Political Leadership is about crafting a vision, shaped by a political ideology, and then developing pro-active policy.
When finely tuned, any Chief Whip, Chair of the Party or Sir Humphrey can guess which decision the Prime Minster is likely to choose – even if it may initially seem unpopular and require persuasion.
Put more simply it’s about leading people to places they didn’t realise they and the country needed to go.
Political opportunism is, of course, the opposite. Reactively listening and agreeing to the political anger to exert influence, happy to abandon political principles if it helps secure support and wield power.
After the once-in-a-generation economic shocks of COVID and the war in Ukraine, our economy is finally improving and politics is now in calmer waters. Yet some voices within the Party claim our failure to advance in the polls is policy related, glossing over the more obvious cause: distracted, ill-disciplined and tribal parties do not win elections.
This still did not prevent one senior voice exclaiming “the hole – to dig us out – is - the Prime Ministers and it’s time for him to start shovelling”.
Why not be part of the team that works with the Prime Minister and grabs a shovel too? Why not be a bit more JFK about this with each of us asking ourselves: do our actions and commentshelp demonstrate unity or distract from our core messaging? Do they help win back the middle ground (vital for electoral success) or push us to the extreme?
Sadly, there is a built-in fault line within the Conservative Party that, unless addressed, will discourage the discipline, focus and unity that’s critical to retain seats - let alone win elections.
As increasing senior Tory voices agree (including William Hague) until the power of selecting our leader is returned to the Parliamentary party there is little to dissuade wannabe future leaders from constantly promoting themselves – opportunistically or not - by adopting policy positions that would never survive contact with political reality – but play to Party members’ emotions.
And coming right around the corner is a totemic issue, which if not carefully managed, could rip our Party in two.
Without careful management, more cognitive understanding of the detail and compromise over our policy position, the growing call to leave the European Court of Human Rights could either become a demand for inclusion in our election manifesto or the default position any future leadership candidate seeking to secure membership approval must adopt.
Let me make the case for staying in the ECHR and reforming it.
Firstly, its functionality has nothing to with Brussels or the European Union - a common (sometimes deliberate) mistake. It should not be confused with EU Court of Justice based in Luxembourg, that ensures compliance with EU laws and treaties. Nor the International Court of Justice - the judicial organ of the United Nations, based in the Hague.
The ECHR is arguably a very British, indeed Conservative creation. Winston Churchill was one of the chief architects.
Drafted in the aftermath of the Holocaust and the rising threat of communism in Europe it was an effort to protect the people from the State, and ensure atrocities witnessed during the war would never be repeated, and safeguarding fundamental human rights.
Secondly, the ECHR evolves. Its Convention from which decisions are benchmarked is updated often thanks to British insistence.
Blaming the ECHR for judgements over Rwanda flights makes little sense when our own courts came to the very same conclusions. There is however scope to review Article 39 which offers states greater sovereign responsibility over border control.
Bella Wallersteiner wrote 'leaving the ECHR is not a rejection of human rights — it will instead protect and defend the British people'
Getty ImagesFinally, what might leaving the ECHR say about Britain and the Conservative Party? We would be the first nation to ever voluntarily withdraw from the ECHR. If we did leave, we would sit aside Belarus and Russia as the only European states not in the club. It would weaken British influence, limiting our ability to hold other nations accountable for human rights abuses. And our highly respected international reputation as a role model in upholding international law would be undermined.
Leading the effort to reform the ECHR is a far more constructive approach and in keeping with the kind of responsible statecraft we usually exhibit on the international stage.
Let’s not forget our history, our values and wider sense of resolve - to remain a beacon of democracy and a defender of international standards. Let us not compromise our international credibility – for internal party-political opportunism. This is the last thing the party needs right now.
Let’s nip this issue in the bud. If leaving the ECHR becomes the litmus test future leadership candidates – then we have lost sight of what stand for, and our Party would potentially break into two.
So, let’s stop banging on about the ECHR and risk this debating triggering an inflection point. And agree a policy to remain in - but to reform.
If every wing of our broad church began to demonstrate the unity and discipline the electorate expect, we will certainly improve in the polls.
Otherwise, we will fail and raise serious questions about the future state of our great party.
