Bruce Anderson: Robin Cook was a master of opposition. The Tories aren't.

There have been so many tributes to Robin Cook over the last couple of days but Bruce Anderson's reflection in today's Independent (subscription required) offers a particularly fair account of the former Foreign Secretary's qualities.

Mr Anderson does not believe that Mr Cook was a good minister and recounts examples of incompetence and incoherence.  But, Mr Anderson believes, Mr Cook was "the best destructive debater in the House of Commons" and "a laureate of scorn".

The main point of Mr Anderson's article, however, is to ask a question: "Why could Cook make negative campaigning work so well for Labour, when the Tories have consistently failed to do so?"

It's a question that isn't really answered in an article that lists the many failures and u-turns of this Labour government.  Reflecting on the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings Mr Anderson argues that Tory warnings on the Human Rights Act, asylum and immigration have all proved to be spot on.  Tory opposition to Blair's ambitions for euro membership and ratification of the EU Constitution have also been vindicated.  Have the Tories benefited from being right?  No.  The only explanation Mr Anderson can offer is Mr Blair's endless ability to reinvent himself.  He concludes:

"We have not seen the last instalment of Tony Blair's political genius."

Comments

[Simon C]

Cook was consistent. He took a principled stand on Iraq, and voiced his criticisms in clear, but not strident language.

Similarly, Conservatives need to be both consistent and not strident.

That means, for example, supporting the government when it veers in a Conservative direction - eg Foundation Hospitals. Our default tone of voice should not be acrimony - we should reserve moral outrage for the occasions which truly merit it. Criticism should be expressed more often in sorrow than anger.

This is particularly important when tackling Blair, who lives very much in the moment. All that matters to him is that he passionately believes in a particular course of action at that moment. Whatever he has said in the past, with equal passion, can be disregarded if it happens to be inconsistent with his views of the moment.

Thus it is that he was able to stand on a platform of withdrawal from the EU in 1983, then become a fervent advocate of ever closer union, and now re-invent himself as a Euro-realist & reformer in the light of the French "non".

We cannot hope to match his ability to twist and turn, nor should we aspire to. Instead, calmly and cooly, we need clearly to explain what our position is, and how the Prime Minister's changes. Every so often his position will coincide with ours. When it does we need to recognise and welcome that.

This is a difficult, frustrating strategy which will only bear fruit in the long-term. Yet whilst Blair is in charge, it's the only option. If we remain clear calm and consistent, we will start to regain some reputation for competence.

The government has a tendency to come up with policy in the hoof - it's doing that at the moment with its anti-terror proposals. Potentially this could damage the government - but only as long as we get our response right.

[malcolm]

Agree with Bruce Anderson's article.In my opinion there are two reasons Cooke (who I thought was a very poor Foreign Secretary) was far more successful than we are at negative debating.
1)We have a very bad tendency to make everything very personal.We attack the individual rather than the idea.This probably reached its zenith in the 'Tony Blair is a liar' spat during the last election campaign.We didn't attack or even elucidate what the lies (and there were many) were we just attacked him as an individual.It backfired spectactularly.
2).Tony Blair and his team are very adept at countering Tory criticism by often SEEMING to take the criticism on board and SEEMING to do something about it.Witness recent debates on immigration,the euro,common agriculteral policy,sacking civil servants etc,etc,etc.The fact that in reality little is done doesn't seem to matter because by the time this becomes apparant the issue is past.Words are certainly cheap with this government. They can get away with it because instead of consistently campaigning on broad themes we flit from issue to issue always seeking short term party political advantage.Whoever becomes leader will have to recognize that this strategy doesn't work!