BRITAIN: Are the Tories disciplined enough to avoid a bloodletting, asks Frank Millar, London Editor
The Conservative Party started looking smart last night. Even as Sir Michael Spicer, chairman of the 1922 Committee, confirmed the end of Iain Duncan Smith's leadership this seemed a potentially rash observation. For past form suggested a remarkable Tory propensity to prove themselves "the stupid party".
Given the opportunity to do the necessary thing, the party's MPs had done it. But the harder bit looked like making sense of their decision by ensuring a bloodless succession.
In the end the manner of Iain Duncan Smith's dispatch looked remarkably efficient. It was only on Monday that "IDS" had taunted those plotting "in the shadows" to find the requisite 25 signatures if they could, launch their leadership challenge if they dared, and make his day by settling the matter within 48 hours.
To his surprise, within just 24 hours many more than the necessary 25 had called the leader's bluff and sent their letters to Sir Michael. And by 7 o'clock last night the members of the parliamentary party had made their own day and unmade a Duncan Smith leadership which reached its excruciating nadir with a toe-curling party conference speech earlier this month. It had finally banished any lingering thought that here was a prime minister in-waiting.
Yet if the events finally leading to yesterday's public sacking smacked of resolution, the same could not be said for the weeks of indecision which preceded it. And it is sobering to consider that had MPs requesting yesterday's confidence vote not been allowed to remain anonymous, and had the ballot itself not been private, Mr Duncan Smith might still be in the post, claiming his entitlement to lead the party into the next general election.
However, even as they congratulated themselves on re-discovering that the Tory instinct for power is stronger than their fabled tendency to loyalty, it was unclear whether MPs fully grasped the need for a greater sense of purpose now if they are to effect a successful transition.
Which is why the leadership contest threatens to be the hardest part. Even as the remaining MPs cast their votes, former party chairman Lord (Cecil) Parkinson was warning the parliamentary party of the limits of its authority and predicting massive resentment among constituency associations which had backed IDS against Mr Kenneth Clarke in the run-off ballot in September 2001.
Lord Parkinson was right, and wrong. The rules bequeathed by Mr William Hague - specifically to deter a challenge to an incumbent leader - extended the franchise beyond the parliamentary party to the constituency grassroots. Many of those who voted for Mr Duncan Smith will indeed resent their choice being overturned by a majority of MPs who never supported him in the first place. And having tasted the power of decision, the presumption is that the activists will be determined to have the last word on who should come after.
However, the harsh reality is that the party has suffered much from this experiment in leadership by a man unable to command the support of those at the parliamentary and public cutting-edge. Consequently, while no one was suggesting a change to the rules, or that the party members should not participate in future contests, there was growing pressure on all would-be successors to signal ahead of yesterday's vote their readiness to accept whichever candidate is the winner of the parliamentary ballot.
This would avoid a protracted and potentially damaging leadership race, running well into the new year. It could also be justified, as the Daily Telegraph argued, by the unique circumstances of the party's current crisis and the imperative to have an effective leader in place ahead of the Queen's Speech opening the new parliamentary session on November 26th.
But having got the first bit right, was the Conservative Party capable of such an exercise in discipline and maturity? Or would personal vanities and ambitions get in the way, turning the urgent need for a credible leader into a bloodletting of the kind which notoriously turns off the voters in the country at large? The early consensus suggested the man most likely to answer that question is Mr David Davis, sacked by IDS as party chairman last year and reputedly the likely popular choice in the constituencies. Mr Davis is a highly ambitious and confident man, as was evident from his statement last night. However, he electrified Westminster with his announcement that he would put that ambition on hold and back Mr Michael Howard.
It was always clear that a coronation in these circumstances - for Howard or whoever emerged as the choice of the MPs - would make sense. And pro-Howard declarations by Mr Oliver Letwin, Mr Stephen Dorrell and Mr Liam Fox - fuelling rumours that other ambitious men such as Mr Michael Ancram and Mr Tim Yeo would also stand aside - suggested that a coronation, indeed, might be on the cards. On a remarkable and fast-moving night at Westminster some commentators speculated that the Tories were turning their back on the bitterness and divisions of the post-Thatcher era. And it suddenly seemed permissible to think the Conservative Party might just have decided to stay smart.