THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY in the country often makes better sense than the Conservative Party at Westminster. I think I know what the voluntary party wants; I have no doubt that Conservative Members of Parliament will get a clear message in their constituencies during this week’s brief recess.

Ordinary Conservative supporters want a return to business as usual. They have been horrified by the controversy into which the party was plunged by Michael Howard’s announcement of the new constitution and a long-drawn-out leadership contest.

The Conservatives I meet are more charitable about Mr Howard’s actual election campaign than I am. I thought it was too narrow and too negative, although he undoubtedly worked hard and professionally. They tend to think, in broad terms, that he did a good job to win 33 seats.

However, there is a growing consensus that there is no point in his remaining leader until the autumn. Even those who are grateful to him see him as a dead duck, a leader who cannot take decisions because someone else will be there to carry them out. They dread a vacuum of leadership, perhaps lasting for six months. They think Mr Howard should go before the summer recess. Or now.

This applies particularly to the revision of the constitution of the Conservative Party. It was a mistake to muddle up amendments to the constitution with the election of a new leader. Members of the party do not like giving up their votes for a leader. They suspect that the change is part of a scheme to stop David Davis. Eurosceptics, who are in the large majority, suspect a pro-European manoeuvre, or at least a scheme to help the soft centre. Instead of the proposed changes being debated on their merits, they are causing resentment and suspicion.

There is also a national and regional problem. In the general election the Conservatives did not win any seats in the big English cities outside London; they have only one seat in Scotland and three in Wales. Yet they won 193 seats in the rest of England. If the final vote to choose the new leader is given to MPs, there will be one Scottish vote to 193 English. That could be remedied by proposing an electoral college, but the present proposals, as published last week, are an insult to Scotland, Wales, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and so on. The Conservatives suffer from being seen as the party of southern England, yet that is where most of their MPs are elected.

Michael Howard is further disqualified by his abrasive record in party discipline. He has not apologised to Howard Flight or to Arundel and South Downs. For that matter, he has never apologised to Boris Johnson over Liverpool, to Danny Kruger over Sedgefield, or Adrian Hilton, in Slough.

In each case Michael Howard overreacted and went to the absolute limit of his powers as leader. The central issue of the new constitution is the power relationships between MPs, local associations, the board, candidates, Central Office and the leader. The voluntary party believes in local independence and in free speech. It suspects that Michael Howard is temperamentally an autocrat. It will not accept without protest the disciplines of a constitution in his image.

Nothing can start to go right so long as Mr Howard remains leader; as he is going anyway, he has lost his authority. Yet his proposal to change the method of election has made it more difficult to move swiftly to a new leader.

I do not think this is impossible, because the weight of support for the leadership candidates has been changing with unexpected speed. Last week I wrote that there were six potential candidates I thought might do a good job, David Davis, Malcolm Rifkind, Liam Fox, Andrew Lansley, David Cameron and Michael Ancram. In the past week the five last mentioned have been rolling stones: they have gathered no moss.

The test, which Michael Howard himself once passed but Kenneth Clarke and Iain Duncan Smith both failed, is to be accepted as leader both by the members of the party, some 300,000 of them, and by the 197 Members of Parliament. The support of one or the other group is not enough on its own. David Davis is now close to achieving a majority consensus in both groups. It seems almost certain he would win a majority among the members, and probably a large one. That alone makes it very difficult for the MPs to choose someone else.

There is talk of Ken Clarke, as there always is. If the MPs were to take the vote away from the members of the party, and elect Ken Clarke, a Europhile, against David Davis, a Eurosceptic, the party would be split, and might well run third in the next general election.

In fact, David Davis almost certainly has the largest support in Parliament. There is no other leadership candidate with the same body of support at this stage, and none of them seems to be adding to his following. David Davis is very close to the double consensus that is required. In that case, the short cut used to elect Michael Howard himself could be used again.

There are two provisos. David Davis has given an assurance that he supports the independence of Members of Parliament; plainly, he would not have fired Howard Flight. Simply because Mr Davis does look like a strong leader — which is his appeal — some people worry that he may not equally believe in the independence of constituency associations, of their right — denied to Arundel and Slough — to select their own candidates. The constituencies do not want another control figure as their leader.

Yet there is rising support for a decision on the leadership now. The new constitution will need time and consultation. It would be foolish to keep the leadership semi-vacant until that has been attended to.

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone