It is not unusual for elections to be described as “the dirtiest ever”, but the current Conservative leadership contest has been so fractious that for once the description may be true. On Sunday, when the Conservative MP Greg Hands claimed in a Times Radio interview that “a lot of restraint” had been shown by the two campaigns, the presenter, the former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson, could not conceal her disbelief. It was more “blood and thunder and eye-gouging”, she responded. Davidson’s assessment of the nature of the contest is more widely shared in the party than Hands’, and as it heads towards its close there is concern that the blue-on-blue attacks will cause lasting damage to the Tories’ reputation. There is certainly an unusual level of animosity between the Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak camps. The two candidates have reportedly only spoken twice during the campaign, exchanging brief pleasantries. And instead of just attacking each other bitterly in background briefings, the two camps have been issuing on-the-record statements implying that their opponent’s policies are so flawed that, in effect, they are not fit to govern. This culminated last week in Dominic Raab, the justice secretary and Sunak supporter, writing an article saying Truss’s policies would be “electoral suicide” because they would not protect people from rising prices. For Labour, all the mud-slinging has been a godsend, and the party is now spending a “substantial chunk” of its digital budget on online advertising exploiting what the Tories have said. A party source said: “We have now got a fantastic bank of digital clips and quotes that we will be using in our campaigns in the months ahead, and what we say can now be predicated with the words: ‘Don’t take our word for it, just listen to what they say about themselves.’” David Davis, who was the runner-up in the Tory leadership contest in 2005, said he would like to see the winner try to heal the rift by appointing their opponents to cabinet. “One of the great guide books for every new prime minister should be Team of Rivals, about Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet, which consisted of all his rivals, and was one of the great cabinets in American history,” said Davis. “We need to do that both to secure the best talent, but also to bring the party together.” Davis took a job in the shadow cabinet after David Cameron became Tory leader in 2005. But this time round a “Team of Rivals” approach seems less likely, particularly if Truss wins, as the polls suggest she will. Some of Truss’s allies are briefing that Raab is now certain to be sacked if she wins, with one claiming that he had been acting like “a suicide bomber”. Others in the camp, while reluctant to put it quite like that, ask how it would be possible for Raab to continue to serve under a prime minister whose economic philosophy he had rubbished so comprehensively. Interestingly, the Truss team believe the same calculations will make it very hard for Sunak to serve in her administration. Sunak has accused Truss of “fairytale” economics. “If you do have that view, it is hard to see why you would want to serve in the team,” said a Truss source. Voters famously do not like divided parties, but some Tories are sceptical about whether Labour’s edited highlights from the Tory hustings will be such a vote-winner after all. “There are no swing voters on social media,” said one Tory MP. “Labour will be advertising to people who either believe in them or hate them.” There is no evidence from polling yet that the conduct of the contest has further worsened the reputation of the Conservatives. On 7 July, when Boris Johnson resigned, according to the Politico “poll of polls” Labour had an average lead over the Tories of 10 points. That has shrunk to a Labour lead of five points. The contest may have been unedifying, but the resignation of Johnson has removed the main factor repelling some voters. While the insult-trading gathers attention, one party figure said that in six months’ time no one would remember what Raab said about Truss, and that the real problem was the “dutch auction in policy” which had led to implausible promises being made. That would turn out to be the most damaging legacy of the contest, he predicted.