwood - but not shackle them with the responsibilities of a fully-fledged frontbencher.
Other occasions of disloyalty are worth flagging up. Clarke attempted to sabotage William Hague's 'Save the pound' campaign in the late 1990s and unforgivably, for some Tories, shared a pro-Europe “Britain in Europe” platform with Tony Blair (alongside Michael Heseltine and Charles Kennedy) back in 2000. More recently Clarke attacked David Cameron's human rights bill as "xenophobic" and opposes leaving the EPP grouping in the European Parliament as a "head-banging" policy. Moreover he has also made embarrassing remarks for the Tory leadership regarding the government’s VAT cut. Clarke said that if he was Chancellor, the tax cut he would have been minded to choose was a VAT cut. This does not square at all with the views of his leader who has branded the government’s VAT cut a “joke,” “criminal,” and an "unbelievable and expensive failure."
Furthermore, at a time when Cameron is offering a message of change, some argue that the return of the 67 year old former Chancellor during the Major years undermines this message. It has also been argued by ConservativeHome that this goes beyond presentation as his ideas are out-dated. For example, Clarke does not support the Tory leader's flagship policies on the family and would resist recognition of marriage in the tax system.
As a consequence, ConservativeHome has argued that Cameron would be better off leaving Clarke as a backbencher. The idea here is that the party gets the best of him at present - as a big beast on the backbenches he has no significant influence on party policy but is an active and effective media player. If Cameron wants to utilise his talents further, he can create an economic council of wise men. This could enable David Cameron to acknowledge the contributions of individuals such as Clarke and John Redwood - but not shackle them with the responsibilities of a fully-fledged frontbencher.
No comments:
Post a Comment