Mark Steel: Why don't the Tories have a penalty shoot-out?

'For those of us who suffered the years of Tory dominance, the whole thing is marvellous'

Internal links

Duncan Smith plans crackdown on benefits for single mothers

Duncan Smith: 'We often look as if we are from another planet'

Commons rumour mill keeps horse-traders busy

Donald Macintyre: Has the Conservative Party lost its appetite for power?

Mark Steel: Why don't the Tories have a penalty shoot-out?

Tory leadership contest: special collection

There is one effect of the lengthening of the Conservatives' election process that no one seems to have considered. Given the average age of the membership, in the two extra days it will take before the whole party gets to vote several thousand of them will die. Imagine how frustrating that would be, if your rousing speech to the Winchester Constituency Association had guaranteed a couple of hundred votes, but on the day the ballot papers were delivered the whole lot conked out.

You can tell this lot isn't used to democracy. They're like a grandparent trying to play with their grandchild's PlayStation, after each stage looking bemused and going "Now what do we do?". And you know some of them are muttering, "We never had none of this new-fangled nonsense in our day, you know. If we wanted a new leader, the Earl of Sandwich would retire to the drawing room of the Carlton Club inside a circle of flaming brandy, and upon extinction of the flames would howl the name of the successor three times in the manner of a speaking wolf."

So, it never occurred to them there might be a tie for last place. Even if all 166 of them had stood, it wouldn't have occurred to them there might be a tie. So they have to make it up as they go along. If it happens again we might get a penalty shoot-out. Or a karaoke contest or a special episode of The Generation Game with the last pair having two minutes to make a vase.

Then came all the splendid politician's logic. Michael Ancram claimed his 21 votes were a huge success because they were 75 per cent more than predicted, which proved he had the momentum to go on and win. What a fantastically arbitrary way of measuring success. Maybe the England cricket team should try a similar approach, announcing that in their innings defeat by Australia, they scored 80 per cent more runs than there are lion tamers in Argentina, proving they're on course to win next year at Wimbledon.

For those of us who suffered the years of Tory dominance, wondering whether they would ever, ever lose, the whole thing is marvellous. What a joy that one of the contenders can be as obscure as David Davis. Someone asked me, perfectly seriously, whether this was the same bloke who used to present World of Sport on ITV. Imagine if he won.

It's possible some of the Tories have made the same mistake, which would explain his 21 votes. They're thinking, "I'm not sure what he thinks about the economy but at least he'd promise to bring back tag-team wrestling on Saturday afternoons. Sod it, we've tried everything else, we might as well give it a go."

Imagine if a union ran an election like this, changing rules as it went, allowing only two candidates to be presented to the membership, with all the arm-twisting and promise of patronage taking place behind the scenes.

When the Tories were in power, they screamed with rage at every ballot for strike action or to elect left-wingers to union positions. They changed the law so that almost any such vote could be legally challenged, and a strike vote had to include anyone who might be vaguely connected with the dispute.

If the same rules applied to the Tory election, we'd all get a vote and have the chance to elect someone like Osama Bin Laden for a laugh, under the slogan "Try that for inclusive". Although the local association secretaries would probably say, "I'm not too happy with his foreign policy but he's got some cracking ideas on women and gays."

Their saving grace is that just as they don't understand why they've started losing elections, New Labour don't understand why they've started winning them. The enthusiasm for the free market and union-bashing that eased Thatcher into power has evaporated, but New Labour insist on continuing it, despite the hugely electable Blair receiving fewer votes at the last election than won by the hugely unelectable Kinnock in 1992.

The irony is his argument for being obsessively tied to the free market is that it is commitment to public ownership that's out of date, simply because it was formulated more than a hundred years ago. Any idea from back then is outdated, he insists in his eagerness to be "modern". Presumably, when Tony and Cherie are hosting a dinner party, they throw all the plates and glasses in the air. And if someone screams "what are you doing" he says, "Oh, you don't still believe all that gravity nonsense do you? Isaac Newton was 350 years ago, that doesn't apply any more. The plates won't fall, they won't float, they'll find a third way into the dishwasher."

But the finest part of the whole affair is the effort made by Michael Portillo to be a happening dude. The next time that Peter Lilley introduces him, he'll say: "Now, give it up for my main man, all the way from Kensington, he's been on a journey from Thatcherite hope to friend of the dope, from 'the SAS dares' to 'I was gay and who cares', yes, it's the king of free market funk, Mr Michael Portilloooooooo..."