The Tories need a coronation, not a contest, to anoint their next leader

This is no funfair for the party, as it deals with a crisis at No 10, loss of its majority, and Brexit talks

As a child I adored the dodgems in the local fair. I loved the thrill of escaping a crash at the last second, and taking the odd unexpected broadside. It was fun galore, all safely contained within the circuit. Today our political fortunes are being played out in three such circuits, in each of which we may dodge the biggest blows, or find they strike us full on. The difference, of course, is that these games are being played in deadly earnest, and threaten grave danger if we misjudge them.

The first is the leadership battle within the Tory party. Theresa May will never fight another election as leader of the Conservative Party. Moreover, the situation now – where candidates are not frank about their ambition and swear undying loyalty in public even as their supporters canvas support in the parliamentary party – is almost an insult. Of course, it is clear why candidates may be nervous about declaring. I know something about leadership battles, and the price that can be paid by those who move first. I also know that they must be more than personality contests. At this juncture it is more important what a future Conservative leader says than who says it. Before any precipitous leadership election contest, the Party needs time to agree its approach to Europe.

This brings us to the second circuit – the Conservative Party response to the challenge of a lost majority. Here, there are two overarching issues: public reaction to a decade of austerity following the 2008 crash, and immigration. Euroscepticism is the result of these two issues. Someone, something had to be blamed. Who more suitable than the faceless, nameless foreign bureaucrat?

In reality, the fault was ours as much as theirs. We indulged in too much personal debt, growing corporate debt, and unaffordable public expenditure. The crash was inevitable. Bravely, in coalition and in government, the Conservatives painfully set about clearing up the mess. By the last election the job was half done. Should we now legitimise Jeremy Corbyn’s assertion that all that hard work was in fact unnecessary? If so, all we have to do is to reverse those things we argued for and indulge in a splurge of public expenditure.

The DUP deal won’t come cheap. In the medium term, that could cost us the next election. Why in a couple of years and not now? Because I don’t see the appetite for an immediate or very early election among opposition parties. And every government I have served in or opposed goes through midterm blues. So Labour can afford to wait. By-elections will deliver the government’s majority at a time when the public’s current hostility to an early election will have given way to an appetite for change. It is the public mood – not another Tory leadership contest, or opposition parties – which will determine the timing of the next general election. Until then, the Conservative Party needs a message of hope. We need a message that embraces the nation’s enthusiasm: action where our education standards are too low; training for workers that isn’t dictated by bureaucrats; real devolution of decision-making that breaks the Whitehall monopoly.

On immigration, it is tempting to believe Britons are particularly concerned. In fact, a similar unease is now evident throughout Europe. I do not believe the simplicity of free movement across Europe remains sacrosanct, and after the German election this autumn there may be a window for compromise. There have been frequent demonstrations in recent years of public concern about uncontrolled immigration and the honeypot quality of Europe means that it will continue to attract migrants from poor parts of the world. These issues will not go away.

One answer could be to accept free movement for people with jobs, but enforce annual quotas when economies of certain nations are encouraging exceptional flows. We should also exclude students from the net migration figures. They bring world quality to our universities, become ambassadors or goodwill for our country, and finance much of our academic excellence.

We should remember, too, that about half our net migration comes from outside Europe, and we are already free to control it, limit it, or stop it in any way our sovereign interest demands. No one is more aware of this than the Prime Minister, who refrained from such action in six years as home secretary. She knows that Britain’s self-interest demands flexibility.

So we come to the third circuit of political dodgems: the Brexit talks. Yesterday in Brussels, David Davis was told the terms on which our industry can continue to trade with our largest market. There will be much talk of our demands. But I believe any deal is likely to be worse than the status quo. Our companies are in dismay at the uncertainty. Our universities fearful for the consequences; our civil service concerned at the unanswered questions and the younger generation bemused that an older generation could wilfully undermine their future.

The question now is how the Conservative Party, having lost its majority, proceeds to mitigate such uncertainty in the months ahead. I believe there will be a change of leader. But I do not believe this has to lead to a general election. The Conservative Party is in a position to organise a succession; to replace a fatally wounded leader with a candidate who can find consensus, not just within the party itself but, by necessity in its minority position, across the House with the Opposition, too.

It is often said that, when it comes to leaders, the Conservatives are ruthless because they are adept at holding on to power. But in this case, it is not enough to be ruthless – to hold another destabilising leadership contest which would, even if it was quick, still last several weeks. The party must be ruthless and it must be clear. A way must be found to settle upon a new leader without a damaging internal quarrel.

The candidates know who they are. The weeks before the election gave the impression that the Tories could not run a campaign, let alone the country. The impending change at the top must, in its quiet, seamless efficiency in the national interest, put that lie to bed.