AHC: Ken Clark, Conservative Party Leader

[Peelitebkearns]

Hi all,

This is probably a longshot, but as the title indicates, find a way to make Ken Clark leader of the Tory party at some point. His stances on the issues he's most known for must remain unchanged (so no ideological shifts/conversions are allowed-they're probably ASB anyway).

Bonus points if he's elected PM, double bonus if you can ctually manage to get him to hold the Tories together and leave office as a fairly successful Prime Minister...

[Arachnid]

You need a world in which Europe isn't a major issue. As long as the EU matters and integration is happening he's going to really struggle to win the leadership and instantly split the party if he does.

[Blackadder mk 2]

You'd need him to either not care so much about Europe so that he could go into an acceptable position for the base or be a Eurosceptic from the start.

Otherwise you just get everything drowned out by backbench and grass-root resentment.

[Marky Bunny]

In OTL he stood and lost 3 times, 97,01 & 05.
I have to say his best chance to have become leader is if the Tories had lost a 91(with Thatcher as leader) or 92 election (same as OTL) with Major. There would have been the ERM mess, and don't forget he was popular with the public across party lines.
If he had won in 1997 instead of Hague I guess with a deputy leader in John Reedwood (that was the deal) he would united the party and made a few gains more than the single gain in OTL (say 20 gains or so).

[Blackadder mk 2]

Originally Posted by Marky Bunny

If he had won in 1997 instead of Hague I guess with a deputy leader in John Reedwood (that was the deal) he would united the party and made a few gains more than the single gain in OTL (say 20 gains or so).

I don't really buy into that theory. While the idea was that Redwood would unite the party, all it would have gained Clarke was a Thatcherite Chancellor who he insulted a few years back, an entire backbench with chips on their shoulders, few allies who actually have influence in the party.

He would have had the same result as Hague due to the anger of the backbenches.

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by Marky Bunny

If he had won in 1997 instead of Hague I guess with a deputy leader in John Reedwood (that was the deal) he would united the party and made a few gains more than the single gain in OTL (say 20 gains or so).

If the Clarke-Redwood alliance had won in 1997 we would still be in opposition and possibly not exist as a party any more. As Blackadder mk 2 says you would have a divided cabinet with a Chancellor who disagree's with his leader on basically everything and who already has a record of theatrical and damaging resignations. Hague would be sitting on the backbenches and vengeful about being cheated out of victory and able to rally the backwoodsmen to his cause after they drop Redwood for getting in bed with Clarke. All the ingredients are there for either a fundamental split in the party or a multi-term civil war coupled with the rise of various Eurosceptic fringe parties on the right and its easy to create a scenario where the Conservative and Unionist Party shatters out of existence. It would have been that catastrophic.

[V-J]

I don't agree it would be as bad as all that, but it was an absolutely desperate and silly alliance of convienience which deserved to fail.

As I've argued a few times on here before, I believe that 2001 was easily the best OTL chance Clarke had to win the leadership, largely because of the prescence of Portillo, whose stock was very, very low at that point. It's not a given by any chance, in fact it would still probably on balance favour Portillo, but Clarke certainly has an excellent chance of winning a Clarke-Portillo fight, which he would not have against a vanilla right-winger. The party was not ready to accept a modernising prospectus at that point, and Portillo was a deeply flawed instrument to deliver it by 2001 considering his personal history. And if Portillo conducted the membership part of his campaign with the same fecklessness that he did the parliamentary portion, where he went in as favourite and eventually came third, Clarke is well, well in with a shot.

[drcynic]

I always thought Ken Clarke was too moderate and pro-Europe to be a Tory, anyway. He should've been one of the defectors to the SDP or even a Liberal from the start.

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by drcynic

I always thought Ken Clarke was too moderate and pro-Europe to be a Tory, anyway. He should've been one of the defectors to the SDP or even a Liberal from the start.

He's pretty dry economically and was a bloody good Chancellor, in fact I'd still trust him in No. 11 today. I can even forgive him his pro-criminal policy at Justice. Its only on Europe he departs the acceptable Tory mainstream.

[The Oncoming Storm]

1997 was his best chance but apparently it was his deal with Redwood that cost him, by doing so he pissed off the Major Loyalists in the Party who had never forgiven Redwood for his treachery in 1995. Until then they and Major had been supporting Clarke but after the deal Major was supposed to have been working the phones for Hague!

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm

1997 was his best chance but apparently it was his deal with Redwood that cost him, by doing so he pissed off the Major Loyalists in the Party who had never forgiven Redwood for his treachery in 1995. Until then they and Major had been supporting Clarke but after the deal Major was supposed to have been working the phones for Hague!

Not at all, the reason why he lost in '97 is some of his supporters dumped him for getting in bed with a man they regarded as the devil (Redwood) and many of Redwood's supporters didn't follow him into supporting a man they regarded as everything that was wrong with the Tory Party (Clarke). There is a very good reason that alliances of the left and right against the centre are very rare and normally fail. It was a shabby deal cooked up purely for personal advantage and everyone recognised it for what it was.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Originally Posted by Arachnid

Not at all, the reason why he lost in '97 is some of his supporters dumped him for getting in bed with a man they regarded as the devil (Redwood) and many of Redwood's supporters didn't follow him into supporting a man they regarded as everything that was wrong with the Tory Party (Clarke). There is a very good reason that alliances of the left and right against the centre are very rare and normally fail. It was a shabby deal cooked up purely for personal advantage and everyone recognised it for what it was.

Yep, since 1997 the Tories just seem to have been hung up on the idea that they needed to do exactly what Labour did after 1983, that meant their own version of the Kinnock-Hattersley "Dream Ticket" and then leading to their Blair. But what works for one Party at a particular time isn't applicable for another at a different time.

The Leader the Tories needed in 1997 was Michael Howard but Widdecombe's "Something of the Night" comment and THAT Newsnight interview sank him. He wouldn't have made the same strategic blunders that Hague did and would have made a gain of about 30-50 seats in 2001. All this time Hague would have been the heir apparent and after a similar performance in 2005 would have succeeded when Howard stepped down and may well could have been PM today.

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm

Yep, since 1997 the Tories just seem to have been hung up on the idea that they needed to do exactly what Labour did after 1983, that meant their own version of the Kinnock-Hattersley "Dream Ticket" and then leading to their Blair. But what works for one Party at a particular time isn't applicable for another at a different time.

The Leader the Tories needed in 1997 was Michael Howard but Widdecombe's "Something of the Night" comment and THAT Newsnight interview sank him. He wouldn't have made the same strategic blunders that Hague did and would have made a gain of about 30-50 seats in 2001. All this time Hague would have been the heir apparent and after a similar performance in 2005 would have succeeded when Howard stepped down and may well could have been PM today.

Your probably right . In fact that would be a really good idea for a tl.

[stodge]

As always, an interesting idea.

Had John Major lost in 1992, it's possible Clarke would have been a contender but there were still plenty of "big beasts" available such as Michael Heseltine and Douglas Hurd though it's not inconceivable that Clarke could have been the "stop Heseltine" candidate.

Perhaps I'll do an alternative 1992 and points after TL someday..."For Want of A Soapbox" perhaps.

Another little vignette worth considering is an alternative Richmond by-election result in 1989. Had Mike Potter won the seat for the SDP, it would have given the Owenite Party a real boost in its struggle with the then Social & Liberal Democrats. I suspect it would have made little difference in the end especially after the debacle for the SDP at Bootle but Potter would have remained an MP until losing in 1992. The point is that William Hague would not have made it into Parliament until 1992 at the earliest so would not have been (in all probability) a senior enough figure to challenge for the leadership in 1997.

For 1997 to work better for Clarke, we need a less severe Conservative defeat. Had 250 rather than 165 Conservative MPs been elected, Clarke's position as a senior big hitter ready to take on the fledgling Blair Government would have been much stronger - in OTL, it looked like a 10-year period in Opposition at best so a younger leader looked a better option to the rump of survivors.

I simply can't see a Clarke win in 2001 - had Portillo rather than IDS gone through to the Members' ballot, I suspect Portillo would still have won.

[V-J]

Clarke wasn't winning in 1997 whatever he did, Redwood or no, and the idea of alienated centre or alienated Clarke voters being crucial just doesn't stack up if you look at how the voting went. Look at the numbers from the second round:

Ken Clarke 64
William Hague 62
John Redwood 38

That's the 'base' level of support for each candidate before the tactical switches came fully into play in the final round. I.E, the swing vote was, nominally at least, the Redwood supporters - the hard right. But they were never going to go for Clarke en bloc, or as a majority, whatever Clarke did. In esscence, an alliance with Redwood was Clarke's best chance of victory, and it still didn't work.

I'm not convinced either a less severe Tory defeat or a different 'stop Clarke' candidate would work either. Those that were defeated in 1997 were just as much reflective of those that remained as they were Tory centrists likely to vote for Clarke, and sans Hague, the party would very likely have simply ended up with Michael Howard as leader. 1997 wasn't based on a cool assesment of Hague's - or anyone else's - merits versus Clarke's, it was simply a negative judgement on Clarke politically.

Clarke isn't going to be the 'stop Heseltine' candidate in '92, and even if he was, his leadership would die pretty quickly over Maastricht, as he wouldn't have half the subtlety of handling his own party during its passage that John Smith had. Not a good POD in short.

I still maintain 2001 was Clarke's best chance - Portillo's ratings with both Tory supporters and the public were pretty shocking at that point, and polls of Tory supporters - admittedly different from the members, but then that works both ways IMO - showed Clarke favoured over Portillo. I don't think it stretches the imagination too much to suggest Clarke could have won on a 'better the devil you know' principle; I think that kind of situation is the best chance you can provide for Clarke. All the usual criticsms of Clarke - only interested in being a part-time leader, ideologically unpalatable, and most of all, divisive - can and would just as equally be thrown at Portillo in 2001, and IMO they would be with probably more persuasiveness considering the rawness of feeling towards Portillo at that point.

[Blackadder mk 2]

One way for Clarke to win would be having Thatcher not endorse Hague which overrode the Redwood endorsement for a few, though that doesn't solve the party turning on Clarke halfway.

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by Blackadder mk 2

One way for Clarke to win would be having Thatcher not endorse Hague which overrode the Redwood endorsement for a few, though that doesn't solve the party turning on Clarke halfway.

The Thatcher endorsement didn't change that much the numbers went from:

Kenneth Clarke 64
William Hague 62
John Redwood 38

to

William Hague 90
Kenneth Clarke 72
Abstentions 2

Assuming all of Clarke's and Hague's supporters stayed with them then Redwood's supporters split 28-10 in favour of Hague. Thatcher was certainly very influential with Redwoodites but in a sense she was following the herd. Most of them reacted badly to Redwood doing a deal with a devil and people were comparing it to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Even if Thatcher had stayed silent at the very best Clarke would only get 5 or 6 more Redwoodite votes.

[BillyShears]

Clarke is very popular among voters, even Labour supporters with the possibility of some unpopular leader would vote for Clarke. Had Clarke been leader of the Conservatives in 2010, I bet they'd have won a slight majority

The only thing I can think is, Major is killed by the IRA in 1991 leaving the party in disarray with no leader in the run-up to an election. Aside from the consequences of this, whoever emerges as the leader loses the confidence of the house over the Maastricht Treaty and loses in 1992 to Kinnock who is popular perhaps from his mournful speech in front of the nation.

However, Kinnock fails to win a majority and forms a coalition government with Ashdown's Liberal Democrats. The ERM Crisis is blamed on the Conservatives and handily by the election of 1997 its revealed how much its cost and still blamed on the Conservatives whilst they sign the Maastricht Treaty amidst some grumblings from older Labourites but its seen as necessary to gain the support of the Lib Dems.

In the meantime, the leader of the Conservatives resigns and Clarke stands for leadership and remarkably wins in a upset for other more established candidates.

The 1997 election ones again reveals an inconclusive result with some notable casualties such as Minister of Employment Tony Blair losing his seat to an independent candidate for the 'Real Jobs for Real Workers' Party due to rising unemployment. This is widely regarded in future elections as a 'Blair Moment' for a man who could potentially have become leader.

Gordon Brown, now Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to negotiations with the Liberal Democrats alongside leader Neil Kinnock, the agreements fail with the Conservatives instead forming a coalition with Ken Clarke who had suffered numerous defections over his European stance, the coalition would be good for the Lib Dems as they could assert themselves with Clarke's weak position whilst Clarke now had support for his European ideal.

The 'Clarke Coalition' embarks on a similar centrist direction to the previous government but with more 'responsible' spending policies, Clarke's ambitious target is to join the Euro which opposition leader Gordon Brown strongly opposes, in Parliament one day, Brown remarks 'it is an irony that Clarke will put other peoples money in the hands of other countries, when he can't even put his own money on whether he will win other peoples votes'.

Brown bottles a vote of no confidence and the coalition continues, Clarke concedes to Brown's demands of a referendum (which is really to please backbenchers), the result is close but a 'no' vote with 53% voting against. Clarke attempts to be the position of integrity. Realising the government is unlikely to win, Clarke pulls the coalition into 2002 when the Liberal Democrats pull out early with the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Ashdown. Clarke leads a successful caretaker ministry for six months up to an election in late 2002 and surprisingly has high polling scores with reasonably popular policies and growth.

Clarke nonetheless loses the 2002 election after 5 years in power to the younger Gordon Brown. Brown had promised to match Clarke's popular economic policies minus Europe and offered a way for anti-EU Conservatives to vote. Clarke stands down as leader shortly after paving the way for Michael Portillo as leader.

Brown leads his party into another electoral victory in 2007 and leaves office in 2012 shortly after the Olympics with Peter Mandelson as successor, however, it appears the world financial climate is beginning to turn again with the collapse of the EU on the horizons... the Clarkist faction of the Conservatives hence begins to wane.

[houndtang]

Clarke's stock was highest around 1993-4 when he first became Chancellor - I remember lots of (fairly fanciful) talk in the media of him replacing Major. Then his pro-Europe views alienated the right-wing press and they turned on him big time.

Possibly another option is Major's affair with Edwina Currie comes out during the height of Back to Basics and he has to resign in early 1994. Clarke, Heseltine, Howard and Portillo all stand for the leadership.

To be honest in that scenario I think Portillo might have made it on the basis that the least experienced candidate almost always wins Tory leadership contests. His standing was also high as the 'coming man' of the right at the time so that might have been enough. Portillo's inexperience and unpopular public profile do little to steady the ship and the party goes down to a similarly heavy defeat in 1997. Clarke, who resigns as Chancellor in 1995 over Europe, stands for the leadership but as in the OTL loses to a more junior right-winger.

So that doesn't really answer your question! Going back to OTL I don't think he really stood a chance in 1997. 2001 was his best chance in as it's possible he could have beaten Portillo among the members. It would certainly have been a more interesting contest than that between him and IDS.

[EdT]

Originally Posted by V-J

I still maintain 2001 was Clarke's best chance - Portillo's ratings with both Tory supporters and the public were pretty shocking at that point, and polls of Tory supporters - admittedly different from the members, but then that works both ways IMO - showed Clarke favoured over Portillo. I don't think it stretches the imagination too much to suggest Clarke could have won on a 'better the devil you know' principle; I think that kind of situation is the best chance you can provide for Clarke. All the usual criticsms of Clarke - only interested in being a part-time leader, ideologically unpalatable, and most of all, divisive - can and would just as equally be thrown at Portillo in 2001, and IMO they would be with probably more persuasiveness considering the rawness of feeling towards Portillo at that point.

I entirely agree, and actually it's relatively easy to do arrange as well.

PoD: 17th July 2001. Conservative MPs are casting their vote in the second round of their leadership contest. Graham Brady, a wavering Portillista, spots Michael Portillo in a corridor and asks him for reassurance that he doesn’t intend to impose all-women shortlists on constituency associations. IOTL, Portillo is mealy-mouthed on the issue, and Brady decides to vote for IDS instead. ITTL, he’s a little more convincing. Brady is still unenthused, but reluctantly casts his vote for Portillo. The result?

2nd Ballot 17th July 2001

Kenneth Clarke 59
Michael Portillo 54
Iain Duncan Smith 53

IDS is knocked out, amidst much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and Clarke and Portillo go through.

Both candidates will tack to the right in the final round, but I suspect Portillo will be less convincing in his attempts- or more likely, nobody will believe him. The bitter hostility many felt for him was quite astonishing; it will be enough to ensure Clarke is elected by a highly reluctant Conservative party…