Comments on: The Case For Ken

By: Another Anon

Another Anon — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:29:47 +0000

Now you have the benefit of hindsight and Ken Clarke has been causing problems for the party, are you going to stop and think before criticising the grassroots? It seems they are more in touch than the Ivory Tower residing people on this site.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:33:40 +0000

Totally agree – I think ConHome’s treatment of the Party Chairman has been atrocious and their naked campaigning for Pickles based on dubious accounts of his role at Crewe is counter-productive for both Pickles himself and the Party. As for Ken, my worry is that if DC took the brave decision to bring Ken back, the negativity that ConHome has generated around the issue will be a gift to our opponents. More often and more often I find myself wondering in whose interests ConHome is actually operating…

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:30:09 +0000

The problem the Party has now is that if they don’t bring back Ken it could be a bit like Brown letting speculation grow about an election in 2007. As we all know – when he didn’t call the election his ratings nose dived. No one has quashed (or otherwise) the Ken orientated chatter. If he is not brought back I can see the media being ruthless.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:34:01 +0000

Well Political Betting is run, is it not, by a Lib Dem so they would say that wouldn’t they? KC is to all intents and purposes a Lib Dem.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:23:53 +0000

Regarding the final comment – the article is about the editorial policy of Con Home, rather than the comments on the editorial posts. I think almost every day for the past fortnight, Con Home has published a piece against the return of Ken Clarke – leading Political Betting to talk about the “Arthur Scargill’s of the Tory Party.”

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:20:47 +0000

As a regular contributor to ConHome, I believe your report to be a bit unbalanced; I haven’t counted the number of pros and cons but we are engaging in a – lively – debate about the possibility of KC’s return. Personally, I would welcome it for all the reasons you mention and there are many others like me supporting him. Our Editor is quite clear that he is against but we don’t always agree with Tim. We realise that it is merely debate and I doubt whether the leadership gives a stuff for our views but lively debate is encouraged and there are quite few Ukippers contributing. The only point I completely disagree with you on is when you say that: “After George Osborne, Ken Clarke is by far the most convincing voice on the economy…”. Many of us on ConHome have despaired over the last couple of years of the lack of authoritative comment from any of our shadow treasury led by GO. Since he has devoted his attention full-time to the job in hand, he has shown a vast improvement but KC is still the one to be relied on to cause Labour most grief in the Commons on the subject of the economy.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:11:36 +0000

What is the point of these Clarke/No Clarke blogs? He will either come back or not as Cameron sees fit.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:18:30 +0000

Look at comment 51 on today’s politicalbetting thread. He’s right.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:44:22 +0000

“After George Osborne, Clarke is by our most convincing voice on the economy – reminding people that we gave Gordon Brown a golden legacy, which he has fatally undermined” Sorry, is this a joke? It is deeply insulting to Ken Clarke to claim that George Osborne is a more “convincing vote on the economy” than he is! If anything, Osborne is the weak link in the Shadow Cabinet.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:36:15 +0000

An excellent bit of analysis. There is no comparison between Osborne and Clarke. Bring back Ken