IT is a sign of where we are with the contest for the leadership of the Conservative party that the name that has been on the candidates’ lips most is Margaret Thatcher and the name we have heard least is Boris Johnson. With naked haste, the contenders have sought to distance themselves from a Government of which most of them were a part, while seeking to link themselves with an era of the party’s history – Thatcherism – for which they believe the party members have considerable nostalgia.

However, even if the candidates are right and a most-modern Thatcherism is the route to winning the contest, they appear to have misunderstood what Mrs Thatcher actually did in government. She certainly cut taxes but in the first years of her government she actually raised them to balance the books. She did not make the free-wheeling, responsibility-free promises on tax cuts that the candidates are making now. In the words of Gavin Barwell, the Tory peer who was Teresa May’s chief aide, you cannot have Thatcher levels of taxation and Johnson levels of public spending.

The fact that the candidates have rushed to promise tax cuts anyway is a reflection of the nature of this competition. The general public do not have a vote – instead, the decision goes first to Tory MPs (most of whom are considerably further to the right on the economy than most of the public) then the party membership, who are also not necessarily representative of the general population – and certainly not the population in Scotland.

It is for this reason that most of the candidates – although not all – have, in seeking to win the votes of this rather small and particular electorate, already promised big and immediate tax cuts which would bring water to the eyes of most economists and responsible voters. Some have said they will cut national insurance, some corporation tax, or VAT, or income tax, and some candidates have promised cuts to all four. It is not always easy to keep track of the potential cost but even reversing the Government’s national insurance increase would cost something between £13bn and £18bn a year.

The calculation that the candidates are surely making is that they need to make such promises to win votes among their colleagues and party members but in doing so they are being dishonest as well as irresponsible. Tax cuts of this scale and nature cannot be achieved without threatening massive cuts to public spending, a large rise in public borrowing or a severe risk of fuelling inflation in an already fragile and under-performing economy. Even the apparently more cautious Rishi Sunak – who is in the unlikely position of being labelled a socialist or left-winger by some in the party – has also felt it necessary to promise tax cuts, albeit deferred ones.

The fact that the men and women who would be the next Tory leader – and next Prime Minster – are not being honest about all of this is an unpleasant reflection on the standard of the candidates. On a much more positive note, it is remarkable that the list of candidates is extraordinarily diverse. In the original line-up, six of the contenders were non-white. For a party that is often criticised for being led by white posh boys, that is a most welcome development.

However, as Mr Sunak said this week, a candidate for leader must be judged by their character, but also by what they say and their ability to judge what the priorities of the country should be. People in the UK of all backgrounds are facing a financial crisis fuelled by inflation, high prices, and stagnating pay and those on low incomes in particular would not benefit from the kind of tax cuts the Tory contenders are promising; the cuts would disproportionately benefit the better-off who pay more tax. What people on lower incomes need – what we all need – are serious strategies for economic recovery and growth. Are the candidates still committed to the idea of “levelling up”?

The potential leaders, and their supporters, should also remember that how the contest is conducted and fought reflects on the party as well as their potential capacity to govern and again the signs are not good. Conservative MPs like to talk publicly about loyalty but the party’s MPs have also shown themselves to be ruthless in sinking the knife into the back, or the front, of their leader when they are no longer considered useful. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, but Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has suggested that “dark arts” and “dirty tricks” have been at play. Those who remain ministers should also remember their continuing responsibilities. With Priti Patel refusing to appear before a Commons committee and the Online Safety Bill being put on hold, it is no surprise that Labour has accused the Conservatives of neglecting to govern.

In Scotland as well, there is another dimension at play: the constitution. Even if a majority of Scots do not want a referendum on the timetable Nicola Sturgeon has suggested, the Tory candidates should take care about the way they tackle the issue. They may believe they need to “get tough on the Jocks” to win votes in the short term, but in the longer term, the tone of their language and approach may do damage to the sense of respect and mutuality which should, and must, be at the heart of the union of nations.

It may get better, who knows: we will not know the final two in the contest for a few days yet and we will not know who the next PM is until September, but whatever the result, the competition to be leader has not got off to a good start. A contest such as this should attract the brightest and best; it should also encourage honest conversation about the problems we faces and the solutions we need. Instead, we have a scrap in which the chief weapon appears to be unrealistic promises about the economy – "fairy tales", Mr Sunak calls them, and rightly so.

It may be that the only damage that is done in the end is to the old idea that the Tories are the party of economic responsibility, but the scramble to the top could also elect a leader who actually keeps the bad promises they have made to cut taxes instead of helping people with the cost of living. The Conservative party appears to be damaging itself in one of its regular bouts of internecine conflict – the greater concern is that it could end up damaging the country as a whole.

SYMPATHETIC JOURNEY

WERE you planning to travel by train on the 18th or the 20th of August? If so, you may already be making alternative plans after the RMT announced it will be staging further strikes on those dates.

Action of this sort can be deeply inconvenient, but the polls show that on the whole public support for the unions is holding up. The reason is clear: the factors affecting rail staff – rising costs and stalled pay – are affecting their passengers, too. We are sympathetic because millions of us are on the same troubling journey.