Duncan Hamilton: Ruth Davidson’s leadership battle won but Tory war goes on

That may seem an odd thought, especially given the Tories have just made what seems a radical choice in selecting a 33-year-old gay woman as leader. Certainly, many doubted that the rank and file were that progressive.

But in truth, the new leader is not the big story. Rather, the story is that despite Murdo Fraser choosing an alarming and divisive campaign strategy (‘Vote for me, I’ll abolish you’), and regardless of his stunningly candid analysis of the failed Tory brand, he still nearly won. The numbers speak for themselves – Ruth Davidson was ahead on the first count by only 182 votes and thereafter was elected by 566 votes. The total number of votes which secured victory (including second preferences), namely 2,983, represented 35 per cent of the party membership and 53 per cent of those who voted. A win is a win, but let’s be clear: 47 per cent of the Tory party was prepared to sign up to effectively packing up and starting again. That is remarkable. Moreover, it was prepared to do so under a leader who was for loosening ties with London, renaming the party and standing on a platform of his career-long commitment to fiscal autonomy.

That tells us that even amongst a large proportion of Tory activists there is a realisation that “one more heave” is a desperate plan. More importantly, it tells you that those who wanted the most radical change are now somewhat imprisoned within an organisation which chose – just – not to yield to political reality.

Add into that mix the fact that most MSPs backed Fraser, that some donors are openly questioning their continued commitment and that the new leader struggled for several days to put together a frontbench team because her colleagues refused to take the positions offered, and a picture emerges of an unsustainable political entity.

None of that is to have a go at Davidson personally – simply to make the point that what is unfolding here is much bigger than any individual. Within the Tory party, the reforming swell in the waters is there for all to see. The wave didn’t break but, inevitably, it will. It would take a leader in total command of the party to keep control, let alone to chart a course to success. Self-evidently, that is not the position in which Davidson finds herself – rather she is someone relatively unknown to the public and entirely new to the shark-infested waters of party politics.

Both wings of the Tory party face a challenge. For Davidson, few believe she will outperform the estimable Annabel Goldie, whilst the leadership campaign suggested little by way of policy substance. In fact, beyond her hard-line Unionism (the Scotland Bill being “a line in the sand”) neither I nor Google have been able to identify a single major issue, campaign or policy announcement ever championed by the new leader.

To be fair, she was unexpectedly elected as an MSP only in May. But she wanted to be leader and the public and her party have every right to demand proof of substance. In the leadership election, Davidson’s principal selling point was not being Fraser. She offered, perhaps sensibly in the context of winning an internal election, the veneer of change whilst also being a resolutely safe haven. Certainly, that strategy delivered victory, but the question remains – for what purpose?

Equally, what next for those radical Tory activists? What about the MSPs who agreed, and presumably still agree, with Fraser that the Tory party is a busted flush? In short, who will speak for the 47 per cent?

Without question, Fraser deserves praise for his candour and honesty. Had he kept quiet about the name change, and slightly tempered his remarks, he would have won. But he didn’t – he wanted to be straight with people about his thinking and there is too little of that in politics. But having failed in his leadership bid, the responsibility falls to him to consider how he carries forward his desire for a new force in Scottish politics.

The first option is to sit tight. Many don’t believe that the new leader will be there for long. If that is right, he can again seek, and probably win, a mandate for change. In the intervening period, however, he needs to think through much more clearly and much more strategically where he sees Scottish politics going and what exactly it is that his “centre-right” agenda looks like. I confess I don’t quite know what that term now means in the context of a Nationalist government committed to a low-tax, high-growth economy. On one view, the political landscape is already fairly cluttered. If Fraser sees a gap in the market, he needs to be much clearer about where and what it is.

His second option is to leave the Tories now and start a new party. That approach has integrity but could work if he took with him the bulk of MSPs and some serious donors. After all, let’s remember that a PR system is specifically designed to accommodate and encourage a plethora of parties and philosophies. Parties exist as vehicles to promote ideas. If the ideas of the majority of Tory MSPs and nearly half of the membership are not reflected by the new leadership, a parting of the ways may become inevitable. Half the party wants radical change. The other half wants almost none. Something has to give.