The Ken Clarke conundrum

Having let the Ken Clarke hare run, the Tory leadership are faced by what happens to him dominating reshuffle coverage. If after this Cameron doesn’t bring him back there’ll be a lot of headlines about Cameron bowing to pressure from the right. But if Clarke does return, then the press—egged on by Mandelson—will start speculating about ‘Tory splits.’ (If Clarke does return, expect to see rather a lot of this pic from the Britain in Europe launch.)

Cameron’s dilemma is that Clarke’s return would boost the party in opposition—he is, whatever his faults, a highly effective media performer—but hinder it in government. The problems Clarke might cause would not be just about the Lisbon treaty but also about crime and sentencing policy and immigration and asylum, both areas where the EU limits the British government’s freedom of action. Then there is the problem that Clarke doesn’t seem to have thought a new thought since he was last in government and is reportedly sceptical of most of the leadership’s big ideas.

Ideally, Cameron would be able to have Clarke back until the election and then shunt him off into another job. But it is hard to think of something that Clarke would take — heading the new Office of Budget Responsibility is unlikely to appeal to Clarke; he’s not enough of an Atlanticist to be made Ambassador to Washington but he’s too pro-European to be a Commissioner; and the Prime Minister does not get to appoint the master of Gonville and Caius.

The one person who can resolve this problem for Cameron is Gordon Brown. If Brown does appoint David Blunkett to a Labour campaigning role that is outside the cabinet, then Cameron can appoint Clarke to shadow him and put him up on TV and radio whenever Blunkett is on. This would give the Tories the benefits of Clarke’s popularity and media skills but without the downside of him acting as a brake on policy in government.