Peter, If the title is not original how could the text be original?
To pick a flippant title means you are not serious in what you write and are pandering to the masses who watch Big Brother.
Who is Big Brother?

Peter,

Cheers. I wrote recent pieces on these topics on this website.

One was - David Cameron: Let's dream a new generation of conservative dreams

The other - the Old Left: Rebels without cause or hope

I agree to a large extent with the thesis that the Tories have been overly reactionary and that in response, David Cameron has positioned himself perfectly to win this campaign for leadership, and to challenge Gordon Brown as the inheritor of the Blair centre ground. Centre right I grant - Cameron being on the right on Europe and more aggressive on public sector reform - but the message is centrist overall.

Cameron is possibly a bullwark against the opportunist campaigning of previous Tory leaders, and in particular that of the Lynton Crosby effort, which by all accounts was a true disaster that sort to force Australian electioneering of "dog whistle" politics on the Poms. The Poms are far more sensitive and the media is more aggressively "l"iberal in Britain, and Crosby really floundered in that context. 2005 was there for the taking if Davis had been leader not Michael Howard and a more centrist message was pitched as opposed to Crosby's "Australian" effort.

Crosby has made Cameron the obvious candidate now.

Cheers,
Corin

Depending on the objectives of an opposition, scare tactics serve a purpose (a rotten and ultimately corrosive one I think, but a demonstrative purpose nevertheless).

In the last term, the Tories held 197 seats to Labour’s 356. A week is a long time in politics and five years is, well, longer. The Tories took the seats they needed to prepare for the next election and their scare campaign was able to deliver the right seats.

The Tories established a net 33 seat gain ‘beachhead’ where it wanted it and the LibDems also eroded labour’s margin with an 11 seats net gain. Tellingly, the Tories improved their proportion of national vote by only 0.6% percent.

I think the path to government is the path closest to the path that best serves public needs and aspirations.

Circumstances change, particularly in relation to historical political positions, so ‘straight down the middle’ can’t be taken as a strict truism.

Martin,

Labour votes were heavily depressed by Iraq - and without that issue - they would have won by at least as much as 2001!

Tory problems are real. They may have a beach head but even Michael Foote's Labour won 209 seats in 1983.

Arguably the Tories are further behind than Labour was at it's worst point in the 1980's!

Corin

Corin, ya quite right, am suggesting though that scare tactics do have an impact and that the Tories’ use of them was quite deliberate and not entirely unsuccessful.

They are in trouble and I don’t think their beachhead will be of much use given how much they traded-in their identity, and aided the LibDems, to get it.

I think this is an excellent article, but a message that the Conservatives will find hard to swallow. I have recommended it on a blog run by Iain Duncan Smith's former political secretary, Tim Montgomerie, at: www.conservativehome.blogs.com

I used to work at Conservative Central Office (when IDS was leader) and Corin is right, they have an awfully long way to go. Martin Kettle has written an article in the Guardian which is worth a look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1656653,00.html

Some I disagree with - but much of it is commonsense to anyone exposed to Australian politics, and how parties rebuild themselves while in Opposition.

PS Corin when I used to catch the Jubilee Line I used to see your boss reading the Metro on the tube in the morning! The only other pollie I used to see on the tube was Damian Green, the Tory MP for Ashford. I think more could and should set an example.