Steve Norris: We must build a tolerant party out of this rubble

'William seemed to become seduced by the transient attractions of populism'

Whatever else may be said about William Hague ­ and I believe the verdict of history will be a good deal more generous about his record than contemporary scribblers ­ his decision to resign the party leadership is testament to an extraordinary strength of character that was glimpsed all too rarely by the wider public.

For William is a politician who rarely got the press he deserved and who has some glittering personal achievements to his name, from that famous speech to the Tory conference at the age of 16, closely followed by the "Oxford quadruple" (President of the Oxford Union, of the University Conservative Association, of his college's junior common room and a first class degree).

He went on to become a cabinet minister at 34 and party leader at 37 (the age that I first became a backbench MP) ­ a formidable record. He has shown exceptional courage, resilience, serenity even, in the face of a virulently hostile media. We should thank William for four years of unstinting effort in the most difficult of circumstances.

But, as they say, the king is dead; long live the king! When William took on the leadership after the 1997 debacle, he seemed to many of us to be just the sort of young, energetic, relaxed, socially liberal Eurosceptic the party needed to revive its fortunes. For a year or more I think that he did offer us, in the words of his leadership campaign slogan, a "fresh start". There was an effort at recasting the party's appeal.

William and Ffion's appearance at the Notting Hill carnival got a mixed press, but it was an important symbolic moment. But at some point towards the end of 1998 we began to lose that sense of momentum, renewal and change. William seemed to become seduced by the transient attractions of populism. It began to look as though the Tory Party was there simply to ask "how high?" when the Daily Mail told us to jump. As we see now, it did us no good.

As a party the Conservatives have spent far too much time over the past few years talking to themselves and not engaging in a dialogue with the British people. We know the kind of lines that get the loudest cheers from the party activist at the conference and on the rubber chicken circuit: ill-thought-out ideas about "zero tolerance" on drugs that even the police thought impractical; the wall of hostile rhetoric about "bogus asylum seekers" and, yes, William's own easily misinterpreted remarks about "a foreign land".

The key lesson of Thursday's defeat is that the issues we chose to campaign on ­ asylum, Europe, tax ­ were not the things that most people regarded as crucial, even though they greatly excited Conservative activists. We should also take note of how badly the United Kingdom Independence Party performed. We may have been right about those issues, but what good is that when we are out of power and we have to sit back and watch Tony Blair please himself for the next four years.

Take tax. We deceived ourselves that the British people wanted to put tax cuts first. It was clear that while many wanted tax cuts ­ and who doesn't want to pay less tax? ­ their priorities were sorting out the NHS, schools, roads and railways. We Tories had begun to look at some new ideas here ­ the concept of free schools for example ­ but we had not sufficiently thought through the implications, with the consequence, once again, that our policies lacked credibility. We failed adequately to address people's concerns about public services.

Out of the rubble we Conservatives must build a party that more closely accords with the values of the British people. That means a tolerant, socially liberal, inclusive but still sensibly Eurosceptic party.

Of course, we still need to find a way of accommodating a spectrum of views from Ken Clarke to John Redwood. One idea worth looking at was floated yesterday by Michael Heseltine; that the new leader could grant every Tory, including members of the shadow Cabinet ­ freedom about which way to vote in any referendum on the euro. John Major's "wait and see" policy lacked credibility, while William Hague's promise to save the pound ­ but only for five years ­ failed again to convince.

But whatever approach we have to Europe, and I don't have any illusions about how difficult it will be, it is much more important that we get some radical rethinking done on social policies. We need to be much more clear about the values of tolerance with regard to people's sexual orientation and race. We have spent too much time talking about bogus asylum seekers, so we appeared ill at ease with our diverse multicultural society. When I was the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London last year I think I showed how a tolerant, compassionate brand of Toryism can have electoral appeal.

There are, I believe, figures at the top of the party who have the qualities a new leader will need, and who could build a socially liberal but broadly Eurosceptic party. Michael Portillo and Iain Duncan Smith are, to my mind, the most obvious candidates for such a role. But, whoever takes over, we must listen much more carefully. We must do better. Our next leader must be ruthless in doing whatever is necessary to make the Conservative Party electable again.

The author is vice-chairman of the Conservative Party