But for a vote: Ken Clarke wins the 2001 Tory leadership contest

This is the moment, Tony Blair thought to himself in the back of the PM’s limousine, as he travelled eastwards through London. Not the first win, hell of a feeling though it was, not just for me either: a national renaissance. But it slipped away a bit. Sure there was devolution in Scotland and Wales, the Northern Ireland settlement – if it can be made to stick, fingers crossed on that one. A start on health and education but it was only that. Even after another term, I’m still fighting on that one and besides, the reforms are easy enough to reverse for the next government. Not the second election victory either, though that’s made it all possible. Not winning the party leadership; that was just where it began. No. Today is it. Today is Legacy Day. Whatever else happens, my place in history is assured and we’ve changed Britain’s destiny forever and for the better.

He cast his mind back to the summer of 2001, when it all the pieces fell into place. That second win. My second win. Another landslide majority. True, turnout was down but that was because people were satisfied, wasn’t it? Politics thrives on resentment and if people don’t have something to protest against, they won’t be that motivated to vote, especially when they know what the outcome’s going to be. Ironic really, when you think what Hague campaigned on but then he was roundly rejected then wasn’t he? And he’s been roundly rejected again. Some people don’t learn. Anyway, they can’t say they weren’t warned.

Then there was the Tory leadership election straight afterwards. What a strange one that was, with Ken Clarke, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Portillo almost tying in the final round of voting among MPs, and Portillo edging out IDS by the single vote.* Say what you like about the Tories, their leadership elections are always good for a laugh. That one undoubtedly was, making the blue-rinse brigade have to choose between a Europhile with no dress sense and a half-Spanish Thatcherite-turned-moderniser of uncertain sexuality.

No contest. Hague had settled the European question – or so he thought and so his party thought. Clarke might have been pro-Euro but none of his colleagues were so it didn’t matter so much. What was he going to do about it? By contrast, Portillo had burned too many boats and betrayed too many believers. At least you knew where you stood with Clarke: there was no pretence there, no calculation. So he won, quite comfortably in the end: 58% to 42%. Of course, they’d rather have had a Thatcherite again but their MPs thought they knew better and didn’t give them the chance.

I wonder if they meant to work it like that, Blair pondered. Can an electorate manage a result so accurately when so many of the voters have their own agendas too? I doubt it. It must have been luck rather than judgement. My luck, as it turned out.

He gazed out of the thick, bullet-proof windows as the Jaguar followed several police cars, blue lights flashing, between the towering glass skyscrapers and arrogant stone facades of The City, deserted at this time of night. I wonder what they’ll make of today’s result, he thought.

* This is the point of departure. In reality, Duncan Smith edged out Portillo by 54 votes to 53 (and behind Clarke's 59), so providing the party's membership with the right-wing candidate they wanted.
 
Part 2

Where was I, Blair asked himself as he picked up his former line of thinking having distracted himself? Oh yes: Clarke. Too good an opportunity to pass up. Too big a threat to let lie, too: popular with the public and effective at the despatch box, just as he was ten years ago when I faced him as Shadow Home Secretary. Cherie always says I show him too much respect. I wonder if that’s what it goes back to. But then Cherie says I show everyone too much respect. Besides, you earn respect and he has earned it. Maggie found that way back when, when he told her it was time to go. Steve Byers found it too after the Jo Moore incident when Ken forced me into cutting my losses there.

It doesn’t matter though, does it? He was on my side tonight, wasn’t he, just as was everyone else who mattered. And that’s why we won. God knows what he’ll do now. He’ll be crucified by his party after this but he must know that. They’ll never forgive him, despite electing him – maybe even because they elected him.

The Prime Minister let his mind relax for a few moments before he pictured the other moment in his mind’s eye that made tonight possible: that meeting with Gordon and John at Dorneywood in February 2002.

“I’ve been thinking about the future”, Blair began.

“Good”, said Gordon. “So have I. When are you going to hand over to me?”

“There’s a bit more to it than that, Gordon. What I’d like us to agree today is a new pathway for this parliament. A lot’s happened since the election last year – new opportunities, new challenges – that I think we have to take account of. If you’ll give me your full support on them, I’ll resign before the next election.”

The Chancellor’s brow furrowed further as he tried to work out where Blair wanted to lead him, and what it meant. “I’m listening. Go on.”

“The big challenges facing us have changed. In the first term it was about service reform, devolution, getting the economy back on track. We’ve achieved a lot there, though there’s still a long way to go, especially in health and education. This time, the challenges are global: 9/11, Afghanistan, Europe, the relationship with the Americans. Who knows what and where next.” Blair paused, as he often did before the punch line. “Gordon”, he said, looking him as earnestly as possible into the eyes of his rival, his colleague, his one-time friend and collaborator, and his probable successor. “I’d like you to become Foreign Secretary.”

“Not a chance.” Brown replied rapidly and, Blair felt, too automatically. “I am not going to spend the next three years being your gopher, carrying your bags from conference to conference while you take all the credit at the end and – and be pushed out of decisions on the domestic agenda,” slamming his right hand, edge on, into the palm of his left to emphasise the point.

Brown adjusted himself in his chair, as he realised just how far forward he was now leaning, while the other two men let the air clear for a moment. Prescott was the first to speak, knowing what else Blair had up his sleeve.

“Gordon. Give Tony a chance. Hear him out – he’s not finished yet. We all need to pull together across the board to keep the ship on the road.”

Blair took up Prescott’s lead, though his head was still trying to unscramble the mix of metaphors. “Thanks, John. Yes. As you say Gordon, the prime minister has a lot of work to do on the international stage. You know, it’s only since I’ve seen the job from the inside that I’ve appreciated that, and just how useful it would have been to have had more experience there before moving into Number Ten. As for bag-carrying, I mean, come on. Do you really think I see you as a bag carrier?”

Brown was about to interject but the PM carried on, almost in a single stream of argument, “there’s something else. I want us to think again about the Euro. We’re already reviewing progress against the Five Tests again but I think you and I both know that that decision could be justified either way. We could wait forever for the best circumstances to come. Now might not be the perfect moment economically but it’s not bad. Politically, this is a chance we might never get again. As Foreign Secretary, having already been Chancellor, you would carry enormous weight in making the case.”

“I could do that just as well as Chancellor, and I’m doing plenty of things internationally: the G7 and G8, the IMF, Ecofin. Your arguments don’t stack up.” Brown interrupted himself as a thought struck him. “Peter’s put you up to this hasn’t he? This has got his fingerprints all over it,” he said, referring to the former minister, Peter Mandelson, now languishing on the back-benches after twice having had to resign from the cabinet but rumoured to be still in close and regular contact with Blair. “In any case”, Brown continued, “I’m the one who’s going to make the decision about the five tests.”

The three men sat in strained silence in the well-upholstered drawing room of the Buckinghamshire Georgian mansion for what seemed like minutes but was more probably no more than ten seconds. Birds chattered optimistically outside in the mild, early spring air; their song contrasting ironically with the impasse on the other side of the bulletproof windows. It was Prescott who spoke up first. “Tony. Do you mind leaving us for a few moments? There’s something I want to put to Gordon.”

Blair did as his deputy asked. When Prescott opened the door a few minutes later, his face betrayed his joy at the breakthrough the one-time union leader had negotiated, and his anticipation of Blair’s reaction.

“Sit yourself down Tony. I think we have the makings of an agreement. Gordon?”

“Let us be clear,” Brown began, while Blair was still walking to his armchair. “What you’re suggesting is that I become Foreign Secretary and drive the government’s foreign policy, that you will stand down as Prime Minister in 2004 and will support me to take over as Leader and PM. In return, you want my support for the reforms to education and the NHS this parliament, and a positive assessment of the five tests leading to a referendum this parliament where we will jointly campaign for entry?”

“That’s pretty much it. Yes.” Blair replied, wondering how Prescott has affected Brown’s change of heart.

“There’s one thing more. I want to choose who takes over at Number Eleven from me.”

“Well, come on now Gordon. I’m not really sure that’s reasonable. I thought Robin might do a good job?”

Brown exploded. “No! Absolutely not! I am not having that fucking arrogant ginger gnome taking credit for the hard work I’ve done over the last four years and doling out the cash now that we’ve got some. You can fucking well think again about the whole thing if that’s the way you want to play it!”

“Here we go again!” Muttered Prescott under his breath, wondering why Blair had made such an incendiary suggestion given that Brown and Robin Cook had been engaged in a feud and enmity so long-running that no-one now knew quite what its genesis had been, just that there was a mutual loathing and contempt.

The reason Blair had put Cook’s name forward was simple: he knew it would be harder for Brown to reject a second credible nominee without appearing obstructionist, which he’d just agreed not to be, and so to forestall Brown attempting to shoehorn a placeman of his own in. He weathered Brown’s outburst with equanimity. “It’ll have to be Jack then. You’ll need to deliver on the five tests first though.”

Brown thought for a moment. Straw wasn’t in his camp but then he wasn’t in Blair’s either. He didn’t have a following of his own and didn’t look interested in building one, though if he did move to the Treasury it’d mean he’d held all three main posts beneath the premiership, perhaps making him leadership material by that very fact, in the same way that position had propelled John Major – another grey man – a decade earlier. Still, he was capable enough and could be trusted not to wreck Brown’s legacy; a practical politician with whom he could do business. Yes: Jack would do.

“Fine. I’ll accept that. But if I’m going to make the announcement on the five tests, you won’t be able to reshuffle until the summer. I’ll still want in on foreign policy discussions in the interim; I’m not being handed a fucking time-bomb.”

And so the agreement was made. For once, it remained under wraps and even now, though there’d been plenty of speculation about the reasons why Blair had moved Brown and why the former chancellor had accepted it so readily, nothing had ever leaked from the three men who knew the truth. Indeed, as Blair acknowledged now to himself, even he didn’t know the full truth and thought again what Prescott had said to Brown while he was out of the room to make the Chancellor change his mind. Doesn’t really matter, does it? Blair told himself none too convincingly, the main point was that he did.

In fact, what Prescott had said was simple and straightforward. He’d told Brown that he was being offered a bloody good deal and ran through why. Ultimately, that came down to the fact that anything Blair did in the next two and a half years could be changed by Brown later, especially if he’d won his own mandate in the general election due in 2005 or 2006, on a manifesto he’d more or less be able to write himself; that an election victory was more than likely given that the Tories would still be tearing themselves apart over Europe with their leader and their MPs and membership on opposite sides of the Euro referendum; that the succession to the leadership was all but assured – something most people accepted anyway even if they didn’t know the specifics. He’d concluded, “look Gordon, Tony’s giving you pretty much everything you’re asking for. Stop looking for the catch and take the offer while it’s there.”
 
Clarke would have would likely taken some of the Lib Dem votes in 2005, I don't think the Tories would have won the election, but even with supporting the Iraq War the Conservatives did make some decent, if modest gains, with Clarke's Conservative Party opposing the war it would have picked some anti war vote that did go to the Lib Dems.
 
If the Tories vote against Iraq doesn't that mean that parliament doesn't approve the war?

Depends how many Labour MPs revolt. If anti-war backbenchers know that there's a risk of the vote not passing, then they would have to choose between stopping British involvement in a war that would happen anyway - the Americans would go in no matter what - and allow the Tories to slip in through the backdoor, or backing a war they know is wrong to stop the Tories.

Also, there's no legal obligation for Blair to go to Parliament with a vote anyway. He's the prime minister of Her Majesty's Government, he can do whatever the Queen can, in theory.

Anyway, very interesting, well-written and exciting TL. The first time I've said that in a while. I really look forward to the next update.
 
Depends how many Labour MPs revolt. If anti-war backbenchers know that there's a risk of the vote not passing, then they would have to choose between stopping British involvement in a war that would happen anyway - the Americans would go in no matter what - and allow the Tories to slip in through the backdoor, or backing a war they know is wrong to stop the Tories.

Also, there's no legal obligation for Blair to go to Parliament with a vote anyway. He's the prime minister of Her Majesty's Government, he can do whatever the Queen can, in theory.

Anyway, very interesting, well-written and exciting TL. The first time I've said that in a while. I really look forward to the next update.

Thanks for the kind words.

If parliament had voted down Blair's Iraq war participation, he'd have almost certainly had to resign but it wouldn't mean that the Tories would have been handed the keys to Number Ten. The constitution calls on the Queen to invite someone she believes can command the confidence of the Commons. As Labour had a majority of around 160 in March 2003, that wouldn't have been Ken Clarke (or IDS in OTL).

Although the constitution would be flying blind a bit in such a scenario (the working assumption is that the leader of a party with a majority in the Commons has, by definition, the confidence of the House, the Thatcher 1990 scenario is probably the closest precedent, with Blair staying on until a successor could be chosen. Of course, were Brown Foreign Secretary at the time, he too would have been compromised ...

However, events may not have panned out that way, but that's for the next update.
 
There could be a hung parliament in the next election. I've got two scenarios.
1) The Tories oppose Iraq, do well, better than IOTL and Labour struggles much worse than IOTL.
National Prediction: Labour short 30 of majority
Tory: 36.9% of votes 265 seats
Labour: 32.2% of vote 294 seats
LibDem: 20.5% of vote 55 seats

2) The Tories stuff up even worse than IOTL, leading many voters to defect to minor parties, LibDems or just stay home. Labour also struggles, perhaps leading to the LibDems doing better TTL.
National Prediction: Labour majority 94
Labour: 36.0% of vote 370 seats
Tory: 29.9% of vote 181 seats
LibDem: 23.2% of vote 65 seats
 

Sideways

Donor
This is interesting -seems like Blair is using Ken Clarke and Brown pretty well. Clarke may not even hold on to the election - and then what? Iain Duncan Smith, maybe? Or someone with a glimmer of political talent?
 
Comment...

David, as always, very well written though I'm a little uncertain about the continuity.

In Part 1, Blair has clearly won his third victory and it reads as though he has beaten William Hague again so the conclusion I draw is that Hague is given a second go as Conservative leader post-Clarke. That seems strange as the mantle would more likely have gone to Howard, Lilley or David Davis.

Part 2 - I struggle a bit with the notion that a Conservative Party led by Clarke would cause Blair to move Brown from the Treasury to the Foreign Office. I don't quite see the causation here. 9/11 has still happened it seems but if we are in early 2002, Iraq is still a little way off but presumably the military action in Afghanistan has gone ahead.

I presume the reasoning might be that Blair would need an ally at the FO if and when military intervention occurs.

At tjis stage, I don't see Clarke's position on this being any different from that of IDS - the possibility of an invasion of Iraq still seemed small at that stage because it was entirely possible a UN solution would work.

I suppose the longer-term question (and you'd know this better than me) is whether the Conservative Parliamentary Party would move against Clarke as they moved against IDS in the autumn of 2003. If there is evidence a Clarke-led Party is going to do worse than even Hague in 2001 then I suspect there would be a move to unseat Ken.

Could the Conservatives split under Clarke the way Labour did under Foot ? Given Clarke was by then out of step with much of the party on Europe and I presume the same would be true of Iraq the options are either rebellion or defection.

I'd also point out the propensity of IDS and those who support him to be an internal "awkward squad" as they were for John Major. True, there are fewer of them and they have much less Parliamentary impact but the likes of Cash, Rosindell and others might coalesce around IDS and if there is going to be a defection, you have the makings of a proto-UKIP there.
 
Hello Stodge.

The whole narrative of the timeline is continuous up until an extended epilogue (you'll know it when we get there). There are flashbacks in memory, such as that to the Dorneywood meeting, but the main structure those memories are contained within are set in a single evening.

I think where you've misled yourself is in assuming that Blair's won a third term. I'll post another Part this evening when hopefully it should become clearer but until then, if you rethink that initial assumption - and hence what else could be going on - the rest should fall into place.

I don't want to give too much away (yet) but the thinking behind Blair moving Brown to the FO in the spring / summer of 2002 is twofold: to remove a roadblock to reform in Blair's domestic agenda and to allow Blair to deliver on Euro entry, which he sees as a key component of his vision of 'modernising Britain'.

Why he's able and willing to do it is because unlike in OTL, where he'd have been faced with a near-united Tory Party and a somewhat split Labour one, here his own party's splits would pale into insignificance compared with those in the Conservatives. Apart from the low politics of increasing Labour's chances at the next GE, that also makes it much more likely that he'd be able to negotiate the various obstacles in the way of actually delivering on his objective.

Iraq, as you rightly say, is not on the immediate agenda, but more of that in the next posting.

In terms of Tory internal politics, as hopefully the opening of Part 2 suggests, Clarke proves quite adept at opposition in the early stages of the parliament - certainly far more so than IDS at the same point - and while that lasts, internal rumblings are not too troublesome.
 
Part 3

The Jaguar had travelled on, still heading east, and was now on the A13, passing through the Whitechapel, Stepney and Limehouse, on towards its final destination and its principal occupant’s moment of destiny.

Blair thought back to that final commitment, given so easily, casually almost, and wondered ruefully whether things might have been different in Iraq and the Middle East in general had he not done so.

Within a month of their Dorneywood agreement and while he was still at Number Eleven Gordon had insisted on his input into foreign policy and thrown a huge dollop of caution into the early discussions about Iraq. “You’re taking on a fight you don’t need and might not win”, he’d said, referring to critics in the party rather than the Saddam regime. “I can’t support you in a fight with Charles Kennedy and pretty much all the Lib Dems, with Ken Clarke and some of the Tories, and most of all, with a majority of Labour MPs and the Party in the country. They don’t want a war in Iraq. They think we’ve quite enough on our plate now and they’re right. It’s the wrong thing to do and it’s also the unpopular thing to do. Look at Harold Wilson: did he sign up to Vietnam? No he did not – and rightly so. We’re in the same position now.”

With Brown’s opposition to a military campaign in Iraq, it simply hadn’t been possible to give the Americans the assurances they’d wanted. As he’d said, being close to the Americans is one thing but not at any cost – and the cost of active support for a war in Iraq was too high. You only have so much political capital and there’s only so much trust people will give you, as Robin said[8]. Spend it on Iraq when there’s no case to be made and you can’t spend it on domestic reform or on joining the Euro.

Maybe they were right. After all, the war had gone ahead anyway, the Americans had won easily, just as in Afghanistan, and then the place had descended into chaos, also as in Afghanistan. Would we have made a difference? That all depends on the White House doesn’t it? If we’d been in, maybe I could have persuaded George to let Colin Powell and State take the lead when the fighting was over, rather than Rumsfeld and Defense. Done peacekeeping and nation-building properly. Or maybe not, Blair argued against himself, thinking about the way the Pentagon seemed to do its own thing anyway. Still, there’s no point fretting: it was never an option. It had been hard enough holding the line on giving Bush diplomatic cover.
 
Very interesting. So Gordon got Blair to stay the hell away from Iraq? Good for him. That'll keep some of the base that left in. OTOH he's instead trying to drag UK into the Euro, and that's probably a harder sell than Iraq.
 
I'm rather assuming that Blair's 'legacy' moment is the Euro, hence his gratitude to Ken Clarke. Interesting. I always thought in the early days of the coalition that Gideon should have gone down on his knees every day and thanked Gordon for keeping us out of the Euro.

Well done for Brown spotting that Iraq would be a shambles. Involvement in Afghanistan also kept low?
 
I'm rather assuming that Blair's 'legacy' moment is the Euro, hence his gratitude to Ken Clarke. Interesting. I always thought in the early days of the coalition that Gideon should have gone down on his knees every day and thanked Gordon for keeping us out of the Euro.

Well done for Brown spotting that Iraq would be a shambles. Involvement in Afghanistan also kept low?

Afghanistan is much as OTL. There was a broad consensus in parliament (Tony Benn and George Galloway aside) at the time in favour of clearing out the Taliban and of nation-building afterwards, so British forces get committed alongside the US and other NATO troops. There might be a butterfly down the line as America has to find 30,000 extra fighting men to take the place filled by the UK IOTL, which may have had a knock-on effect in Afghanistan, but it won't be significant enough to be covered here.
 
Afghanistan is much as OTL. There was a broad consensus in parliament (Tony Benn and George Galloway aside) at the time in favour of clearing out the Taliban and of nation-building afterwards, so British forces get committed alongside the US and other NATO troops. There might be a butterfly down the line as America has to find 30,000 extra fighting men to take the place filled by the UK IOTL, which may have had a knock-on effect in Afghanistan, but it won't be significant enough to be covered here.

Yeah, I assumed the initial commitment in Afghanistan would be similar to OTL, but that by the time the Helmand deployment rolled round enthusiasm would be less. Not that western involvement has been entirely negative, even if it sometimes feels like it.
 
Top