The Tories just can't resist their bad old habits

The public tune out of the detailed arguments and just see the bigger picture of a party at war with itself

While discussing my holiday rota with colleagues a month ago, I indicated that I hate taking holidays in August and would be content to stay in London while everyone else suns themselves abroad. I reminded them how much I enjoyed being on duty last year during the Tory leadership election. They demurred: "Yes, but Michael, the Tory civil war stories are unlikely to sustain political commentators during this year's silly season, and you will need to concentrate on other issues."

I agreed that Tory politics would shut down and interest would focus on end-of-term reports from select committees such as the Public Accounts Committee. After 10 months of relative peace and tranquillity in the Tory party, we did not imagine that there would be a repeat of the civil war stories of last summer.

But, lo, the Tories simply cannot resist falling back into their old bad habits. It is tempting to suggest that we should simply ignore such events. What does it matter if the airwaves have been filled with the sound of Francis Maude, Norman Tebbit, Archie Norman, Nicholas Soames and, most recently, Norman Fowler – all of whom might be regarded as yesterday's men?

Sadly, it does matter if the ultimate result of all this is the principal opposition party actually disappearing, leading to the creation of a de facto one-party state. In fairness to Mr Duncan Smith, most of the latest stories have been highlighted precisely because of the political lull of the August season. But the fact that a sideshow such as the report of a breakaway "start-again party" has the capacity to fire up the disparate factions shows just how fragile a condition the Conservatives are in – notwithstanding the successful 10-month period of peace since Mr Duncan Smith took over as leader.

The trigger for all this was undoubtedly the removal of David Davis from the party chairmanship. That was a decision for which the leader was responsible and which he must surely now regret. This was the point from which we can date the re-ignition of these latest skirmishes. The heightened influence, as a result, of Mark Macgregor, the 41-year-old chief executive of the party (and other younger advisers of a previous pro-Portillo disposition) has fired the wrath of Lord Tebbit, the former party chairman, who was Mr Duncan Smith's predecessor as MP for Chingford. Lord Tebbit has hitherto regarded the new party leader as his protégé. "If you think I'm right wing, wait until you see my successor," he told us in the MPs' tearoom shortly before his retirement at the 1992 election.

The activities of the new member for Chingford in leading the Maastricht rebellion ensured that Lord Tebbit would lavish praise and support for his bid for the leadership last year. Lord Tebbit can be forgiven for his attack on Mr Macgregor, who as a student caused some embarrassment to the party when Tebbit was chairman. Certainly, paid staff should carry out the orders of the elected party leaders in public (while giving advice in private). Equally, Mr Macgregor is probably quite different as a responsible 41-year-old to what he was like as a fresh-faced maverick student leader.

But the Tory party has become a very topsy-turvy place, with those who demand loyalty inadvertently creating division and the appearance of division merely by taking part in the debate. So when one former party chairman, Lord Tebbit, is answered by another former party chairman, Lord Fowler, as happened yesterday, the public tune out of these detailed arguments and just see the bigger picture of a party at war with itself.

Underlying Lord Tebbit's concern is the hint that his faith and belief in Mr Duncan Smith's original policies have been betrayed by a treacherous accommodation with the Portillistas' agenda of inclusiveness. Many would say that Lord Tebbit, a figure from the past, does not matter. But he commands attention because he is still revered by the constituency troops. Nicholas Gibb, a Tory backbencher, wrote yesterday that Lord Tebbit should take a vow of silence, but his lordship is still a crowd puller, at least for the media. He should to be made to feel welcome – at any rate, in the privacy of Mr Duncan Smith's office.

Whether he is a nuisance or not is beside the point. The more he is labelled as a has-been, the more he will prove his credentials – in the inimitable words of Michael Foot – as "a semi-housetrained polecat". Lord Tebbit has been careful to couch his criticisms in terms of "those around" Mr Duncan Smith, but there is an implied sense that Lord Tebbit's protégé has strayed from what his supporters thought they were voting for.

The picture gets even more complicated when, to Mr Duncan Smith's rescue, have come the two architects of Mr Portillo's leadership campaign, Mr Maude and Mr Norman. In extraordinarily helpful comments on radio and television, they have defended him from Lord Tebbit and paid tribute to the modernisers at Conservative Central Office. It looks as though they have finally been convinced that their case that the party needs to devote its initial energies to how it "looks and sounds" has been taken up by the regime at Central Office with the full sanction of Mr Duncan Smith. I suspect that Maude and Norman cheered the loudest when Mr Davis was removed, as this was an outward demonstration to them that they were winning the tug of war between the traditionalists and the modernisers.

It is probably wrong and too Machiavellian to suggest that Mr Maude and Mr Norman's support is given in the hope that this, in turn, will prompt a backlash from Mr Duncan Smith's right-wing supporters, who might now be tempted to desert him. Mr Maude and Mr Norman have at least been consistent in their approach to the party's problems ever since their defeated hero left the stage. But the fact that some are suggesting that these two are trying to trap Mr Duncan Smith and split him away from his original camp indicates that the level of mutual mistrust among MPs is rising once again. Where, though would these original supporters go if they deserted? Unfortunately, there is an alternative for them – our old friend Mr Davis.

The most bizarre intervention, however, has come from Nicholas Soames. The comments attributed to him concerned what he called the party's "mad obsession with gays, blacks and women". But this was the very grandee I heard, at the infamous press launch of Mr Portillo's leadership campaign at The Avenue restaurant last year, eulogise Mr Portillo and his fresh approach. If Mr Portillo had won, we would have had even more of the "inclusive" agenda. One is bound to ask why Mr Soames was backing Mr Portillo in the first place.

Much of this can be dismissed as an August story, but it will have set the scene for the tone of the media coverage in the run-up to the forthcoming party conference in Bournemouth. I am anxious for Mr Duncan Smith to take as long as he can before announcing firm policies. He is entitled to take his time, and runs the risk of detailed policies being stolen or dissected by his political opponents. Now, in order to deflect these debilitating stories, he may be forced to reveal more of his policies at Bournemouth than he would like. He can only be thankful that at least we have not heard from any of the former party leaders. But stand by; I can feel the oncoming thwack of a handbagging.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk