The diehard Tory complaints are starting to come in again.They still think a Tory government is on the side of conservative British people, rather than their devious and dishonest foe.

How can I say 'Don't vote Tory?' they demand. Surely I cannot want another five years of new Labour? But why should I care if we are run by New Labour or Blue Labour. A Tory government will not be a conservative government (don't you remember John Major, a man whose counsels are now very welcome in the Cameron inner circle)?

David Cameron actually says he is the 'heir to Blair' and all he has done since he came to the leadership has confirmed this. Even now, his party is entangled in a row about how heavily we should be taxed, and relies on the Europhile fanatic Kenneth Clarke to provide the only evidence of governing experience on its largely teenage front bench.

However we vote at the next election, we will get a socialist, liberal, PC, pro-crime, pro-EU, anti-education anti-marriage government, which believes in selling the country to Brussels. Your vote cannot change that. In fact a Tory victory would enthrone David Cameron as the party saviour, and crush for years to come all those still in the party who have genuine conservative beliefs.

But it can sack the opposition, a unique chance to use your vote to change the course of history, to take control of a political process currently dominated by a liberal elite, a liberal elite which is more than content for the Tories to win the next election because they have abandoned the last traces of conservatism. Why else has the liberal leftish BBC now fallen in love with David Cameron? The Tories cannot survive a fourth election defeat. If they collapse and split, their tribal voters will be up for grabs by anyone with a serious patriotic and conservative agenda. It is a unique chance, probably unrepeatable in my lifetime and many of yours. Why not take it? You will not get another.

I reproduce below my October 2007 posting on this site which explain in full why proper conservatives should be doing all they can to bring about the collapse of the Tory Party which has spent the last 40 years systematically betraying them. I urge my critics (who seem to believe a vote is an act of personal self-indulgence rather than a practical deed designed to have consequences) to at least read it.

The Tories are still useless

I give myself a great deal of trouble by attacking the Tories, the party most of my readers want to support. Why do I do this, condemning myself to many angry and often personally rude messages from affronted people? I could easily make everyone happy by quietly dropping this campaign. It would save me hours spent writing letters and e-mails to Tory loyalists who absurdly accuse me, of all people, of wanting to keep Labour in power.

But I cannot, because I think we now have a unique opportunity to remake British politics and recapture Britain from the people who have messed it up and trashed it for so long. The next election cannot change the government. But it can change the opposition - from an ineffectual, useless, compromised one, into an effective one genuinely opposed to what New Labour is doing.

And such an opposition, no longer weighed down by the awful record of the Tories and their miserable reputation, could throw New Labour into the sea, perhaps within five years of coming into being.
The destruction of the Tory Party, which is now both possible and desirable, is the essential first step to this. In our two-party system, new parties arise out of the collapse and splitting of those they seek to replace. They cannot be created until that collapse, and that split, have begun. A serious, undoubted and decisive defeat for the Tory Party at the next election would make this possible and likely. Such a defeat is possible, despite the events of the past few weeks, and can be aided by voters simply refusing to waste their votes on a party that is both likely to lose, and certain to betray them if it wins.

This view is based on careful study of British voting patterns, constituency boundaries, polls and the age distribution of voters. It is influenced by the experienced pollster Peter Kellner's observation that no opposition party has ever reached power unless at some stage it touched 51% in the opinion polls, during its period out of office. The Tories are still a long way from this figure. In 1979, the Tories were far ahead of Labour in the polls. In 1997, Labour, likewise was far ahead of the Tories. 'Leads' of four per cent, of the kind being achieved now, mean little at general election time.

Even if the Tories could win an election (I speculate on this unlikely event at greater length because so many people now seem to believe that this is the case), what would that mean? I predict a government very similar to that of John Major, only even more torn by its unhealable division over the EU. People forget now, but Major's government was one of political correctness, weakness on crime, failure on education, high taxes and conflict over the EU.

It is claimed that the Tories are now more anti-EU. In truth, this is not really the case. Many Tories have shifted from passive acceptance of the EU to what is called 'Euroscepticism', an unrealistic belief that, while the EU is bad for Britain, it is possible for us to negotiate ourselves a safe corner within it, which does not threaten our independence and laws, or the control of our borders. This 'in Europe but not run by Europe' view simply doesn't stand up to practical politics. The EU demands of its members a constant and accelerating surrender of national independence. If you win a small battle, you will rapidly find that the EU tries another attack from a different direction to achieve the same end. Don't like the Euro? How about a constitution? The end result, the whittling away of sovereignty, is the same. Why shouldn't it be? Ever-closer union is the EU's stated purpose.

In practice, those who are honestly in favour of EU membership and all that it entails, or honestly against it (the only two honourable positions in this debate) still cannot possibly agree - and it cannot be long, in the nature of the EU, before any government is confronted with the choice of continued reduction of national independence, or departure. There is no doubt which option Mr Cameron would choose.
The Tories are also fundamentally, irreconcilably divided over several other issues - grammar schools, the unique privileges due to marriage, political correctness in general, immigration, the size and nature of the state, levels of taxation, the Iraq and Afghan interventions. But Mr Cameron is on the left-wing of all these issues, (including his support for the Iraq war), and so are his most influential colleagues. His authority, were he to win an election, would be similar to that of Mr Blair in 1997, based on the gratitude of a party that had waited too long for office, so his 'right-wing' opponents would not be well-placed to oppose or obstruct him.

The result would be a government mainly similar to New Labour. Is that worth making any great sacrifices for? Not in my view. Worse, such a victory would ensure, for the foreseeable future, that Parliamentary politics remained - as it is now - under the control of a very narrow elite, committed to liberal political, cultural , moral and social positions and hostile to conservative ones. It would confirm Mr Cameron and his media friends in their belief that the future for the Conservative Party is in aping New Labour.
It would be the end, for some time, of any opportunity for radical change. It would cement - under a Tory government - the deep leftward shift in this country under Mr Blair and Mr Brown, not least their republican constitutional reforms and their huge increase in the size of the public sector. It would also mean that nothing serious would be done about mass immigration, about education or about crime and disorder. The restoration of the idea of personal responsibility, and its corollary, punishment for wrongdoing, is not possible in the social democratic state supported by both major parties. This insists that 'offenders' can blame their actions on circumstances, that victims are sometimes at least partly responsible, and sometimes wholly responsible for the crimes committed against them ( see police campaigns to get law-abiding citizens to hide their possessions, behave cautiously on the street in case of attracting criminal attention, and fortify their homes). These people see the law as a mechanism for negotiating between 'offenders' and victims' rather than a machine for punishing criminals.
I have set out this argument before, but the current craze for David Cameron makes it very urgent that I set it out again.

For those who say that by doing so I help the left stay in office, I have a simple answer that none has ever rebutted. The result of the next election is already decided - the Left will be in office, either with a Labour majority, or a Lib-Lab pact, or a Lib-Con pact, or a Tory government in thrall to left-wing ideas. No radical change, on the areas which Tory voters care about most, will take place.

But it is far more likely that it will be either a Labour government or a Lab-Lib pact.

I first made this case in October 2003, and I reproduce here the article I then wrote, all of which still seems to me to be as true as it was four years ago:

"NO POWER on earth can sustain an idea whose time has gone. Can we all please stop pretending that the Conservative Party is worth saving or keeping, or that it can ever win another Election? This delusion is an obstacle to the creation of a proper pro-British movement, neither bigoted nor politically correct, which is the only hope of ending the present one-party State.

The continued existence of the Tory Party as a bogeyman with which to frighten dissenters is one of the few things that holds together the equally bankrupt Labour Party.

Tory division and decay also feed the growth of the Liberal Democrats, whose votes grow daily not because of what they are but because of what they are not. The Tories are an impossible coalition of irreconcilables. No coherent government programme could ever unite them. Euro-enthusiast and Euro-sceptic cannot compromise without betraying their deepest beliefs. Supporters of marriage and supporters of the sexual revolution have no common ground.

Enthusiasts for mass immigration, on the grounds that it expands the workforce, cannot agree with those who fear that such immigration will damage an ancient culture. Those who believe in rehabilitating criminals are bound to fight those who believe in punishing them. Those who wish to legalise narcotics cannot make peace with those who wish to imprison drug-users. All parties are coalitions full of conflicts, but they cannot function without something fundamental that unites them. Nothing unites the Tories.
This has actually been going on for a long time. Many let the Tories off during the Cold War. They ignored their cowardice over the big social issues, their failure to save or restore the grammar schools, to stand up for marriage, to understand the European issue, to preserve, protect or defend anything old, beloved or beautiful.

They looked the other way as Tory governments and local authorities encouraged or permitted the destruction of ancient beauty and supported the concreting over of towns and countryside. They swallowed their outrage at the Tories' ugly, expensive - and suicidal - local government reforms.
They even tolerated their stealthy rundown of the conventional armed services and their enthusiasm for appeasement in Northern Ireland. They did this because, after all, we could rely on the Tories to stand up against the greatest danger to our liberty and independence, namely the Soviet Union. Then came the unnerving moment when the USSR collapsed and Mikhail Gorbachev's gently smiling spokesman, Gennadi Gerasimov, taunted us with the words: 'We have done the most terrible thing to you that we could possibly have done. We have deprived you of an enemy.' Gerasimov was appallingly right. With the Kremlin menace gone, the Left could no longer be accused of treacherous flirtation with the national enemy, as he had ceased to exist. This meant that the Conservative Party could no longer claim a monopoly on easy patriotism. But much more serious was the realisation that it was social conservatives, rather than the Left, who now risked unpopularity if they stuck to their principles.
Confronting the permissive society, whose creation they had winked at, was risky even if it was right. So many people had now got divorced or had abortions or had children out of wedlock - or could easily conceive of themselves doing so - that attacking these things cost valuable votes.

Having failed to defend the 11-plus when it mattered, they found that the consequences - lowered school standards, worthless examinations and the absurd expansion of the universities - could not be criticised without attracting accusations of offending and upsetting the children involved, and their voting parents too. Having invented life peers, and by implication attacked the hereditary principle, they could not really defend the independence of the House of Lords when it came under serious assault. They knew in their hearts that they could not ultimately defend the Monarchy either.

Having responded to rising crime with the cheapest and most crowd-pleasing measures - destroying the right to silence, threatening the protection against double jeopardy, considering identity cards and attempting to limit jury trial - they could not convincingly stand up for liberty.
Having pretended that national sovereignty was not threatened by the EU, and so having given away great quantities of that sovereignty, they could not even convincingly oppose the Euro. In short, their unprincipled uselessness had now come back to haunt them and the end of the Cold War left them politically naked and ashamed.

The wretched Major years, in which Britain experienced its first New Labour government without realising it, are a warning to anyone who imagines that a Tory victory at the next Election would end our national decline or reverse the damage done by Blairism. The Conservative Party has had ineffectual, directionless leaders since 1990 because it is an ineffectual and directionless party. It is idle and silly to imagine that a different leader might change things now. Get rid of Mr Duncan Smith and the best they can hope for is a chief who will be despised and undermined by a different section of the party. The man or woman does not exist who can unite the irreconcilables now trapped in this dying movement and lead it to victory.
Yet victory is highly unlikely. The Tory Party faces a colossal task if it wishes ever to command a parliamentary majority again. The political scientist Professor Ivor Crewe has pointed out that Labour MPs are elected by a much smaller vote on average than Conservative MPs because they typically represent smaller constituencies with a lower turnout.

In 2001, had the Tory and Labour votes been equal, the latter would have had 80 more seats than the Conservatives and a workable overall majority of 17. This mathematical problem will be just as bad, if not worse, whenever the next Election takes place. The rise of the Liberal Democrats will almost certainly deepen the woe. The near-collapse of Conservatism and Unionism in Scotland and Wales does not help much either. There is no reason at all to hope for a recovery.

So why bother to do so? Why should conservative-minded people make themselves miserable by enlisting in this shambling movement whose chiefs loathe each other more than they hate the enemy? Why should they fool themselves any longer that the Tory Party shares their concerns or can capture political power?

Why should they spend heart and nerve and sinew on a cause that is not only lost but discredited? Why should they all fight and fight and fight again to save a Party they hate?
The Tory Party is a train wreck, not a train, an obstacle rather than a vehicle. There are many good and intelligent people trapped in the twisted ruins who would flourish if only they were released, but are now prevented from doing so by a pointless discipline.
There are many voters, currently unable to vote Tory even while holding their noses, who long for a party that speaks for them and the country. Such a party cannot begin to grow until the Tory delusion is dispelled and this movement, whose time is gone, splits and disappears. Let it be soon."

That was in October 2003. The Liberal Democrats, it is true, have run into troubles of their own since then - but it is by no means guaranteed that they will not recover between now and the next election. In fact, I think we can pretty much rely on it.

I then redoubled the message in June 2005, when I wrote:

"The haggard patient heaves himself into a sitting position and, with painful slowness, takes a little gruel, swallowing the disgusting pap with difficulty. He, who until recently was consuming rare beef and good red wine, smiles wanly at this minor, toothless triumph. The relatives around the bed exclaim with forced delight how well he has done and how good it is to see him eating heartily again. They make weak jokes and excessively cheerful remarks about how he will soon be home again.

The whole scene is a ghastly, flesh-crawling deception. Everyone present knows that death is hovering a few beds away and there is no hope.

Yet nobody will say it. Such is the position of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Now, if the Tory Party were a person and we were its family, there would be a good excuse for this polite fraud. But the Tory Party is not a person and we are not its wife and children, or even its friends. There is no point in pretending that the Tory Party is going to recover.

The pretence only delays the construction of a new movement, which cannot flourish until we have said goodbye to the old one. It also gives the Liberal Democrats the freedom to supplant the Tory Party, unobstructed, in many of its former strongholds, a freedom they are enthusiastically using.
The Tories' position is hopeless. No man living could conceivably unify the party's contradictory wings.
Europhile or Eurosceptic, pro or anti-marriage, market enthusiast or moralist, each of these quarrels is fundamental and cannot be settled by compromise. To refuse to resolve them is to ask to be dragged, by events beyond our control, into places we never decided to go.

So David Davis, who is opposed to European integration if he means anything at all, is compelled to seek the support of federalists. This, the modified Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact approach, has been tried before – but only by people who forget how that pact ended.

Similarly, Kenneth Clarke is seriously put forward as the saviour of a party he plainly hates. While it is hard not to admire Mr Clarke's lofty scorn for his parliamentary colleagues, the idea is absurd. The issue of the European Union pervades almost every major area of political choice.
It is ridiculous to imagine that Mr Clarke's reasoned support for the EU, which is entirely consistent with his generally Fabian Social Democratic approach to the world, will not bring him swiftly into conflict with those who are committed, just as consistently, to opposing the Union.
As for the other compromise candidates being spoken of, they all offer another period of Majorism, neither one damned thing nor the other, yet encouraging bitter divisions by attempting to impose their opaque blandness on all.

It would also be helpful if people would stop referring to 'big beasts in the jungle'. The metaphor is absurd.
What survives of the Tory Party is more like a decayed municipal park than a jungle, and the little furry creatures that roam about in it may have sharp teeth and ready claws but they are not big. To be big, they would at least have to have large ideas. But there are none of these.

The only argument is, ultimately, about tactics. There is a total lack of original thought, principle or even instinct. Every debate is a pathetic variation on one parasitical theme: will the Tory Party regain its position by becoming more like New Labour or less like New Labour?
The answer is that it cannot regain its lost position by either means – because, for good or ill, it has lost it forever in many parts of the country.

Many cities no longer have any Tory councillors. For good reasons and bad, millions of people in large swathes of the country would rather eat a raw hedgehog sandwich than vote Conservative again. A male under the age of 35 is as likely to support the Tories as he is to smoke a pipe. A female under the age of 35 is as likely to support the Tories as she is to wear a girdle.
The predictable Tory failure in May ought to have been worse, and would have been had Labour had the sense and nerve to get rid of Anthony Blair nine months before.
The Tory result was, in reality, a very poor one and its wretchedness was obscured only by Labour's own demoralisation.
There is deep dislike of the Government, as we would find if there were a referendum on the EU, and as we did find when John Prescott tried to persuade the people of the North East to vote for regional government.

But the Tory Party cannot articulate it and people will not vote Tory to express it.
And here is the core of it. The Tory Party does not know what it is supposed to be opposing. In fact, in general, it has either supported or failed to oppose all the most important actions of New Labour. These are constitutional, moral and cultural and they are the real issue.
The admirable Peter Oborne, a brave and original conservative critic of the Government, insisted two weeks ago in The Spectator magazine that the Tory Party had 'won all the great intellectual and political battles of the last quarter century'.
Regrettably, this is not so.
Margaret Thatcher certainly did not win the culture wars. She did not even fight them. On the great battlefields of marriage and the family, education and culture, morality and law, the Tories have been utterly outmanoeuvred and bypassed.

Because they did not fight, they co-operated in the destruction of their own electorate. To this day, they have no idea why it is that they are so despised by the young and their wretched attempts to toady to fashion – in such areas as civil partnerships for homosexuals – manage to offend or puzzle their supporters while utterly failing to convince their opponents that they are genuine.
It would be perfectly all right to be the Nasty Party if they knew why it was necessary to be nasty and meant it.
Millions long for a truly Nasty government that will be thoroughly horrid to the wicked, the criminal, the dishonest and to the European Union. But to be Nasty, without meaning to, is worse than useless.
And to be Nice about these things is to let down the besieged, oppressed, vandalised, burgled, mugged people of Britain.
The Tories have failed in all these things because they have neither an ideology nor an instinct. They measure success by the length of time they spend in office, not by what they have done while they were there. Once, being a disposition rather than a movement might have sufficed. But in these revolutionary times, faced with opponents wholly committed to political correctness (or Frankfurt School Marxism, to give it its more serious and frightening name), it is not enough.
You cannot properly defend, say, constitutional monarchy if you have no idea why you believe in it and do not understand why your opponents hate it. You cannot effectively oppose the introduction of identity cards unless your every instinct revolts at the imposition of these oppressive breathing licences on a free people. I cannot imagine how a British patriot could have moment's doubt about this – yet serious Tories of my acquaintance have blown around in the wind of fashion, this month against, last month for and who knows what next week?
They cannot even understand patriotism properly. It was clearly never in British interests to join the American invasion of Iraq. The bitterest opponents of this adventure have been traditional conservative types. Yet, precisely because it is not instinctively patriotic, the Tory Party grasped at the war as an attempt to prove that it still loves the country it sold to Brussels in 1972.
And so here we are. The Tory Party was the only opposition that could have lost to Anthony Blair in May and it is the only opposition that can be beaten by Gordon Brown in 2009.
If it does not collapse and split soon, we are stuck with another tedious post-mortem, and another wrangle over the bones, four years hence.
Many intelligent and effective people are still trapped in its immobile wreckage, who would be freed to become serious opponents of the Government if only they could escape. Millions of voters, who could never be reasoned into change, could be jolted by collapse, split and renewal into changing their habits.
Those who wish to hang on to the failed Tory coalition complain that a 'pure, Rightwing' party would repel what they call the centre ground and become a small, if unified sect.

They fail to grasp that the lost middle ground of politics does not lie in the narrow, churned-up, fought-over stretches of mud that lie between the Tory and New Labour front-benches. There is very little space here anyway. Look instead at the vast 39.5 per cent of the electorate who do not vote, and at many of the 13 per cent who vote Liberal Democrat, not because of what Charles Kennedy is but because of what he is not. Remember, Labour won a majority with 22 per cent of electors and the Tories gained an even more pathetic 20 per cent.
Look at the almost total disappearance from Parliament of Labour's old patriotic, monarchist, socially conservative Right wing, leaving many working-class people utterly unrepresented. New Labour's multicultural, metropolitan social liberalism is repulsive to many traditional Labour voters, many of whom stayed at home in May mainly for that reason.
It is surely possible to find a majority out there for a new party, neither bigoted nor politically correct, patriotic and intelligent, committed to national independence and liberty and to the re-establishment of justice. I believe those conservatives willing to think, and to seek allies, could swiftly develop a programme and a coalition far more honourable and realistic than the present Tory impasse.
We cannot go on avoiding this decision forever. There will not be many more chances to wrest Britain from the 'progressive consensus'.

Tories are dying and not being replaced. The party is becoming what marketing men call a 'ghost brand', like Capstan Full Strength cigarettes: still worth selling to a dwindling market but with no hope of regaining its lost position.
The Liberal Democrats continue to grow and will eventually be able to force proportional representation on Labour (the most likely result of the next Election).
This would end all hope of real conservative change. I understand that these arguments are unwelcome to many Conservative loyalists, and I know why, but would it not at least be worth debating them while there is still time?"

Again, I think this stands up pretty well two years after it was written. Note that, at that point, David Cameron was not a serious contender for the leadership. But my words "As for the other compromise candidates being spoken of, they all offer another period of Majorism, neither one damned thing nor the other, yet encouraging bitter divisions by attempting to impose their opaque blandness on all." seem to me to be pretty close to a prophecy of Mr Cameron's behaviour. The current, temporary media craze for Mr Cameron cannot persuade the enormous anti-Tory mass of post-industrial Britain to vote blue. Mr Cameron presides over a party that remains deeply divided and maintains a sort of discipline only because David Davies prefers to bide his time.

There, now I have set it all out, as clearly as I can. Those who absurdly accuse me of seeking to help New Labour or of supporting Mr Brown should know that I am probably the most consistent and dedicated foe of New Labour, that my 1999 book 'The Abolition of Britain' was described by Andrew Marr (no less) as the "most sustained, internally logical and powerful attack on Tony Blair and all his works", that I refused to toady to Anthony Blair when many other conservative commentators were doing so, that I criticised Mr Brown's bad stewardship of the economy, when many conservatives were praising him, that I deliberately embarrassed Mr Brown by asking him to reveal if his son had been given the MMR injection he urges on other parents (he never responded) and that New Labour blame me (exaggeratedly, but flatteringly) for helping to lose them the 1992 election (the 'Jennifer's Ear' affair) and regard me ( accurately) as a dedicated enemy. At the press conference launching the New Labour 1997 manifesto, two press officers, seeing me approach the auditorium, tried to close the door in my face, claiming the room was 'full'. During the campaign I was generally not allowed to ask Mr Blair any questions (and was scolded by Mr Brown for my persistence in seeking to do so). On the one occasion I was allowed to ask a question, Mr Blair dodged it and - when I objected - told me to sit down and stop being bad. When I waited outside a building in which Mr Blair was skulking, in the hope of asking him the same question, the Labour machine arranged an elaborate trick to get me out of the way (details available on request). My treatment during the 2001 and 2005 elections was similar. So no accusations of Labour sympathy, if you please.
It is precisely because I really do want to get rid of New Labour that I am convinced that the Tories must go. They don't really want to fight new Labour, and they are not specially angered or dismayed by the way in which New labour runs the country. Given the opportunity, they would do little that was different. The polite term for my advice to them is 'Fish, or cut bait'. The less polite one is to do something or get off the pot. Well, in ten years they have not fished, nor done the other thing, so it is time for them to depart. I really do want to free us from Labour government. I think voting is a political act designed to have a practical effect, not an emotional spasm to make myself feel better. Withdrawing your vote from the Tories is the only serious opportunity you have to make the country better. Anyone who responds to this by saying "That's all very well, but the important thing is to get New Labour out" will be showing that they haven't read, or understood, what I am saying here.

Anyone who says "But it's all so negative" simply has to recognise that we have got precisely nowhere by being 'positive' since 1997. There is no sentimental reason for clinging to the Tories. It may have been good to be ' a disposition, not a dogma' when Labour and the Liberals were made up of undogmatic British patriots with a few silly or wrong ideas. But that will not do when the left-wing parties are now in the grip of virulent anti-British, anti-family, anti-education dogmas which threaten to dissolve the country, and civil society, altogether. A dispassionate examination of the Tory Party in power since the 1920s will show it becoming an increasingly social democratic, high-tax party, and then, in the 1960s, adopting left-liberal positions on social and cultural issues, or failing to fight them. There was never a golden age. the Tory Party tends to forget that its supposed hero, Winston Churchill, was kept out in the cold for much of his life by the Tory establishment, and was threatened with deselection by his local Tory Association for (rightly and prophetically) attacking the Munich agreement. It also tends to forget that its supposed heroine, Margaret Thatcher, failed badly in the areas of family and education, culture and morals, and only grasped the EU danger in her last months in office.

Anyone who says "why don't you found your new party?' has likewise not been paying attention. The new party can only be founded once the Tories have collapsed - and you will have to found it too. I have no millions stashed away, nor could I by myself hope to achieve anything. Nobody will do this for you. There is no leader waiting upon our northern shores to rescue the beleaguered nation. If you don't like the way the country is being run, you will have to do something about it yourself. Those who say "But what if you fail, and no new party arises, and Labour is still there?' have the best point. It is a grave danger that we may fail. The collapse of the Tories is the necessary condition for a new party, but not a sufficient one. That will depend on us. But even if that happens, we will be no worse off then than we are now, stuck as we are with permanent Labour rule till the crack of doom, each year destroying more and more of Britain. If I wait long enough, I am sure that my view on the Tory Party will become conventional wisdom, as most of my other ‘outrageous’ and 'extremist' positions have done in the last ten years. But can we afford to wait that long?