Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Michael:
I think that Ken will be returning to the Tory front bench....

~Dennis Junior~

"First, it would be seen as something of a snub to George Osborne, "

I wonder if he would realise?

If this is more than media Speculation then -

I think Mr Clarke would make a good asset to the House of Lords , he would be able to go against Lord Mandelson face to face.

This would also mean a by-election !

Will Labour run or stand this time ?

CLARKE: THE PERFECT CHOICE

With the country facing a slow painful decline due to its own self indulgence and stupidity, Kenneth Clarke, who has made a good (and unrepentant) return from tobacco sales, looks like a perfect steward of that decline.

I doubt he will be running though - not with that pot.

the most natural thing in the universe would be for a Conservative party to offer a job to Ken Clarke, he is head and shoulders above anyone else with an economic background. He is largely responsible for the good fortune Gordon Brown enjoyed for the first term of Labour from 1997, yet we are talking Tory party politics here and their aptitude for shooting themselves in the foot has no equal so once again Ken will be an also ran. The sensible option of course would be for Ken to cross the floor and get this government out of the mess but that would be sensible and we don't do sense.

The quote:

"If it's possible to afford a fiscal stimulus I would go for VAT because the only case for a fiscal stimulus is to stimulate spending and consumer demand, so the tax on spending is the one to go for. But it should be temporary."

speaks for itself - there is no contradiction at all if Ken made a come back - he says "If it's possible to afford a fiscal stimulus" - and this government cannot currently afford it, but they went for the VAT cut anyway.

Ozzy just can't cut it at the front, I'd welcome the return of a big hitter with so much experience under his belt. He sounds credible and is not a "novice".

The Conservatives have to get a stronger team together if they are to take power. The country will be in so much trouble by the next election that we will have to have some very clear policies to get us out of this mess and their current ideas are far too weak to get us out of the mire.

#6 ArtisticS

"If it's possible to afford a fiscal stimulus" - and this government cannot currently afford it,"

They cannot afford NOT to have one.

You fall into the trap off the fallacy of composition. When an individual is short of income s/he must reduce spending. When the country is short we must INCREASE spending. Sound paradoxical? Yes, it is "The Paradox of Thrift" *

It is very simple. If we spend less we earn less. If we earn less we have less to spend and so it goes on. The other way round, spending can create the income to justify itself. Only the government can start the process; probably through "printing" money.

*(I think it was Keynes who first noted it; he's most often associated with it.)

I would be very happy to see the return of Ken Clarke. It does a political party no harm whatever to have a maverick voice speaking from a position of some authority and all the political parties - not just the Tories - would benefit from having a least one figure who has the ability to relate to ordinary people.

Whatever the politically correct brigade may think of it, many British people do still empathise with politicians who will cheerfully be photographed at the pub, cigar and pint in hand. What is more, there is no denying his credentials. Gordon Brown's glory years at the treasury were clearly made possible by the stewardship of his predecessor's canny handling of the economy and the fact that this has now been squandered shows Brown in his true light.

Like him or loathe him, Clarke has both a a good track record and the ability to communicate directly with people in a credible and understandable way. There are far too many politicians at Westminster and far too few statesmen. Perhaps the return of Clarke - if it happens - will go some way to address this. Perhaps it is time to bring David Davis back in from the cold as well. It's time someone addressed the control freakery of the incumbent government.

#7
I've not fallen into a trap. The 12 billion that would have gone into the treasury without the VAT cut has been borrowed, so the gov. could not afford to just give it away from a surplus.

I understand the principle of government spending more (by borrowing) during a recession to boost the economy, but the spend has to focussed for best effect and to some extent it also has to create a psychological pressure that makes us all feel like the spend is worthwhile and will do some good - which we all then happily pay for later on, when times are better.

The VAT cut has been almost universally condemned as being too ill focussed and has clearly not created a placebo effect.

The main point I was making, however, is that there is no significant difference between what Ken said and what Cameron says. Ken's support of the VAT cut was provisional on affordability. Cameron has condemned it from the point of view that the government has based the giveaway on borrowing.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ken Clarke at No11 when I was a final year student in 1996. He gave a talk to about 40 of us and shared a drink with us afterwards. He was totally natural with us, explaining economic policy in a readily accessible way and appearing a normal man doing an extrodinary job. In such times of gloom it would be a first class idea for David Cameron to have on board a national figure who is trusted and respected by the public. He is head and shoulders above Mandelson.

"Clarke seemed to rule out his return by saying it was "tedious" being an Opposition spokesman" - Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

I put it to you that Ken Clarke would not be an opposition spokesman for long as there is little or no chance of Labour winning a race against a salted slug let alone a general election.

Ken Clarke is an outstanding man, and someone who should be made responsible over George Osborne for the Exchequer, as this I'm sure would restore the confidence of the British voting public.

Regardless, I'm voting Tory at the next election, something I would not have done for all the money in the world 12 years ago.

Tory obsession again.

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands

Investigate this
What will the total Government on and off balance sheet liabilities be after the 6 extra quarters of recession?
Can we sell and service all of this debt?

I think you are all missing the point of this article. That the 2.5% VAT reduction has been an unmitigated disaster is undeniable. Labour cannot distance themselves from this debacle, but they can seek to embroil their opponents in it by implicating the Tories in its inception.

Bear in mind that all we are getting from the government (and by extension its official mouthpiece), is pure politics in an effort to create an opportunity for an election that does not result in a complete wipeout and at the very least leaves Labour as the largest party in a hung Parliament. The current "tour" is only distinguishable from electioneering by the absence of a battle bus.

Clarke has been a serial traitor to the Conservatives. He stood alongside Blair specifically against his own Party including TV interviews and Press releases. His loyalty is firstly to the Bilbderbergers before his own country. Thatcher knew that when she said she could not believe anyone would put the needs of this Group above their own country discretly not saying his name but it was clear who she was looking at. Mandelson is also a Bilderberger so where do you think this EU stitch up is being suggested/spun from?

If Ken Clarke was brought back it would be the worst decision of recent times. I cannot believe it is even being contemplated. The line of argument from the Conservatives at the moment is that the VAT cut has not achieved anything productive and has only served to worsen the debt situation. Polls have shown that the public support this point of view and the longer the recession goes on the more this view perpetuates.

So it would be bizarre for David Cameron to give the government the easy get out of appointing a Business Secretary who proposed that VAT be cut.

The role for Ken Clarke is as an outside observer/critic of the governemnt without having the baggage of Party policy.

Ken Clarkes big problem is he is pro-Eurpoean stance and few in the party are in agreement. He is a big hitter but might split opinion too much. The party does need some big hitters but they also need people who can draw all the talents together. He is a great orator.

Kenneth Clarke is the reason that so many of us stopped voting Conservative after he tried to impose full rate VAT on Gas Electricity etc while Chancellor. In addition his insane views about our unelected government by Brussels, are not representative of the people of the UK.
His return to the Shadow Front Bench would mean another 10 years of Labour.

Michael dream on, you must be short of Tory bashing material to write a blog about a Clarke come back.
As a previous post (14) points out the mans a traitor to the party, maybe thats why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú keep inviting him back hoping for more betrayal.

"specifically suggested a cut to 15%"... yes, well, as the most rabid pro-European in the Tories, he would be well aware that anything less would require asking Brussels' permission, so even if he felt a lower cut was merited, it would be anon-starter...

Camerloon is probably hopping because once you start talk of tampering with VAT, you risk letting the cat of the bag as to how much control has been ceded to the EU, and we can't have that, can we?

'A MAN IS A MONKEY WITH ONE IN HIS FACE'*

On this thread Clarke is lauded as below:
- a normal man doing an extraordinary job
- a good asset to the House of Lords
- I would be very happy to see the return of Ken Clarke
- Ken Clarke is an outstanding man

I have to admit I am puzzled. Would YOU sell cigarettes to your fellow man, knowing they are an addictive mix of poisons that bring all the delights now printed on the packets - and more?

I take against such people, unequivocally - where am I going wrong?

* My title is a line from "Cigareets and Whusky"

Clark perfect for the job of sorting mandy brown

#13 "That the 2.5% VAT reduction has been an unmitigated disaster is undeniable"

The only thing we can say is we do not and never will know. It is impossible to know. We would need to compare what happened with what WOULD HAVE happened i.e. something that didn't happen and never will. The policy is still running so even if we could ever tell it would be too soon to try now.

The sense was it left money in circulation, it was quick and easy. Good idea.

#8 threnodio
My thoughts exactly - though I do disagree with him on the VAT stimulus as it wouldn't change spending and there is no VAT on food so it didn't help low income households either.

#22

You miss the point.

It has been a disaster politically.

Economically, in my view, it has been a pointless measure, but it was never intended to have any specific economic purpose. Nothing contained in the PBR, nor anything announced by the Government since this crisis started has been instigated following a consideration of the economic merits. It is all political.

I do not particularly blame the Government for this. I don't think any government, in the last eighteen months of a term, would propose economic measures without considering their political impact, but following the 10p tax fiasco Brown will not make that mistake again.

It does however mean that we are not necessarily getting the best policy response to the economic crisis, simply the most politically expedient from the Government's perspective.

As regards the VAT cut, I think there is broad agreement that, politically, it has been a pretty useless policy, and therefore I stand by my previous statement.

Ken Clarke is not always in tune with the rest of the Conservative party, but he is a "big hitter". Metaphorically speaking of course. Unlike John Prescott....