Michael Brown: Too many Tories just want a reflection of themselves

So the guns have fallen silent as Iain Duncan Smith and Kenneth Clarke take a well-earned break from hostilities in the Tory leadership race. Neither camp will reveal the whereabouts of their man, and who can blame them from protecting their generals from hordes of marauding journalists anxious to catch a future leader of the opposition working up a suntan?

All the Clarke camp will say is that their man is "definitely not in Vietnam", while his rival is said to be "in the country". But what if Mr Clarke appears at his beloved Trent Bridge this weekend – suitably photographed with foaming pint in hand – for the Test Match? The onset of the silly season will, no doubt, prompt easy stories accusing him of breaking the agreement.

But the truce only applies to the candidates themselves. While they have both agreed not to give interviews to the media for the next fortnight, their respective armies will continue to work at full stretch planning a series of meetings with party members to take place the moment that hostilities resume.

Despite the polls that say Duncan Smith is ahead, there is in truth no accurate information to guide us as to the likely winner. This is one contest where the result will be determined by the more inactive of activists in the Tory Party. Newspapers and polling organisations can call constituency party chairmen and executive officers, but reaching out to the ordinary subscribers is impossible.

Even the candidates themselves have been denied access to the membership lists by Conservative Central Office. The ridiculous notion put forward by David Prior – the defeated former MP who is now the acting party chairman – that this would be in breach of the data protection act, is nothing more than a cover for the real problem, a shambolic and inadequate list of members.

Expect to read stories of angry disenfranchised Tory members in the weeks ahead as the chickens come home to roost on the failures of the party reforms initiated three years ago. Until then, constituency associations were masters of their own membership. In a brave attempt to introduce a national scheme, Central Office made it a rule that members should pay a minimum annual subscription of £15, to be collected by constituencies and with names passed to headquarters.

Many of the old dears who had been paying less than this, but continued faithfully distributing leaflets and making jam and scones for local functions, are suddenly about to discover that they are ineligible to vote. Those local officers too anxious to avoid offending such supporters told them they were "foundation members" and that they were still regarded as valued supporters. There will be an outcry from these blue rinses when they find out that on the first occasion, ever, that they could have a say in the choice of leader, they have been disenfranchised.

Equally, there are a number of sharp operators who are members of several associations and who are likely to receive ballot papers for each of these constituencies. This may well be another reason why Mr Prior is so coy about giving Mr Clarke and Mr Duncan Smith access to the membership lists. But at least the inadequacies of Central Office have spurred both candidates into getting out on the stump to meet the members.

Early criticisms that the Clarke campaign was too laid-back and somewhat chaotic have been taken to heart, and a well-oiled machine is now in place. Already Mr Clarke has travelled the length and breadth of the kingdom. Events organised by volunteers brought in 350 in the Salisbury constituency, 400 in Edinburgh and nearly 600 in Tatton. Mr Duncan Smith's campaign also promises to proceed at a cracking pace after the break.

Both sides promise "change" while accusing each other of being "extreme". The rhetoric is hot but the public is not much wiser as to what a Clarke or Duncan Smith leadership might be like than it was when this whole circus began nearly two months ago.

Mr Clarke is clearly going to have to adapt himself to the party's natural Euroscepticism more than he has been prepared to admit. If he succeeds in finally achieving his long-held ambition to lead the party, he is hardly going to pick a fight with the Eurosceptic ex-Portillista MPs who have, this week, trumpeted their support for him.

In any event, the prospect of an economic downturn and increased tension between the respective occupants of Downing Street may well have shelved the single currency for many years ahead – which will allow Mr Clarke to achieve his objective of "turning down the volume" on Europe. On other issues, his plans remain somewhat vague. His big asset is that he is seen as the most popular Conservative with non-Tory voters

Mr Duncan Smith is equally "broad- brush" on many issues but is far less right wing than many would have us believe. He will probably be preferred by constituency bigwigs for his apparently traditional Tory approach on most issues. But Mr Duncan Smith, I suspect, will surprise and disappoint many of the right-wing zealots who currently surround him. Talking to him on – for want of a better term – the "socially inclusive agenda", I detected that he would be far more likely to lose some of the heavy baggage than we may have been prepared to give him credit for.

Only a right-winger who has the initial confidence of the right can make such progress in the Tory Party. It is the Nixon going to China syndrome – or, closer to home, Thatcher resolving the Rhodesia issue in 1980.

Unfortunately, too many party members are seeking a candidate who simply reflects their own views and prejudices. I have recently been press-ganged into service on the rubber chicken circuit because of the shortage of frontbenchers and the unavailability of Lord Archer. Last weekend, I gave a talk for Gillian Shephard on the topic, "Crossing the floor; from MP to hack". Tonight I go to Andrew Mitchell's Sutton Coldfield constituency to repeat the sell-out performance.

In Mrs Shephard's patch I found it difficult to impress on the faithful that the sole consideration should be not who they liked best but who they thought would make a Labour, Liberal Democrat or stay-at-home voter more likely to support the Tory Party. They could not see what the problem was, since, in fairness, they had returned Mrs Shephard with a 7 per cent swing to the Tories. The solution they sensibly proposed was that she should stand as the Tory candidate in each of the 659 constituencies but, as I was forced to point out, "There is only one Gillian Shephard."

Herein lies the principal challenge to this extraordinary collection of voters charged with the duty of selecting the leader of the country's alternative government. Too many of them seem to be think that what they want from the candidates is an exact reflection of their own views. Mr Clarke and Mr Duncan Smith, when they return from their breaks, will have to impress on them that it is partly what the non-Conservative voters want that matters.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk