Ken Clarke - back from the dead.

I’d imagine a lot of the political comment today is going to be focussed on Ken Clarke’s return to the Tory front benches. Fair enough – it is a big event, and I can’t too critical of people jumping onto this story as I am about to do exactly the same thing. But before I do comment, I think it is worth putting on record my thoughts on Ken Clarke.

I cannot stand Ken Clarke. I find him less easy to stomach than a rancid mussel that has been liberally garnished with sewage. It is difficult to know where to start when criticising Clarke. He isn’t so much a big beast as a positively elephantine oaf. I cannot stand his unwarranted and grating swagger, and his colossal ego that is only matched in size by his gut and his arrogance. And his political views are about as much fun for me as his aborted personality; politically centrist, mindlessly pro-Europe; why Kenny didn’t just piss off and join the Liberal Democrats decades ago is completely beyond me.

But I’ll try to leave my feelings about Clarke to one side for a moment, and instead try to focus on whether this is a good idea for the Tories or not.

Clarke’s new position is interesting; many were prophesising his return to the Shadow Cabinet, and many foresaw his new role as being Shadow Chancellor. And it isn’t. Cameron has avoided the pressure of the media and of the blogs, and has kept Osborne on. Whilst I find it about as easy to get excited about Osborne as I do about a heavy head cold, at least the Boy Blunder is marginally less egregious than that beached whale Ken Clarke.

And Clarke’s appointment will probably be popular with the voters, although Lord alone knows why. Clarke’s popularity with the general public is beyond me. Perhaps it is because he is fat, and he smiles a lot, that makes people want to like him. I don’t know, but I do believe that if anyone spent too much time actually in the presence of Clarke, then they would end up wanting to give him a slap in his jowly chops as he sits there and chuckles away at his own greatness.

But that is where Clarke’s appointment being a good idea stops. I’d doubt Clarke’s appointment will be popular with the rank and file members of the Tory Party. After all, whenever the party gets the chance to offer an opinion on Clarke, it is overwhelmingly negative. Clarke keeps on standing for the Tory leadership, like and angry rash that just won’t go away. And every time, he is told to go fuck himself. When faced with Ken Clarke, the Tory party literally seems willing to cut off its nose to spite its face – hence the election of Iain Duncan-Smith.

Part of the reason for that is Clarke’s stance on Europe – something that is likely to bring him into conflict with Cameron. Whilst Cameron is far from being anti-Europe, he is at least a little more Euro-sceptic than Clarke. Some reports are saying that Clarke and Cameron have agreed to disagree on Europe; which is fine for the moment, but will lead to trouble in the future. Clarke will show his loyalty to his European beliefs first, and his loyalty to his party second. I can see a future policy row between the Tory leader and his appointed big beast in the future, leading to much embarrassment, and an angry, resentful resignation.

Finally, Clarke’s appointment is clearly a retort to Brown’s decision to put Mandelson back in the Cabinet. But Mandelson’s appointment was an act of desperation on the part of Gordon Brown; Cameron did not need to respond in kind. Yes, he can argue that he wants to have a Shadow Cabinet of all the talents. But does he really need past-it, worthless *talents* like Clarke around him? And if Cameron really believes that Clarke is so talented, how come he hasn’t put him into the Shadow Cabinet before now?

No doubt there will be much back-slapping and gleeful self-congratulation in CCHQ this morning. How long that will last for as the months go by and the political reality sinks in, I really don’t know.