Winning by default

It goes without saying that is has been a terrible week for Labour, and it now appears as if Blair is keeping Clarke, and most probably Prescott, in power for reasons of political expediency rather than any feeling that either is any good at their jobs.

Which surely should help "Dave" Cameron. As William Rees-Mogg states in The Times, the Cameron strategy seems to be working very well - he is perfectly placed to benefit from the New Labour meltdown. Unless Blair or Brown manages to pull the party together, and if Cameron continues to make the best of his political opportunism, then he could start to make some headway towards the goal of Number 10 in 2009.

But this hides what is perhaps the real story. Cameron needs to do well in these local elections. There are growing mumblings of discontent within the Conservative party about where he has taken the Tories, and for the first time a senior Tory (ignoring the occasional ramblings of Tebbit) has made his objections public. This is worrying - less than 1 year into his time as leader, people are starting to complain about Cameron. And success at the local elections is by no means in the bag - it is difficult to see how a dissatisfied Labour voter in Dagenham who is concerned about house prices, crime and immigration is going to connect with an old Etonian frolicking with huskies to highlight global environmental policies.

However for me, it all comes down to something much more fundamental. Even if Cameron does cement his position with success on May 4th and from there launches a successful campaign that ends with him becoming Prime Minister, what is the point? There appears to be no substance to the man, and he does not appear to have any policies. All we would get from a Cameron administration is an extension of the Blair years.

All Cameron has managed to do so far is restrict further the potential choices for the electorate.