Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Over a year ago a Blairite told me he thought that David Cameron would be the Tory Neil Kinnock - the leader who would make his party electable but not get it, or himself, elected. I was unconvinced. But now that the Conservatives under Cameron are about to sweep to local election victories across the country I'm thinking that maybe there is something in it.. The trigger was getting the Political Home Index survey (which is of supposed insiders - declaration of interest, I'm one) on whether Cameron had what it takes. It was completed early this week and reported under the cryptic headline Cameron has not Sealed the Deal Here is the result:

In other words, decent sounding chap for a man from advertising but not a "national leader". The thought that Cameron does not have what it takes grew listening to the Today interviews with him and Gordon Brown this week. The Brown premiership is an unfolding disaster and Cameron does well enough in holding his own, ensuring the Tories are not unattractive - a considerable achievement. But he is not winning it as a potential PM.

Take Prime Minister's questions today. I'll leave it to Fraser Nelson and Iain Dale to dispute who bettered who in gladiatorial terms. Cameron decided to show he could attack on substance and policy. But he had not really mastered the argument. He went for Brown on 42 day. The killer point in any argument with the PM on this is that Brown singled out his approach to terrorism as a key indicator of the "change' he would represent from Blair. He would be cool, calm and build a consensus. On issues such as detention without charge he would draw public support behind a British strategy rather than grandstanding on the issue as Blair did. And he got a consensus! Permit intercept evidence; allow post-charge questioning; retain 28 days as the outer limit - all this gave the police the powers to pursue and hold those they suspected of terrorism for as long as they liked - provided they charged them after a maximum of four weeks of incarceration. Why has Brown thrown away the consensus he pledged to build and which the other two main parties wanted to participate in? This was the damning point Cameron failed to use in his follow-up questions. It is about whether he really gets the essence of the issue and the larger picture. It seemed to me he didn't - even though I thought he was right to stake out his policies on this ground.

What I'm feeling, and the PHI survey suggests it is shared, is that the Tory lead is built on the fact that the country has "had enough" of Gordon Brown whatever his considerable merits. Now to suffer the fate of Kinnock involves having your Margaret Thatcher pushed out of office before you can beat her in an election. The moment she went and Major replaced her, Labour's lead crashed and John Major won 1992 election.

What if Brown can't survive hideous polls and a drop of 30 per cent in house prices? Suppose - just suppose, because the point of this post is to reflect on true resilience of David Cameron - that David Miliband became Labour leader in a year's time. I think we'd find the personalisation of politics will take the wind out of the Tory sails. For comparative purposes look at the interview the Foreign Secretary gave Andrew Marr on Sunday:

"We've got to tell a story and understand where this country stands in the world. Because actually British decline is over. We're respected around the world... London is a city now that people seek to emulate rather than deride... we should admit it's very difficult when you've been in power for ten or eleven years, is to be the agents of change in politics, to recognise that there are people outside the conventions of party politics who are actually challenging us to think in new and creative ways. And as a government it's doubly important that we are actually understanding that yearning for political reform and backing it up.... last year. I said that a Brown government would be defined as the government that put more power and more control in the hands of people. How... ? First opportunity in education and housing is at the centre of our agenda. Secondly... we've got to build up a sense of community values. And thirdly, we've got to recognise that in the modern world if you want to do good in Britain you've got to do good outside Britain as well because we live in a smaller world."

I think there is a lot wrong with Miliband's approach such as his shameless advocacy of the Iraq invasion even now, or, here in the above quote, the absurd account of what it means to put "more power and control in the hands of the people". My point is only to make a contrast: Miliband has a world-view and an instinctive feel for the larger context. Irrespective of whether he is right or not, he appears attractive and authentic in his global judgement. Cameron lacks this quality. For good reason. How can he even have a solid worldview? Is he for the UK leaving the European Convention on Human Rights or for staying in? Er, pass. Or is he interested in democracy? If he is, I missed it. Cameron has taken his party back to one-nation conservatism, a natural place for someone from his background (think of Macmillan). But this organic, rooted Toryism drew its self-confidence from the Imperial experience and treated concepts (like democracy) as something only foreigners needed, while we just toasted the Queen. When it worked, boy did it work! When he strove to modernise Labour's version of "consensus politics" Kinnock strove to achieve his version of 'one nation' politics. As I say, it works fine against a fatally wounded leader and it makes you electable. But who woul,d want to elect it if there was a new alternative?

PS: Cameron has just delivered a robust speech to the Institute of Directors headlined that with him "Britain can do the change" (as in do Hokey-Cokey - that's what it's all about!). It well illustrates my point. He says:

But I know what many of you will be thinking. You're thinking: alright, you've changed the Conservative Party and you've shown you can do politics. But can you do change where it matters - in real life? But would you actually make any difference?

"You're sticking to Labour spending plans."

"You're in favour of Blair's reforms."

"You're not prepared to be really bold."

So what's the point? What will a Conservative Government actually do that's different?

Labour

Cameron's answer is not a strategy but better policies on welfare, education and prisons. He is talking to global capitalists and tells them he knows they need less tax and regulation (when all the big guns are calling for more regulation of the financial markets). There is no sense that he has any measure of the global forces now in play.  As I say, up against Brown who also presented himself as "the change" Cameron will score. But if the interests represented by New Labour have the confidence to replace Brown...