Modernising our brand

Talking to members of our Party the length and breadth of Scotland, there seems to be so many things that need to change - and none more so that our brand image.

In my written statement to members, which accompanies ballot papers for the Deputy Chairman election, I refer to a recent BBC Documentary "Why Didn't Scots Vote Tory", presented by Sally Magnusson. My reason for doing so is that this documentary established in my mind, and in the minds of many Party members who watched this programme, a sense that we have a massive job of work to do if we are to overcome a perception among the Scottish electorate that we and our policies are not good for Scotland.

Having benefited from the popularity of both David Cameron and Annabel Goldie during the General Election, I think we need to be clear it is the perception of our brand and not our leadership that is our greatest issue. I lost because people believe the brand remains toxic not because David Cameron visited East Renfrewshire, where the electorate like and admire him greatly. And throughout our campaign Annabel’s tireless efforts motivated my troops and help galvanise and grow a Conservative vote.

What both David and Annabel now need is a party to support them which mirrors their own popularity.

Despite the terrific work and fantastic campaigns of our candidates, the Scottish people still clearly perceive the Scottish Tory Party as not being "like them" and implementation of our policy is something they fear.

We must change this brand image dramatically and this is not something that can simply be left to evolution of the Scottish electorate.

If elected to serve as Deputy Chairman I am committed to providing every member with an opportunity to participate in a bottom up review of everything we do and the way we do it. I have always advocated this sort of exercise should consider absolutely every aspect of Party organisation and given the nature of discussions I am being told are taking place between members at Association level this means:

1) Do we need an immediate review of our Constitution?

I think we do and don't think this can wait a year. It may be that we review our structures now but delay some changes until after elections to the Scottish Parliament in May next year, but I don't think we can afford to waste time given the position we are in.

When I last sat on our Executive Committee I presented a paper on a range of constitution related issues. I still believe our structures are wrong and that we need to modernise them dramatically so as to provide clear leadership and better direction.

For me, it is also time for the Scottish Party to grow up and for Associations to accept that a proportion of membership fees needs to go to the Party centrally so that they can administer the Party professionally and communicate with our members effectively. In England this is 20% of the £25 statutory membership fee paid by their members.

Then there is the disparity between Scotland and the rest of the UK Party in membership fee itself. We don't have a minimum membership fee, only a recommended minimum of £15, while members of the Conservative & Unionist Party in the rest of the UK pay £25 to be a member of the Party. Is it fair that you might pay a few pounds every year to an Association in England but cannot select a local candidate or vote in a leadership election and yet doing the same in Scotland affords you full membership rights, including invitations to Scottish and UK Conference? I don't think that is fair and I don't think it is sustainable for us to demand this disparity remain.

We need to have an open and frank debate about our Constitution and this requires a review to be instructed by our Chairman (which I am delighted to read is imminent). There is nothing to fear from a review of our structures and everything to gain if we get things right for the future.

2) Do we need to change our name in Scotland?

One of the things that is becoming increasingly clear to me is that the brand that it perceived as toxic or anti-Scottish is the "Tory" brand and not necessarily anything associated with the words Conservative or Unionist.

I am not sure I have heard a convincing case for a name change as yet, but could be persuaded of the attraction of changing our name to something new if it prevents our brand name being abbreviated to "Tory".

I am a passionate defender of the Union and a small government, low taxation, tough on crime, big on social responsibility sort of guy - which I guess makes me a pretty big Conservative too. But I am also very committed to the social justice, social action brand of centre right politics being pursued by David Cameron.

By pursuing this agenda, from uniquely Scottish points of view, we will help to establish ourselves as a Party who work for Scotland in Scotland and dispel perceptions of being a Party who simply only care about the rich and ourselves. If I am right then keeping our name will make not one bit of difference.

I am, however, interested in hearing from members who have ideas as to what alternative name should be considered in the event a review of our Constitution recommends a name change as being required?

3) Should Scotland's centre right party be autonomous of the Conservative & Unionist Party in England?

Having proclaimed myself as a defender of the Union, I have to say I don't believe this is necessary. I want our Party to be a party who make a strong case for the Union, not just a defence of it and a case against Independence. This is best achieved by being part of a Party with representation across the United Kingdom so that a common purpose and shared agenda are delivered through common leadership.

If we have uniquely Scottish policy; a track record of delivery in local communities; pursue our agenda of Social Justice in communities (particulalry those in areas of the greatest deprivation); and show Scotland we are evolving as a Party in the way we look and sound, I am sure the people of Scotland will consider we have a sufficient degree of autonomy as a Scottish Party while we maintain our relationship as part of the UK Conservative & Unionist Party.

As I said in my introductory remark, David Cameron is a tremednous asset to our Party here in Scotland and if you believe retaining him as the leader of our Scottish Party is sensible then it is difficult to see how we can practically become autonomous of the UK Party he leads.

4) Do we need an 'A' list to change our personnel?

I was against this when it was first proposed but now see how it has been of some benefit. When David Cameron introduced an 'A' list in England it was roundly criticised but it gave him a "Clause 4" type moment and today the Conservative brand in England is not perceived to be toxic and the parliamentary party he leads looks very different to that he inherited.

I am, however, not convinced we need to follow the same path here in Scotland, particularly as our MSP group has evolved to a greater extent than any other parties over the 11 years of the Scottish Parliament.

At the risk of being unpopular with some of our MSP group, I do believe we should revisit the ranking system we use. I helped lead calls for a One Member One Vote system to rank MSP candidates on Regional Lists but there is a view amongst candidates, and some members, that this system unfairly favours incumbents.

I am attracted to an electoral college system where the Chairman of the Party, Chairman of the Candidates Board, Chairman of each Association within the boundaries of the Region and one representative per 50 members of each of these Associations are all invited to attend a hustings meeting. Based on candidates speeches, a report from the Candidates' Board on each candidates performance in their constituency and the CV provided by each candidate all those present would be asked to rank candidates in the same way as we do currently but without the cost of an expensive one member one vote postal ballot and with the result known on the night.

This seems to me to balance out the need to allow members to have the biggest single influence on ranking of local candidates but with reasonable controls on conduct and cost.

There are of course numerous other ways of modernising our brand and I very much hope to hear your ideas.