CENTRE FORWARD

John Major attacks the Eurosceptic far Right, and

says that if the Tories are to win power again they must elect Kenneth Clarke

AS THE CONTEST to lead the Conservative party moves into the final straight, the prospects for the victor are far better than they seem — he should not despair at current opinion polls. He will face a Labour administration created by the media which performs for the media, yet is becoming divorced from a disenchanted electorate. As they vote for a new leader. all Conservatives should bear in mind that the next election is eminently winnable and pick a man ready to be prime minister.

It is a stark contrast to 1997 when New Labour looked so fresh. After their defeat in 1992, Labour reinvented themselves. Popular Conservative policies were stolen as Labour embarked on a systematic character assassination of the Conservative party: Tories tainted, Labour without blemish was their strategy — it was utterly dishonest and devastatingly effective. The media, bored after 18 years of the Conservatives, were eager to give Labour a sympathetic ear and an encouraging voice. A handful of Conservative MPs took their dislike of European policies beyond Euroscepticism to outright Europhobia, and, careless of the consequences, tore the party apart. Even those electors inclined towards scepticism thought they went too far; others, more moderate on Europe, simply judged the part.) unfit to govern until the rift was healed. This cocktail of boredom, sleaze and splits was lethal, and led to electoral disaster.

Following our defeat in 1997, two misjudgments hampered what otherwise should have been a steady recovery. The shadow Cabinet overinvested in Euroscepticism and the electorate drew the conclusion that we no longer cared about the more electorally potent issues of health and education: and the 'concede and move on' strategy barred us from receiving the credit for the economic wellbeing of the late 1990s. Instead, Labour were able to boast about 'their' economy even as they piled on taxes and red tape strangled industry. Between May 1997 and May 2001 Gordon Brown increased taxes four times as fast as Norman Lamont and Ken Clarke and twice as fast as Margaret Thatcher's chancellors. Historians will marvel that the 1990-97 government — the one that increased taxes least in the last quarter of the 20th century — could ever have been fingered credibly as 'wrecking the Conservatives' low-tax reputation'. That such a canard could be believed — even by some

1 ones — speaks eloquently of the blind hostility and prejudice of the times.

Yet, as I write, Nemesis must by chuckling. The dilemmas Labour face are uncannily familiar. For BSE read foot-and-mouth: an easier proposition to deal with since the science is known but, even so, Labour has made a spectacular hash of it despite the Prime Minister taking personal control. Labour sleaze is mounting and is far closer to the epicentre of government than were any Tory misdemeanours.

Mr Brown and Mr Blair have taken the enviable economic legacy bequeathed to them by the Conservatives in 1997 and turned it into Labour's own housing boom and manufacturing bust. As for health, the Prime Minister's notorious soundbite '24 hours to save the NHS' is now the sickest joke of all, as the NHS exports patients to Germany and imports nurses to mask their failure. Labour's promise of an integrated transport policy has degenerated into the farcical handling of public and private partnerships. All these failings — you could add the Balkans, 'ethical' foreign policy, class sizes, the list goes on — provide huge opportunities for a Conservative opposition that reconnects with an electorate increasingly out of sorts with politicians of every persuasion.

In the current Conservative contest, much more is at stake than the mantle of leadership. The future of the party is at risk too. Our political system is unbalanced without a credible centre-right party fit for government. The us' and 'them' mentality that paved the way for the severity of the splits over Europe must be put aside, Any more fratricide may encourage the electorate to conclude that the party has had its day and move on. The loss would be incalculable.

So this must be the first priority for Mr Clarke and Mr Duncan Smith: to bring the Tories together in their distaste for our slick and shallow Labour government, and to formulate the credible policy alternatives to defeat them. This battle can be won only by winning back electors in the centre ground of politics — it cannot be won by reinforcing our appeal to our own supporters on the Right. Such an approach is too narrow and will marginalise us. If we appear to disengage from the centre ground, we will delight Labour and the Liberal-Democrats, whom we cannot safely ignore: certainly no Conservative Member with a Liberal-Democrat on their tail could feel safe.

Some disagree, and their analysis merits examination. They say that Margaret Thatcher had the courage to 'move to the Right' and she won three elections. This is close inspection. She had taken over a country in huge crisis and was tackling issues — a ramshackle economy and union power — that the public knew had to be tackled. She did so after a long period of Labour government. And Labour, beset by splits and well to the Left of public opinion, were unelectable. Thus Margaret could 'move to the Right and win but, even so, she did not move as far to the Right as rose-coloured legend now suggests, and, if one looks at the figures, her electoral victories were won with far fewer votes cast for Conservatives than in 1992. when the largest ever poll for our party gained us only a tiny majority. For all their failings, Labour are no longer such an easy target, and to move to the Right would be to invite a further large defeat. We should honour our past but not repeat it. It was right for then. It would be utterly wrong for today. Only by recapturing electors on the centre ground can we win future general elections. That simple reality cannot be ignored in the choice of leader.

After an early stumble, the contest became a three-horse race; then Michael Portillo was eliminated. That was a pity, not least because of the manner of his defeat. The assault that forced him out of the campaign. and — so it seems — out of frontline politics as well, was tasteless. Not that the Portillo camp has entirely clean hands: some of his lieutenants themselves were not averse to negative briefing, but indulged in nothing so odious as the tactics used against Michael. Being a 'normal family man' is not, by itself, a qualification for leadership of the Conservative party, or our ballot might contain ten million candidates; this was crude innuendo — with a nudge and a wink — to draw attention to Michael's past in the hope that it would harm him. Such tactics do no favours to the Conservatives, or to politics more generally.

Michael Portillo was the catalyst of much anguish during the previous Conservative government. But because he had ability, and represented an important strand in Conservative thinking, I promoted him to the Cabinet and then to a department of his own. He proved to be, after one ill-judged speech, a first-class defence secretary. Michael would never have been my first choice as leader — I don't, for instance, agree with his views on cannabis — but I could have supported him easily, since I continue to care passionately for the wellbeing of the party. After two serious election defeats, grown-up politicians cannot simply pretend all is well; Michael was raising issues that Conservatives must confront to become, once more, the dominant force in British politics. The only pity is that he did not come to his more tolerant views during the last Conservative government.

Two candidates now remain: Ken Clarke and lain Duncan Smith. Ken Clarke is by far the most experienced politician in the House of Commons. He is pugnacious and lucid and will biff the Prime Minister with the same superb vigour as William Hague. Moreover, it is because of his long experience that he will also be able to ridicule the callow soundbite approach of the government more effectively than anyone else. After years of being on the defensive, every Tory — even Clarke-bashers — will love it. Labour will hate it.

But what of Europe? There is a sensible sceptical case to be made. Ken will have to bend a little. He must acknowledge that we do not want imported socialism. Many who support him fear that European social policies will undermine our economic liberation so hard won over 18 years. He must accept that it is possible to be pro-European. yet wary of the economic and constitutional impact of the euro.

I believe he will do so; he has indicated already that he will appoint a shadow Cabinet reflecting the Eurosceptic majority in the party. He knows, as well as anyone, that an early referendum is unlikely, and that entry at anything like current market rates would be economic folly. In any event, the referendum which I promised in 1996 — Labour inherited the commitment from me — ensures that the electorate, not the parry leaders or the politicians, will make the definitive decision on whether we join the euro or maintain sterling as our currency. So, if the Tory combatants are prepared to let it be, Europe could he quiescent. It is important that it is allowed to be, for if the electorate sense that Europhobic attitudes are taking over the Conservative party as a whole, then the party is dead in the water. Wise Tories will rally behind the new leader and isolate the extreme scepticism that lies on the fringe of our party and has so damaged it. Ken has a political past that some don't like and views on Europe that Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells might choke over; but his appeal is wide. Ken has quality: electors who would never become political activists warm to him. He could defeat Blair and win the next election.

Mr Duncan Smith's good points seem to be an engaging old-fashioned courtesy; personal propriety; policies that enthuse many committed Tory supporters; a creditable record of service in the armed forces and — yes — the Tebbit seal of approval as a bona fide family man. (This latter credential was enhanced when he and his wife made it clear that their young family would not be used in photo opportunities.) These are not negligible qualities for a politician.

But are they enough? lain suffers from a misfortune: among his supporters he has the active and enthusiastic backing of the wilder Europhobes in and out of Parliament. He should be warned: they are not pro Duncan-Smith; they are anti Europe and thus anti Clarke. He should ditch them speedily for they are electoral poison. No Conservative who is seen as too close to them, or as their spokesman or, worse, their captive could be elected prime minister.

lain was a tenacious shadow defence spokesman but otherwise is lacking top-level experience. Some say this doesn't matter and point to Tony Blair; but his record in office illustrates precisely why it does matter. Margaret Thatcher was inexperienced, some say. Not so. When Margaret became leader she'd been in the Commons for 16 years with significant experience of senior shadow positions and four years as a high-profile education secretary in Ted Heath's government. She had been through the fire. Even so — although one forgets it now — her first three years as a novice prime minister were very difficult for her, and she was rescued only by the Falklands and by Labour electing a very left-wing leader.

fain is bidding to become leader of the Conservative party and ultimately prime minister after only nine years in Parliament with none of this background. He is untested and inexperienced. It is too early for him and there is a real danger that he will be overwhelmed. Nor, other than the fact that he is right-wing and Eurosceptical, are his views known. Such shortcomings should not be brushed aside since — as I know perhaps more than most — it is not easy to head a fractious party whose philosophical heartstrings pull in different directions. And yet he has no experience of government — not one day. Nor, contrary to various reports, did he decline a post in the previous Conservative government: he was never offered one. As a first-term Member of Parliament, he voted with Labour and against his own government's European policies time after time, even though this added to the acute difficulties of a government struggling with the slimmest of majorities. His supporters argue that this demonstrates the strength of his convictions but, if so, it is a strength that comes with a price: for how, with any credibility, could he as leader of the party call for loyalty from colleagues who may oppose his own policies?

Those who view fain Duncan Smith dispassionately see a rising politician with clear-cut convictions on a minority of issues but who is a blank page on many others. He will grow, I think, and if he Ends Damascus marked on a map he should tread a similar path to Michael Portillo, whose ambitions he once supported so strongly, since such a conversion could widen his appeal enormously. One day lain could have a serious role in the future of the Conservative party, but he is not yet the finished article and needs to mature politically before becoming electable as prime minister.

Both fain Duncan Smith and Ken Clarke represent historic strands of Conservatism. They need to find a way to draw together, or the fears for the future of the party that Francis Maude voiced recently may come closer.

I hope lain will have the wit to serve Ken Clarke and that Ken will have the wisdom to use him. If the Tories wish for an early return to winning elections, it must be that way round.

Ken is stubborn, often infuriating, and very argumentative. But, above all, he is a man of honour, decency and personal integrity. There is no spin — no gloss. How refreshing it would be to return to the serious world of politics as opposed to the politics of pop. Ken has a formidable intellect combined with a powerful bite. He will unleash both on Tony Blair, defeat Labour and bring the Conservative party home to where it belongs. On the centre-right. In government.