I am not fan of the man, but nonetheless am pleased to see Ken Clarke throwing his hat into the Tory leadership ring.
If he wins, it might just mean there is a decent contest between Labour and the Conservatives at the next General Election. That has to be good for everyone.
What galls me is those who question whether, at 65, he is too old for the job as that would mean he would in his 70s should he become prime minister.
Could somebody explain what is so self-evidently wrong about that?
I would have thought being leader of a country was a job for which it was not possible to have too much experience. Having been around a bit, can only be an asset.
Michael Howard was a right wuss when he cited his age (63) as a reason for standing down as Tory leader when he won the last General Election.
There were many reasons why people would not have voted for him in four or five years time, but his age would not have been one of them.
He should have had the decency to admit that he was standing down because he had failed and he was most likely to fail again, rather than playing into the hands of the ageophobic.
Those who try to rationalise their age prejudice by claiming a prime minister in his 70s does not have the necessarily physical stamina are merely showing their ignorance.
By the time people get into their 60s and 70s the difference between them in terms of health is so great it is no longer possible to generalise.
All the age old question reveals is a youth-obsessed society in which looks are valued over grey matter and image over experience.
