Clarke versus Portillo in 2001

[pragmaticidealist]

Had just one of Iain Duncan Smith's third ballot voters instead voted for Michael Portillo then the membership ballot would have been a 'battle of the heavyweights' between Portillo and Kenneth Clarke. 

How would such a contest have turned out? Both were quite unpopular with large sections of the party - Portillo for his social liberalism and Clarke for his staunchly pro-European integration stance. Given that the election was seen by many as a referendum on Portillo's vision of conservatism, I think Clarke may have just edged it. 

[mboy]

No, Europe is a much bigger problem for Tories than the gays. See how they came to terms with gay marriage but never did with the EU? Portillo would have won.

[The Bishop]

Yes, I agree.

Both the Clarke and IDS camps were desperate to knock Portillo out before it got to the final two because they knew he would then be the big favourite against either.

[goose]

Portillo would've won easily, the interesting thing would be how the 2005 General Election would have turned out.

[Richard Allen]

Apr 4, 2018 15:20:55 GMT The Bishop said:

Yes, I agree.

Both the Clarke and IDS camps were desperate to knock Portillo out before it got to the final two because they knew he would then be the big favourite against either.

It has always been very strongly rumoured that going in to the final vote of MPs the IDS camp had a whip count of their man winning comfortably enough and with Portilo just edging Clarke. Due to this several IDS supporters voted tactically for Clarke in order to eliminate Portilo. As it was their whip count was a little out and the tactical voters very nearly eliminated their own man.

[pragmaticidealist]

Clarke did do suspiciously well on the third ballot, gaining 20 votes from the previous round and surging from third to first place. Ancram and Davis, who had both been eliminated and neither of whom are exactly close to Clarke in Tory terms, had received 35 votes between them.

[Merseymike]

Apr 4, 2018 21:32:34 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

Clarke did do suspiciously well on the third ballot, gaining 20 votes from the previous round and surging from third to first place. Ancram and Davis, who had both been eliminated and neither of whom are exactly close to Clarke in Tory terms, had received 35 votes between them.

Ancram was the small-c conservative candidate though and some of his supporters might have switched to Clarke who is very much a Tory.

[heslingtonian]

As someone who backed Portillo in the initial stages but voted for Clarke over IDS in the run off, I’m fairly sure Portillo would have won comfortably due to Clarke’s position on the EU which was a deal-breaker for a majority of Party members and he was totally unwilling to moderate.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2018 15:23:04 GMT goose said:

Portillo would've won easily, the interesting thing would be how the 2005 General Election would have turned out.

There's an alternative history, surely, in 2005 being much closer a hung parliament and kick starting an actually workable process of introducing PR because of it, at least in my head. The AV fudge in 2010 was cynical as f--- but gave Cameron his time in office, something happening five years earlier would have set us on a different course.

[tomc]

Would the 2005 GE have been closer with a Portillo led Conservative party? My feeling is not, Portillo hadn't begun his campaign for 'national treasure' status at that point, it was only 8 years since his gleefully received election defeat. Perhaps Clarke would have added some extra seats over Howerd but not enough for a hung parliament.

[neilm]

Apr 5, 2018 10:24:41 GMT heslingtonian said:

As someone who backed Portillo in the initial stages but voted for Clarke over IDS in the run off, I’m fairly sure Portillo would have won comfortably due to Clarke’s position on the EU which was a deal-breaker for a majority of Party members and he was totally unwilling to moderate.

I backed Portillo but voted for IDS- the EU was the sole issue that sold him to me.

[timrollpickering]

For all the talk about the EU being a problem for Clarke it was also a problem for Portillo. There were MPs and activists who said they actually felt safer with Clarke because they knew where he stood on the issue whereas with Portillo's zeal for changing everything there was a risk they'd wake up and turn on breakfast television to find the latest "modernisation" move was the party backing the single currency.

[pragmaticidealist]

Sept 3, 2018 16:57:56 GMT timrollpickering said:

For all the talk about the EU being a problem for Clarke it was also a problem for Portillo. There were MPs and activists who said they actually felt safer with Clarke because they knew where he stood on the issue whereas with Portillo's zeal for changing everything there was a risk they'd wake up and turn on breakfast television to find the latest "modernisation" move was the party backing the single currency.

Portillo is probably now to the right of where he was in 2001 and yet he's also more affable than he was then. 

[sirbenjamin]

I voted Clarke after Portillo was eliminated, though that entire leadership contest felt utterly suicidal.

I suspect Portillo as opposition leader would've made a big dent in Labour's majority in 2005 (which might not have actually happened until 2006 if Tony was running scared by then). There was still a substantial systemic Labour bias on those boundaries - we could've had a controversial result like Labour far enough ahead on seats to form a minority government, but the vote share being tied or possibly even the Tories slightly ahead.

Either way, it would've been a big enough push (net gains likely well over 100) that Portillo would not feel the need to resign. A few by election wins might force the issue and we might've seen him become PM with a decent majority somewhere between 2008 and 2010 on the new (now current) boundaries.

I can see Cameroon being groomed as an eventual successor and a long spell of productive, healthy government. Shame real life got in the way of that one...

[WJ]

Surely if Portillo had won, it would have been a disaster for many on here as there would have been fewer documentaries about trains.

[The Bishop]

Sept 3, 2018 16:57:56 GMT timrollpickering said:

For all the talk about the EU being a problem for Clarke it was also a problem for Portillo. There were MPs and activists who said they actually felt safer with Clarke because they knew where he stood on the issue whereas with Portillo's zeal for changing everything there was a risk they'd wake up and turn on breakfast television to find the latest "modernisation" move was the party backing the single currency.

I certainly see what you mean, though to give Portillo his due maybe the one constant in his "political journeys" has been Euroscepticism.

[Deleted]

There's a side question here, which is how much Portillo's disillusionment from politics after the leadership election was prompted by that election, and how much was his instincts turning in that direction anyway? From the moment he left the frontline he never gave the impression of having regretted his decision, which he seemed to have been stewing over since he came back to parliament in 1999. The sort of ideological shift he was proposing for the Tories would have involved a lot of effort, cajoling and frustration. Did he really have the heart for it regardless?

So I agree Portillo would have won, but I think this would have had surprisingly little impact on the subsequent trajectory - voters were still not ready for a Tory comeback, there would have been little space to make hay on the economy and I assume he would have followed IDS's loyalist foreign policy line. I reckon he quits, disillusioned by politics and the Tories' lack of headway, in 2003-04 and Michael Howard steps in just as he did in reality.

[Richard Allen]

Sept 4, 2018 11:49:40 GMT @strinity said:

There's a side question here, which is how much Portillo's disillusionment from politics after the leadership election was prompted by that election, and how much was his instincts turning in that direction anyway? From the moment he left the frontline he never gave the impression of having regretted his decision, which he seemed to have been stewing over since he came back to parliament in 1999. The sort of ideological shift he was proposing for the Tories would have involved a lot of effort, cajoling and frustration. Did he really have the heart for it regardless?

So I agree Portillo would have won, but I think this would have had surprisingly little impact on the subsequent trajectory - voters were still not ready for a Tory comeback, there would have been little space to make hay on the economy and I assume he would have followed IDS's loyalist foreign policy line. I reckon he quits, disillusioned by politics and the Tories' lack of headway, in 2003-04 and Michael Howard steps in just as he did in reality.

Howard was only the obvious choice in 2003 because he had been an impressive Shadow Chancellor. Had he not served in that role under Portilo he would likely not have been his successor.

[pragmaticidealist]

Sept 4, 2018 20:57:01 GMT Richard Allen said:

Sept 4, 2018 11:49:40 GMT @strinity said:

There's a side question here, which is how much Portillo's disillusionment from politics after the leadership election was prompted by that election, and how much was his instincts turning in that direction anyway? From the moment he left the frontline he never gave the impression of having regretted his decision, which he seemed to have been stewing over since he came back to parliament in 1999. The sort of ideological shift he was proposing for the Tories would have involved a lot of effort, cajoling and frustration. Did he really have the heart for it regardless?

So I agree Portillo would have won, but I think this would have had surprisingly little impact on the subsequent trajectory - voters were still not ready for a Tory comeback, there would have been little space to make hay on the economy and I assume he would have followed IDS's loyalist foreign policy line. I reckon he quits, disillusioned by politics and the Tories' lack of headway, in 2003-04 and Michael Howard steps in just as he did in reality.

Howard was only the obvious choice in 2003 because he had been an impressive Shadow Chancellor. Had he not served in that role under Portilo he would likely not have been his successor.

May, IIRC, was a Portillo supporter in 2001 so perhaps she would have been given a shadow Great Office at that stage, thus setting her up for an earlier Tory leadership bid in 2005/2006.

[sirbenjamin]

Sept 5, 2018 18:05:14 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

Sept 4, 2018 20:57:01 GMT Richard Allen said:

Howard was only the obvious choice in 2003 because he had been an impressive Shadow Chancellor. Had he not served in that role under Portilo he would likely not have been his successor.

May, IIRC, was a Portillo supporter in 2001 so perhaps she would have been given a shadow Great Office at that stage, thus setting her up for an earlier Tory leadership bid in 2005/2006.

That is indeed a highly intriguing possibility. And it could've been a rather different Theresa May from the one we know and, err, accept, as PM.