From my blog today:
On Friday we learned that Ken Clarke, the Member for Rushcliffe, had emerged as another possible contender for the role of caretaker Prime Minister, should the Government lose a no confidence vote early in September. According to this morning’s Daily Telegraph it would appear that Mr Clarke didn’t actually put himself forward as a contender for the role but has signified his willingness to take it, were greatness to be thrust upon him. Mr Clarke is a respected elder statesman but, even if his premiership had the tacit consent of the opposition parties, we very much doubt whether it would be supported by the majority of Conservative party members and voters.
There are essentially two reasons why we think Mr Clarke would be unsuited to the role, particularly given the difficulties of the times in which we are living.
Firstly, at seventy-nine he is too old for a job which would tax the strength of most men and women half his age. At seventy, Lord Palmerston still holds the record of being the oldest person to become Prime Minister the first-time round. That was in 1855 and he didn’t have a hostile press, a literate public and, a fast-moving electronic media to contend with. Sir Winston Churchill demonstrated exceptional leadership as Prime Minister during the darkest days of World War II and, writing his own speeches, was no mean orator. However, during his somewhat shorter post war premiership, it rapidly became apparent that he had passed the height of his powers. In much more recent times, Downing Street aged both Mr Blair and Mrs May, neither of whom were what the world would call senior citizens. We would very much prefer Mr Clarke to retire, at a time of his choosing, whilst he still has health and strength on his side, rather than be retired by a stroke or heart attack as the result of trying to a job to which he was no longer equal.
Secondly, the Europhile Mr Clarke is acknowledged unreconstructed Remainer. That would no doubt please some people and he could probably command cross party support in Parliament. However, it would put him at a grave disadvantage in trying to deliver a meaningful Brexit. Although we have no hard proof of it, we have a well-founded suspicion that Mrs May’s Remainer credentials put her at a disadvantage when trying to negotiate with our EU colleagues and that it’s a weakness which was exploited fairly ruthlessly. If we are right about that, it would be even truer in Mr Clarke’s case. It gives us no pleasure to say so, but we fear the danger of a non-existent Brexit - or one which was so soft as to be meaningless – would be greater under a Clarke premiership than a Corbyn one. As things stand, we believe there is a good chance of the Government surviving a September confidence vote, albeit perhaps by the slenderest of margins, and if that happens there will be no reason for Mr Johnson to stand aside. If, however, the worst happens and he must, we think the caretaker Prime Minister must not only be a Conservative and a Brexiteer but have the advantages of relative youth on his side.
