British Politics: WI Clarke becomes Tory leader in '97

In doing research for my Labour w/o Mandelson TL Ive come across records of the Tory leadership election of 1997 and There was a point where Ken Clarke was leading the voting.

So what if he won? say Either John Redwood didn't endorse Hague in exchange for the Chancellorship or thatcher doesn't endorse Hague or simply Hague doesn't perform well.

Would Clarke last longer or shorter than Hague? How would he fair against Blair in '97 to '01? How would it affect his career over the next 14 years?
 
A more divided Conservatives.

Like Labour in 1983, we had to learn the hard way that the public no longer saw the Thatcherite way as the total way and that New Labour was the feel-good alternative in 2001. Until then, all this would do is have Clarke face numerous challenges and criticisms from all sides along with destroy the reformist grouping for longer.

Maybe, if you wish for a less Thatcherite leader, have Portillo keep his seat and run so that he wins the leadership and is able to do better then Hague.
 
He tears the Tories apart, he wouldn't be able to help himself from backing British entry into the Euro and that would most likely seen him knifed very rapidly and if he survives he could wreck us.

Thank God he lost.
 
The Tories are wracked with internal divisions, Blair takes a more pro-EU stance to exacerbate the tensions, I can see Clarke being deposed rather than the Party splitting.

I think Clarke's mistake in that contest was the deal he did with John Redwood in the days before the final vote. He had hoped to form a "Dream Ticket" like Kinnock and Hattersley for Labour in 1983 but instead he alienated some of his natural supporters and many Major Loyalists who were still angry at Redwood for his treachery in 1995, apparently Major had been backing Clarke until then but he then started lobbying for Hague because of Redwood.

I wonder though if that deal had some agreed position on Europe between Clarke and Redwood, if there had been and it had held then Clarke may not have been so divisive.
 
If I remember something I had read then the leadership election was supposed to be the coronation of Michael Portillo as he had made a deal with Hague on that but losing his seat destroyed that.
 
I actually think Portillo would have been an even worse choice, he had almost come to symbolise all the public disliked about the Tories, especially after his "Who Dares Wins" speech in 1995. I think the Tories should have gone with Michael Howard but Anne Widdicombe's "Something of the Night" comment put paid to him.
 
If Portillo had held onto his seat at Enfield Southgate he would have won the leadership election. I don't think Hague would have run against Portillo in this event.
A good POD for the 1997 leadership election is if Hague keeps his word and runs as Micheal Howards "running-mate" has he orginally agreed only to change his mind a couple of days mind. (Hague would become deputy-leader & Party Chairman) and heir apparent. Actually that would have been the best choice in 1997. I think Howard who have proved a safe pair of hands as he proved as leader between 2003 & 2005. He would have reduced the labour majority to a decent amount in 2001 rather than the second landslide. Then Hague could won the 2005 election.
 
Last edited:
And presumably there's no Pro-Euro Conservative Party breakaway.

No, with the Jazzman in charge, the pro-Euro lot will be in the driving seat.... of a car that's splitting in two. I can easily imagine Bill Cash scowling his way over to UKIP along with perhaps eventually the Vulcan.
 
Clarke could only win if he was willing to make very substantial concessions to the right upon the EU. And he wasn't willing to. But even then, a lot of Conservative MPs would wonder they should vote for someone pretending to be Eurosceptic when they could vote for the real thing.
 
The dear old Tories have despised the wet wing of the party since Maggies time (maybe even before??? Ted Heath anyone) unfortunately the wets are actually what make the Conservative electable at all IMHO
The party went down a wrong path in adopting a virulent Euro-Sceptic (or is that Euro-Septic) set of values. They are still paying the price having to be in coalition with the Lib Dems. Five elections without a win and Europe still a running, oozing, puss filled sore for the party, better to have split and seen the Drys forming/joining the ever unelectable UKIP. No Hague, Prince of Darkness, Indescribably Boring. A true slightly right of centre party (UK wise) would almost always be elected, just look at New Labours triumphs ;)

Maybe one day they will learn but I guess not. Labour got rid of the extreme left within the party but the Tories still have rot inside and can exorcise it (the rot will be wet or dry depending upon view point)

Additionally I don't see Ken taking us into the Euro just as Blair didn't.
 
Top