Like most sensible folk I have a grand opinion of Alan Cochrane and, this being the case, alert readers will know that this is by way of a throat-clearing before we move on to the business of suggesting that his latest Daily Telegraph column is a little less persuasive than the Sage of Angus would like it to be. As Alan concludes:
It is hard not to sympathise with what Mr Fraser is trying to do. Something dramatic does need to happen to galvanise centre-right supporters in Scotland and the idea of a completely separate party but which is part of an electoral pact with the UK Conservatives in the Commons has been kicking around for decades. It has always been rejected – most recently by the commission headed by Lord Sanderson – as being ultimately a cosmetic option. “ We wouldn’t fool anyone. They’d still call us the bloody Tories,” said one grandee. Much better for the party, as presently constituted, to re-organise itself and draft a better policy platform was the prevailing view. And, at least as far as this observer is concerned, much more important than either of those is the personality of the leader. The Scottish Tories desperately need a leader with a personality and verve to take on Alex Salmond. Annabel Goldie was reasonably popular but in the last analysis, no-one really took her seriously and the party remained in the doldrums. With a leader with those qualities, the Tories wouldn’t be contemplating shutting up shop and trying to re-brand themselves. I’m not sure if any of the contenders have what it takes in this desperately important fight. What I do know is that it is strong personalities advocating attractive policies that matter in politics, not name-changes.
Fair enough. I’m not sure even Murdo Fraser’s backers believe that just changing the party’s name would be enough to gain it a second hearing. For that matter, I’m sure the Tories might be better placed if they were led by someone with “verve” and the kind of “personality” that can take on Alex Salmond. If they had more votes that would be nice too but they don’t and that’s rather the point of this whole entire enterprise.
The Sanderson report was, as best I can recall, a largely pointless exercise. The Tory grandee quoted by Cochrane may be right to suppose that the Daily Record will not be persuaded by a new right-of-centre party but the defeatism implicit in his remarks is dismal and indicative of a party that has lost the will to really make a proper case for itself. (Tories might also recall how they mocked Tony Blair’s remodelled New Labour party as “Same old Labour” and how that ended for them.)
Because the idea of Fraser’s project is, I think (or hope), to make a real fresh start. To my mind it would be a very good thing if the new party – the Free Unionists perhaps? – spent a little less time fretting about the constitution and a bit more time pointing out the inadequacies of the much-ballyhooed Scottish consensus on most other issues.
Doing that requires persuading people to listen to you. It is clear that the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party no longer has an audience. David McLetchie and Annabel Goldie have been decent and amiable leaders who have done their best but that best has not been enough. The Tory campaign this year was generally considered to have been quite a good one, winning praise (albeit grudging at times) for being, by the standards of the genre, reasonably honest. And you know what? It didn’t matter or make any difference at all. No-one is listening. You have to earn that right.
That’s what Tony Blair understood and what, to a lesser extent, David Cameron appreciated too. The Scots Tories have munched on little more than humble pie for nearly 15 years but they have never really shown voters that they’ve changed in ways that have convinced the electorate that the Tories really have changed. A new party of the right might be able to do that, provided of course, that it offered more than reheated paleounionism.
A radical transformation is not just about ditching past failures, it’s about creating the conditions in which the electorate may be interested in hearing what you have to sell elsewhere in the store, including things they might actually be interested in buying. But you have to get them into the store in the first place. At present plenty of people who might desire centre-right policies are uninterested in purchasing them. There is no sign that making those policies “better” will actually make them more attractive.
(Here one might observe in passing that it would be useful to have a couple of high-profile figures previously uninvolved in politics or, perhaps, presently members of another party ready to sail in the new Free Unionist – or whatever you call it – boat.)
Murdo Fraser is no Tony Blair – thankfully, he might say – but he is at least asking the right questions even if, on the constitution itself, his opposition to fiscal autonomy might be considered disappointing. Keep Calm and Plod Along is not a viable option for the Tories. Or, rather, it is not a viable option for right-of-centre politics in Scotland. Today’s IpsosMORI poll shows how there is ample room for growth: nearly 40% of SNP voters don’t back independence but two-thirds of Scots embrace the idea – or will tell pollsters they like it, anyway – of fiscal autonomy.
The problem, admittedly, is that most existing Tory voters do not agree with the idea of fiscal autoomy. But, here again, it is apparent that existing Tory voters (how many? For how long?) are a hindrance to a real revival of centre-right politics in Scotland. Their obsession with the Unionism of the Last Ditch makes the ill-governance of Scotland more, not less, likely. In that respect they betray their country’s interest even as they claim to defend it.
But who knows? Perhaps my old friend Ruth Davidson will surprise us all when she launches her leadership campaign tomorrow.
Comments