Pressure mounts on "Saint" Vince Cable

LizEstelle

nickmason wrote: »

I'm not sure of your point - he has of course been the actual Chancellor....and by all accounts an extremely good one.

Er, that would be by all Tory accounts.

My point, as I believe anyone involved with modern politics would understand, is that there is a supreme irony in the worthy Clarke giving voice to such ideas when he himself is a rebel within his own party.

Perhaps he was actually alluding to this but I doubt this more than somewhat.

nickmason

tomterm8 wrote: »

I think her point is that he should be shadow chancellor. Which I agree with. I would probably vote for the Conservatives if he was shadow chancellor... without, I guess Lib Dems or noone.

I don't think that was the point. Out of interest, why would Ken swing your vote - is it his pro-EU stance, his previous record, or what the media calls his clubbiness - chap to have a pint with?

carolt

Ken Clarke holds the unique position as being the only top Tory I actually like, and I would find the Tories infinitely easier to take seriously as a party of govt if they had someone of Ken's experience and gravitas as potential Chancellor, rather than that oik Osborne.

Even you, Nick, cannot possibly support the man; though I'm sure you're far too much of a politician to say so...

I certainly prefer Clarke to Darling; though admittedly, that's not much of a recommendation, as there are few people I wouldn't prefer to Darling (Osborne, obviously, being one of the few).

Could you pass this on to your top brass, Nick?

If we have to have a Tory govt - and I suspect we well - then I'd feel an awful lot happier if I knew we at least had a decent Chancellor.

tomterm8

Ken Clarke would swing my vote because I believe he has the experience and ability to actually reform the public sector, to bring public sector finances back under control, and to reform the banking sector. He, with Norman Lamont, actually introduced banking reform which is broadly identical to what I believe is necessary to prevent another banking crises. The labour party scrapped it, not one of their best days.

While following Ken Clarke's budget, between 1997-2003, Britains public debt was actually cut without huge amounts of pain.

I don't care much about europe either way.

nickmason

LizEstelle wrote: »

Er, that would be by all Tory accounts.

My point, as I believe anyone involved with modern politics would understand, is that there is a supreme irony in the worthy Clarke giving voice to such ideas when he himself is a rebel within his own party.

Perhaps he was actually alluding to this but I doubt this more than somewhat.

So beyond highlighting a possible irony, you didn't actually have a point....
Incidentally, I wouldn't describe Ken as a rebel. If he's a rebel, what does that make James Purnell, Robin Cook, Kate Hoey?

chucky

tomterm8 wrote: »

I think her point is that he should be shadow chancellor. Which I agree with. I would probably vote for the Conservatives if he was shadow chancellor... without, I guess Lib Dems or noone.

this is the biggest negative with the tories - Cameron you can live with, not the best IMO but he may not be worse than Brown..
a Cameron and Clarke team is much stronger than Cameron and Osborne.

i'd probably vote tory if it was Cameron and Clarke

lostinrates

I still hold that it was a clever political move/statement to have Clarke shadow Mandelson. It was a statement and a very apt one. However, as I seem t be the only person thinking this I guess it wasn't a terribly clever appointment for publicity. Which is a great shame.

thor

rl290 wrote: »

Second, I don't understand your point about economic policies being dictated by Brussels. You think they tell us how much to spend on health, education and public services? You think they tell us how to go about cutting bureaucracy and reforming civil service pensions?? Are you just come kind of UKIP troll??? The Chancellor has an enormous amount of power, and it's essential that we get the right man for the job.

R

Maybe he likes being told what to believe by The Sun and the Daily Mail?

A._Badger

thor wrote: »

Maybe he likes being told what to believe by The Sun and the Daily Mail?

That would be as opposed to the Guardian and the Mirror?

LizEstelle

nickmason wrote: »

So beyond highlighting a possible irony, you didn't actually have a point....
Incidentally, I wouldn't describe Ken as a rebel. If he's a rebel, what does that make James Purnell, Robin Cook, Kate Hoey?

Oh yes indeed - I believe I may well be voicing, if obliquely, a fairly relevant point when I say that possibly the best Tory candidate for Chancellor of the Exchequer is being deliberately sidelined in favour of a weak nonentity because of his views on Europe...

Realising as I do that this matter does not receive too much attention in Tory election handouts, nevertheless I feel obliged to point it out!