Public executions in Britain were abolished in the 1860s. That reform was fiercely opposed then by many Conservatives in Parliament. The behaviour of Tory MPs towards their leader suggests that sentiment has not changed much since.
Even those of us who think that a vote of no confidence has become a compelling necessity must express distaste at the manner in which Iain Duncan Smith has been pushed towards the political gallows. And a condemned man is surely entitled to a better last meal than a glass of water while perched on a yellow sofa in the company of Sir David Frost and an afternoon accompanying large numbers of revolting students.
In truth, alas, the arguments which the Conservative leader has sought to advance over the weekend against a challenge to him do not stand up to scrutiny. The Tories would not be “staring into the abyss” if they contemplated a leadership election. It would be more accurate to say that they would be staring into a small puddle. The process would not drag on for “months”. Unlike the First World War, it really would be over well before Christmas. The notion that Tony Blair might call a snap general election if Mr Duncan Smith fell is fanciful (although if IDS survives then it might be worth the Labour Party thinking about it). I am afraid that this performance has been less Custer’s than bluster’s last stand.
The issue for Conservative MPs soon, therefore, may be the next leadership election. Their recent record is hardly encouraging. They managed last time to discard the contender who is so obviously the answer to their political plight, Michael Portillo, and did so in a fashion that leads one to suspect he would rather spend six months as a single mother than submit himself again.
A body that was once described in complete seriousness as the “most sophisticated electorate in the world” has spent more than a decade demonstrating the subtlety of a bunch of five year olds let loose in a sweet shop. It does not help that so many of those selected for safe Tory seats in 1997 and 2001 appear prone, to put it kindly, to eccentricity. A meeting of the 1922 Committee must, at times, resemble the bar scene from Star Wars.
In the spirit of their philosophy, therefore, they should outsource or privatise the operation. The focus group survey conducted by Populus for this newspaper last week and published on Saturday made for fascinating reading. The idea that political wisdom can be gained by scooping up ten ordinary people (who, by definition, have little interest in the subject) in Enfield on a midweek night and asking them to watch extracts from televised speeches and interviews and then pass judgment is one that strikes many Tory MPs as no better than black magic with clipboards and a video recorder. That scepticism is unjustified. Most of the electorate does, in fact, form impressions based on fleeting glances of politicians and not on Westminster-style voyeurism.
This focus group established (in fact confirmed, because Populus has observed similar results before) that only two members of the Shadow Cabinet make any impression on the electorate. Michael Howard, the Shadow Chancellor, is widely regarded as a “proper politician” (even by voters who profess to distrusting politicians), while Theresa May, the Conservative Party chairman, is thought to be distinctive and interesting. Others, such as David Davis, Liam Fox and Tim Yeo, have made scant impact. Oliver Letwin, although a kindly soul, should stick with the Today programme because on television he “looks funny”.
There is much to be said for the instinct of the voters. A strong case can be made in favour of Mr Howard. He might not have universal appeal, but he cannot be dismissed as a man without the character or experience to serve in Downing Street if placed there. There is not, in contrast with the unfortunate Mr Duncan Smith, something of the trite about him. While his elevation would probably not persuade the seriously “big beasts” outside the Shadow Cabinet (Ken Clarke, William Hague and Mr Portillo) to return to frontline politics, other plausible characters, such as Andrew Lansley and Francis Maude, might well end their self-imposed exiles. The leadership question would be settled until after the next election.
Mr Howard would, however, need some silk to accompany his sandpaper. Although he could secure their respect, he is not best placed, by himself, to persuade the professional and managerial classes who have abandoned the Conservative Party because it is insufficiently “nice” that a new era of sweetness and light had dawned.
After such a lengthy period in public life, it is asking a lot of Mr Howard to suddenly find his feminine side and then share it with millions of people. The Tories will need “Howard Plus” if they are to broaden their appeal sufficiently.
They could do far worse than look to Mrs May to provide that balance. She does not, in contrast with Mr Letwin, leave the sense of being otherworldly. In the modern political age, a specialism in Russell & Bromley is probably of more electoral value than one in Hayek and Hegel.
Mr Howard, if he succeeds to the leadership, would be wise to leave Mrs May in Conservative Central Office but let her run the whole of that organisation without obstruction from the strange cabal of ouija-board merchants whom Mr Duncan Smith has installed, at vast expense, to act as his Svengalis.
None of this can occur unless Tory MPs finally finish what they have started. The least they owe their leader now is to bid farewell openly and honestly via 25 letters. He should then have the option of departing with dignity. The past few weeks have been an appalling spectacle. They will, nonetheless, have been worth it for Conservatives if a more credible leadership team can emerge.
Join the Debate on this article at comment@thetimes.co.uk
