When a successful American sitcom runs for a third or fourth series,
inspiration often flags. The producers try to keep up waning audience
interest by introducing a succession of Hollywood guest stars. Or sometimes
they resurrect characters who were killed off in earlier episodes. How like
British politics.
After its star, Tony Blair, left the show, the Labour party’s ratings
plummeted and the new lead, Gordon Brown, looked as if he was going to be
axed last autumn. So the Peter Mandelson character was brought back to
revive interest. This was the cabinet equivalent of Bobby Ewing’s shock
return to Dallas in the shower after we had been led to believe he had been
killed.
Mandelson has dropped his irritating speech tics to build up a credible,
almost avuncular political persona on TV and radio. He is proving to be a
capable departmental chief in the eye of the economic storm. But recently
the audience has been switching to Channel Tory again. So Brown hopes to
make the new American president Barack Obama his guest superstar at a big
London economic summit in April. In the meantime a host of Labour oldies but
goldies are putting in appearances.
Alan Milburn, the former health secretary who resigned after titanic rows with
chancellor Brown, has been wheeled out to promote equal opportunity. David
Blunkett and Charles Clarke are rumoured to follow.
Where does this leave the Conservatives? Happy with their current showing in
the polls, but looking a little drab. And public opinion, as they know to
their cost, is volatile. David Cameron is therefore planning a shadow
cabinet reshuffle and may bring back a few old stagers too. In particular he
is talking up his shadow foreign secretary (and former party leader) William
Hague while opening the door to Ken Clarke, former chancellor of the
exchequer, lifelong political bruiser and acme of ordinary blokeishness. But
also a fanatic for all things European.
Cameron has told The Sun that Hague is his virtual deputy. Everyone inside the
Tory tent protests that this means no diminution of the shadow chancellor
George Osborne’s influence, though some of the body language of the
principal players I have observed at close quarters recently leads me to
believe there was a certain awkwardness about this decision and its
consequences. One who is well disposed to all parties says: “The David and
George show was very successful but now the public wants to see we are a
strong team beyond that.”
Hague’s temperament and self-deprecating intelligence are first rate but has
he the inner conviction, the fire, to take on an upfront role again? He
certainly has the firm support of Andy Coulson, the former News of the World
editor who acts as Cameron’s press adviser. The charge against Hague is
detachment, that the Conservative party is only one of his portfolio of
interests.
A recent invitation from the Royal Commonwealth Society says it all: “William
Hague will deliver a major foreign policy address outlining the Conservative
party’s vision for the UK’s relationship with the Commonwealth . . . An
electrifying and witty public speaker, don’t miss this chance to see William
Hague live and for free [my italics].”
Until the next general election the great matter of state is going to be the
economy. But the drama of the banking collapse has been succeeded by a
relentless release of daily job losses. These statistics represent real
human tragedies but the danger is the voters will soon be reaching for the
equivalent of the TV remote to switch off. Whatever else Clarke is, he is
not a bore. Indeed he is a one-man heat-seeking missile for pomposity. Up
against Mandelson in a radio debate he would clearly hold his own.
It is clear Cameron’s inner circle — Osborne too – would like to
employ Clarke’s talents. Or, as one puts it, as vaguely as he can in view of
the sensitivity over reshuffles, it’s “time for everyone to get involved”.
There are many pluses. Whereas Mandelson has a reputation for clever
politicking in the eyes of the public, Clarke is remembered for sound
economic management. He is the chancellor who brought us out of recession in
the 1990s.
But there are drawbacks. Lady Thatcher’s pet skinhead, Norman Tebbit, puts the
case for the prosecution: “[Clarke’s] biggest defect, though, regardless of
policy, is that he is lazy. I think it would be a nightmare as I don’t think
he would be able to stick to the party line. It would imply that we had
people at the top of the party who were intent on taking us into the euro at
any cost.” That John Redwood, the Tory right and several rich donors appear
to agree is taken for granted, but many other middle-of-the-roaders fear he
is a loose cannon too.
Tory high command is acutely aware of the mutterings but believes Clarke is
prepared to play ball. Cameron would hope to offset his Euro-fanaticism by
reinforcing the importance of Hague: the Yorkshireman is a ferocious
Eurosceptic.
The appointment of Clarke would be both defensive and offensive. Firstly, with
his experience the Tory case on the economy would be well put. Secondly,
there are pitifully few Tories able to make a commanding appearance on
television – the 68-year-old cigar chomper is undoubtedly one of them.
On the positive side it shows that all Tory political heavyweights can make a
comeback. “A party in which Ken Clarke can take back a leading role is a
party middle Britain can be happy with,” said one admirer. “It will show
Cameron as strong as Brown was in resurrecting Mandelson.”
There are differences between the two comeback kids. Mandelson came up through
the party machine and is disciplined in his public dealings but disastrously
otherwise in private. With Clarke it is exactly the reverse.
The Cameroons are optimistic they have all but sealed the final deal, even
though the weight of history is against them. Clarke stayed out of shadow
cabinet for a decade hoping against hope that Blair would abolish the pound
and end the European argument decisively in his favour. Behind the bluff
biffer is a man of principle. Has age softened him?
A newspaper executive was once sent out by his Eurosceptic editor to sound out
Clarke during one of many Tory leadership elections. The Conservative party
had shifted overwhelmingly and irrevocably against European monetary union
anyway, so if Clarke could just button it up on Europe – nobody expected him
to change his views – the mighty paper would give him its unqualified
support. A highly agreeable lunch was had, the claret was good and the
conversation jovial. Then Clarke said no, firmly.
Cameron’s gamble is only worth taking if Clarke has agreed to button it up for
the European parliamentary elections in June and way beyond. For although
Cameron has wisely decided not to bang on about Europe (the public tired of
the Tories when they became the party of Euro-bores, sceptic or fanatic)
Brussels has a nasty habit of climbing back up to the top of the domestic
political agenda from nowhere.
Take the Lisbon Treaty, which the Irish have rejected in a referendum and in
time-honoured anti-democratic fashion will be thrown back at them again by
Brussels. Hague has pledged that if the European consti-treaty remains
unratified at the time of the next general election, a British government
led by the Tories will offer a referendum.
And even if the Irish had ratified the treaty by the time a Tory government
took office, a referendum could still be held, Hague added. Imagine the
jolly conversations he and Clarke would have about this in cabinet.
So a deal in principle is sensible but the terms will have to be
eye-wateringly tight: Clarke has never before submitted to constraint. And
if the deal were broken, the ensuing Tory drama would make Dallas look like
the test card.
