The first reason why the Conservatives may win is simply the weight of history. Since WW2, only the Conservative government of 1979 to 1997 has managed four consecutive wins. However, the history of Labour / Conservative competition on reasonably equal terms is fairly short, dating really only from the war. So, it's possible that over the very long term four term governments could become more common. But, already we hear the frequent repetition of the those fateful words, 'time for a change.' Mr. Cameron's jibe at Tony Blair that 'He was the future once' was both quite funny and clever politics, creating an image of Labour as the ancien regime and his party as the modern, up to date alternative. For progress, vote Conservative.

The second reason is the state of the opinion polls. During the Thatcher era, polls consistently underestimated the level of Conservative support. After the 1992 election polling methodology was subject to rigorous examination. Nowadays, polls give a reasonably accurate snapshot of voting intention. Obviously, one can always get a rogue poll, but the striking thing about polls at the moment is that they consistently show a Conservative lead sufficient to deliver a majority at the next election. 

All is not lost. Possibly. The conventional wisdom is that as the election draws nearer, governments claw back some of the ground lost. That was certainly the case in 1979, but is the conventional wisdom right? Wilson lost in 1970, and there was no evidence of the Major government gaining on Labour in 1997. I offer no explanation for the first case other than to express the view that England losing at football cost us the election is bunkum. The latter case is perhaps more that the country had a settled will that they wanted a Labour government in 1997. Those of us around in '97 knew we were going to win and, certainly my Conservative friends knew they were going to lose big.

What about now? My reading is that I don't think we have reached a 'settled will' situation just yet. I think it's possible that the Conservative lead can be pulled back. The advantage to us from boundary changes is not as big as before, but I think a hung parliament or a very small Labour win  are still possible. Whether we can come back depends on us.

What the government has lacked since Mr. Brown became Prime Minister has been a consistent narrative. What is this government for, what does it want to achieve? These are questions that so far it cannot give a clear answer to. The appearance is sometimes given that ministers are content with Norman Lamont's situation of being 'in office but not in power.' For us to have a chance, this has to change.

Some of our present problems are of our own making. While the Prime Minister delivers lectures on belt tightening and saving food to the population, the government wastes millions on foreign adventures and replacement for a missile system that isn't wanted. The Prime Minister insists on turning debates about terrorism, crime, ID cards, 10p tax and energy generation into little more than willie measuring contests. 'This is my will, you will obey!' is the refrain from number ten rather than a rational assessment of the objective merits of policy. This macho style hinders policy creativity in ministers and stiffles debate within government over alternatives. Until the Prime Minister is prepared to alter this style of governing, no rebranding or relaunch can ever succeed.

And what of the overarching narrative, what does the government want to do? What's the story? If it's fairness and inequality then great, but make it clear. Defend tax credits with gusto, shout from the roof tops a policy agenda to fight poverty and tackle inequality. And say what ordinary folk are saying, that some at the top in business just have too much money, that some bonusses are unacceptable, that we are not 'intensely relaxed' about super wealth. I'm not arguing that the story ought to be about equality, I'm using that as an example. What I'm arguing is that whatever this government's raison d'etre is, articulate it clearly and back it up with clear policies. Sadly, what we have now is muddle compounded by arrogance, a refusal to listen to friends in the party, and a massochistic desire to resist the gut instincts of the party in the country.

There's one more reason why the Conservatives have a chance. Talent. No one could seriously see Iain Duncan Smith or William Hague as Prime Minister, for the same reason as Michael Foot never stood a chance. They headed a party riven by division and, like us now, unsure of our mission. Mr. Cameron's great achievement is to make the Conservatives look like a serious contender once more. He's done this partly on policy, although I'm sure we all doubt that he'll actually do many of the reasonable things he claims to support, and partly he has some good people around him. Look at the Shadow Cabinet today and despite George Osbourne giving a passable impression of a child wanting to play with the grown ups, it's undeniable that there is some talent on the Conservative front bench. Compare with the actual cabinet; where are our 'big beasts'? James Purnell? Andy Burnham? Hazel Blears? No, didn't think so. Perhaps it's time for the Prime Minister to bury the hatchet with a few folks and promote some talent from the back benches.

So, will David Cameron be our next Prime Minister? I'd say that it is quite likely but absolutely not inevitable. We must find a message, offer a vision and, I think, change course at least a little. Engage with those elements of Labour's winning coalition that have been alienated from us - the working class, the liberal intelligentsia, ethnic minorities. We don't need to retreat into some sort of old fashioned Bennite laager, but we do need to change. And fast.