YOU can't beat the Conservative Party for making a drama out of a crisis. Tuesday's leadership vote was a most peculiar spectacle and all the expectations are that today's re-run will throw up something equally unexpected.

As soon as the draw between David Davis and Michael Ancram for last place was announced, criticisms were made of the electoral system. The draw could have been foreseen, and eliminating both bottom candidates would appear a reasonable answer - which is what will happen today should there be a repeat.

Despite the criticisms, the system looks pretty good.

Any political party or any organisation that is electing a leader will have a complicated time if there is a number of candidates. This system looks good because it is the grassroots party members who will have the final say.

But the voting procedure is not the only thing under attack. In fact, all five candidates appear to have come under fire from their opponents in recent days - and not all of this fire has been friendly. Indeed, the redoubtable Ann Widdecombe has been raging around most fiercely in her support of Michael Ancram and in her crusade to keep out Michael Portillo.

Politicians who make such attacks are either deeply mischievous or highly principled. Mr Portillo himself, of course, affects to rise above it all, talking about compassion and inclusivity. But he has been brought down to earth by some well-timed smears.

I know enough about smear campaigns to know that their effectiveness is in their timing. On the morning of the first ballot Mr Portillo was the victim of an old story about him not registering money from speeches. On the afternoon of the first ballot, he was the victim of a new story which claimed he was soft on drugs. And then there has been whispering about his views on Clause 28 - the law which prevents local authorities from actively promoting homosexuality.

Despite the clinical timing of the smears, Mr Portillo still tries to rise above them, praising his opponents while denying the rumour and innuendo.

It is an extraordinary process, but most extraordinary of all, to me, is how introspective the Conservatives still are. There they were on Tuesday, crowding round Committee Room 14 in the House of Commons trying to work out who had lost, while in the chamber a debate about the riots in Bradford was in progress.

And I have yet to hear a single examination of Bradford, Oldham, Burnley or Leeds from any of the five candidates. They'd much rather argue about Europe, cannabis, Clause 28 and which one of them will divide their party and which one will unite it.

But surely the most pressing divisions are in the country, the divisions between black and white, rich and poor. Is there no one in the Conservative Party who will be a unity candidate for the whole country?

To me, Bradford is a microcosm of all the issues the next Conservative leader has to address if he wants his party to make any in-roads into Labour. The next leader should be talking about deprivation, about poor education, about terrible unemployment, about broken law and order, about awful housing, about petty jealousies, about dangerous extremism and about deep divides.

Just like the Tories addressed the wrong issues in the election campaign, so they are addressing the wrong issues in the leadership election campaign.

Meanwhile, the new Home Secretary David Blunkett talks in a dignified way about he will not tolerate the riots and how he will take tough action to stop them. He brushes away the cannabis question with an entirely sensible answer - the debate is welcomed, all the evidence will be examined, nothing will be done on a fashionable whim.

While the Tories make a second attempt today to find out who has come last, Labour is sitting back and laughing at them.

Published: 12/07/2001