Donald Macintyre: Mr Clarke must stand for his party's leadership

'Almost uniquely in politics he isn't frightened of Gordon Brown and has the ability to patronise Tony Blair'

As a leadership campaign launch it was wonderfully postmodern. If you watched it on live television you could hear every word Michael Portillo uttered. If you were present ­ and standing almost anywhere but bang in front of him in the bewildered and sizeable crowd of tourists, passers-by and journalists which gathered on the pavement to witness this strange ritual ­ you could hear barely a word over the hubbub of Embankment traffic. He recited his written text almost perfectly without once referring to it. And he took no questions.

Much, moreover, was unsaid as well as unheard. Most notably the name of the man whose endorsement was supposed to seal Mr Portillo's status as the unity candidate. Nor could it be otherwise. There is no deal with him. Mr Portillo promised that by arguing against a single currency from a perspective which was "internationalist and engaged in friendly debate with our neighbours", he would make life "more comfortable" for Tories in favour of the euro. Perhaps. This reflects a genuine shift in language and tone in dealing with Europe, one which Mr Portillo, as naturally unxenophobic a politician as you can find, is well placed to adopt. But it is not enough for Kenneth Clarke.

Nor should it be. Talks between the two men on Monday night ­ to which Mr Clarke came alone and was surprised that Mr Portillo insisted on bringing his chief lieutenant, the shadow Foreign Secretary Francis Maude ­ were not a success. Even the nature of Mr Portillo's offer to the pro-Europeans was not wholly clear. Officially, and perhaps ominously, Mr Portillo's press spokesman would not even confirm yesterday that any offer had been made.

Nevertheless those frontbenchers on the pro-European left for whose support Mr Portillo can already reasonably hope ­ and they are in very low single figures indeed ­ have apparently now been assured that they will be allowed to campaign according to their convictions during, and only during, a referendum campaign. Outside of it, however, and permanently if there is no referendum, they will be expected to remain silent on the single currency.

Which means that Mr Clarke, under the terms which brought him into a Portillo fold, would not be able to take part in the debate on British euro-entry which those in favour of it believe is now urgent, or even to call for such a debate. He would, in other words, be once again required to maintain a Trappist silence, other than in the far-from-certain circumstances of a referendum campaign, on the issue which most animates him in British politics ­ and that in return for no more than a merely subordinate position in his party.

This is only one of several reasons why, unless there is a real change of heart in the Portillo camp, Mr Clarke should now prepare to run as a candidate himself. Another is that it would be odd, to say the least, if the candidates to lead the party after a second shattering defeat should be confined to those who share the blame for just such a defeat when there is an alternative available who doesn't.

This doesn't mean that Mr Portillo and his frontbench supporters have no right to lead the party out of its electoral abyss, any more than it was wrong for John Smith to lead Labour in the (only partly) similar circumstances of 1992. But it does make a case for the choice including a figure at least as popular as Mr Portillo, who was against the very strategy that failed the Tory party in the 2001 general election. And those who say that Mr Clarke's pro-Europeanism is the problem have to explain once again why 61 per cent of the electorate voted for parties which were broadly on his side of the argument.

The second is that even some of his Tory opponents acknowledge that he would inject into the party the very capacity to oppose the Government which his hero Iain Macleod used to say it was the duty of oppositions to perform. Almost uniquely in British politics he isn't frightened of Gordon Brown; almost uniquely he has the ability to patronise Tony Blair.

The third is that while it would no doubt be difficult, he could actually win. It's possible, of course, that Iain Duncan Smith will run with the backing of Baroness Thatcher and Lord Tebbit ­ whose attacks on Mr Portillo have brought political discourse to a new low ­ on the platform that a Tory government would never enter a single currency, with the implication that withdrawal from the EU was a live possibility.

There are those who think even Mr Duncan Smith is having doubts about this mirror image of 1980s Bennism ­ the argument that the Tories didn't win because they weren't right-wing enough. But if he overcomes them, he will have to deal with the real threat that his victory might finally ­ and literally ­ split the party since the Clarkeite left would probably then leave it.

Even if Mr Duncan Smith does stand, Mr Clarke has at least a chance of coming second in the parliamentary party, allowing him then to take his appeal to the wider membership which ­ albeit in a consultation with constituency chairmen rather than a ballot ­ supported him after the 1997 defeat. And if Mr Duncan Smith doesn't run, the chances of coming second among MPs ­ as he has to if he is to have a chance of winning ­ are even higher.

Most of these arguments speak for a Portillo deal with Clarke as well as for a Clarke leadership. Having been a highly successful chancellor, Mr Clarke will need to ensure he isn't risking in the autumn of his career being heavily defeated for a job which may not lead to the premiership in five years' time. The most telling case against his running is that he would be leading a parliamentary party a majority of whom disagree with him on a fundamental issue.

Yet that may be more in tune with the electorate's sense of priorities than it is in an ideology-ridden Westminster. Anyone exposed to the doorsteps during campaigning for the election is aware of how many potential Tory voters who were opposed to the euro also would have liked to see Ken Clarke rather than William Hague as leader. This is messier than the certainties of the parliamentary Tory party, reflecting perhaps a different order of priorities among the voters.

Secondly, a Clarke leadership would doubtless take this factor into account, imposing self-denying limits on how strongly and how often he tried to push the Government into a euro-referendum. And while a Clarke leadership ­ simply by being there ­ would probably hasten a referendum, that may anyway be a necessary condition of the party's long-term recovery by resolving the issue which has divided it for so long.

Mr Clarke and Mr Portillo share two huge advantages. Both are uniquely qualified, as neither of the two previous leaders were, to exorcise, finally, the ghost of Margaret Thatcher; Mr Portillo because he had no hand whatever in her assassination; Mr Clarke because he confronted her head-on that fateful evening in November 1990. And from Mr Portillo's point of view there is every reason to make further concessions to Mr Clarke. For if he doesn't and even if he wins the leadership, he and his party won't have absorbed the true lessons of last week's defeat. But if Mr Portillo can't see this, then Mr Clarke will surely have little choice but to run himself.

d.macintyre@independent.co.uk