Granted most of the key architects are now in Government or advising the Government and so are understandably busy, but this has left a space for those who have always wanted to shift the Party back to the ‘right’ to make all the running about how we go ahead in the future, what policies we should have and how we can win in 2015.

The influential Conservative Home blog, has now set up its own section dedicated to creating a “Majority Conservatism” which, although I completely agree with the aim, must surely worrying to many of us who believe that the Conservatives will only win the next election if we remain rooted to the centre ground of politics.

Take for example, on “strategy”. According to Tim Montgomerie the Party that we have at the moment has “The Big Society; An intellectual important concept but one which has confused the public”. When what Time believes we need is “a popular idea of compassionate conservatism that emphasises family, schools and work”.

Now, despite the obvious unfortunate connotations that phrase has with a certain Republican President, this sounds an awful lot like the atomised philosophical approach of the 1980s which was summed up in that memorable (sadly for the Conservative Party’s future electoral prospects) phrase “there is no such thing as society, there are individual men and women, and there are families”. This ignores the pressing need that we have to reform the way that capitalism works in our country and the vital role that communities and society as a whole must play in building the future.

The Big Society is the only approach in town at present that recognises that yes we need to work on an individual level, improving personal responsibility but that social responsibility and social institution building is equally as important. We need to not only see stronger families, but also a patchwork of institutions (charities, co-operatives, voluntary associations etc.) that re-enforce good behaviour and help nip problems in the bud.

Dressing up the “flag, family and country” approach in the clothes of “compassion” is seductive because it seeks to resolve the presentational difficulties which many felt the Party has had, without changing the substance which has actually been more of the problem.

Moreover, while I agree with Tim that the Conservative Party needs to become a more open organisation, the idea of turning it into the Conservative Alliance with no reference to any central control and a network of lose campaign groups open to the kind of disunity which plagued the Conservatives in the 1990s, is a recipe for electoral disaster.

I welcome Tim’s efforts to start a debate, and he is right that we need to start organising ahead of the next election but this is a call which must not be answered by a revisionist right, but also by centrist Conservatives.

We need to ensure that we keep the Party thinking, not just retreating to comfort zones and tired ideologies.

Platform 10 needs to be part of that effort to give organisation to the views of many thousands of activists who want to see this Party remain radical and centrist, not only to be a counter-balance but also to ensure that the Conservative Party doesn’t turn into the right of the party merely talking to itself.

What party do these views align with most closely? Universal and inoffensive, they should appeal to all. These are the core tenets of conservativism. So why are opinion polls lackluster for the Government?

A poll released in September by Populus asked which of the main political parties represented ‘ordinary people, not just the better off.’ Crucially the Conservatives only received 30% of the vote. Labour received 52%.

Motives behind voter choice have been theorised, researched and debated many hundreds of times. But what this poll and many others like it demonstrate is that the Conservative Party identity in the British narrative is still lacking cohesion.

With universally appealing founding conservative principles, it is the additional representations in policy and the media that must be affecting public perception of the ‘party that means the most to me’.

Recent academic attempts to steer voters towards the ‘Red Tories’, ‘Blue Labourites’ or ‘Orange Book Liberals’ demonstrate a wish to craft party policy narrative in a way that is palatable to the masses. But this conflicting set of messages helps no-one. Highlighting the ‘squeezed-middle’ is similarly illogical unless you use economical definitions that arguably hardly strike a cord with the ‘ordinary voter’.

But do ‘normal’ people ever think of themselves as being ‘ordinary’? I doubt it. In today’s aspirant culture everyone has the potential to be great and with American cultural influences the Yes We Can attitude is making defining populist political narrative ever harder.

This is far from conducive to constructing the proud nationalism ideal of the big society or being ‘all in this together’.

The good news is that policy developments and news coverage seem to be influencing people in the polls. Their opinions are transient and likely to change on a daily basis so no reputational issue is too great that it cannot be overcome with canny messaging. The bad news is that the Conservatives currently do not have that messaging secured.

To secure general and electoral support from the public at large, the Conservative Party narrative needs to get back to basics. The identity of the party for the benefit of the working and aspirational classes needs to be highlighted and explained clearly and consistently as a philosophy. Gone are the days when the Party purpose was understood instinctively within the national narrative.

We should be focusing on extolling our core values. Over and over again. Anything else needlessly complicates matters in what is already a complicated and deterring system. Then come the big picture policies, but these can only be added after a strong identifying narrative is secured.

The nation has forgotten what the Conservative Party is all about. It’s about time we helped them remember.

My starting point is probably a bit uncomfortable for those of us who are Party members – but we need to remember that what we, as Conservatives, think about ourselves is largely irrelevant; it’s what voters think that counts. There is no point in us thinking we’re great if no-one else does. And for too long, too few people thought we were great. That has changed in recent years, and we now have the opportunity to put into practice many of the policies that we’ve been working on for years. The ultimate proof of our fitness to govern again is actually governing, and this government – while a coalition, with all the compromises that entails – has both the opportunity and the imperative to deliver on the ideas we spoke about in Opposition.

Those ideas are rooted in our Conservative principles. In 2006, I was part of the Conference team which made a video about the history of the Conservative Party, and all the radical improvements we had made while in government. That radical thread runs through every successful Conservative government – but what gives those governments the capacity to be radical is, first of all, the trust and the confidence that they have established with voters.

There is an ongoing argument about whether politicians should lead or follow public opinion. I’d argue that they should do both. They need to respond to what voters want; and, in delivering what has been voted for, they build up a relationship which means that radical ideas can be taken at face value rather than voters being suspicious of politicians’ motives. So rather than looking at headline voting intention, I have become a fan of looking at perception measures.

In mid-September, Populus released their regular results on party image. They have been running similar questions since 2003, so they are an interesting long-term reflection of opinion. September’s poll showed that only 30 per cent of voters believe that Tories “are for ordinary people not the rich”. I would utterly dispute that belief – as would, I’m sure, every person reading this – but the fact remains that 70 per cent of people don’t think we are ‘for them’.

23 per cent of voters, according to a ComRes poll, think that the Lib Dems “have done a good job of moderating Conservative policies”. The Independent implies that this is a low, and therefore disappointing, number. I disagree. It is a high, and therefore disappointing, number. We Conservatives should not need to have our policies “moderated” in popular opinion. We should ensure that our policies make clear that we are on the side of normal people.

I would argue that in most cases, we are achieving that. Sorting the national finances, free schools, more accountable policing, more responsive councils, a fairer welfare system, greater individual freedoms… These are all things that Conservatives can be proud to be delivering. But I also contend that we, as Conservatives, as a government, are not presenting our argument very well. We’re not telling people enough about why the (needed) cuts are worth it, and where we will be once all the radical changes we’re introducing take effect. I am utterly convinced that governing well is the most effective way for us to win the next election. In order to govern well, Conservatives must persuade voters of the value of what we’re doing – and what we’re doing must matter to voters.

We need to explain what we’re doing, and why, and how. We need to ensure that we own the good policies as well as the tough ones. We need to explain how we make their lives better. If we can’t, we shouldn’t be introducing that policy. ‘Modernising’ was always shorthand for rebuilding that bond of trust with voters and responding to the world as it evolves around us. It is not, and never has been, about being spikily contrary for the sake of it. The key insight was – and remains – that you cannot win an election if voters think that you don’t understand or like or support them.

We will only win in 2015 if we get governing right now. It won’t be enough, in 2014, to suddenly say that we weren’t just about cuts and arguments over whether or not we were ‘conservative’ enough. Voters need to know, with certainty, in 2015, that we don’t need to be ‘moderated’ and – crucially – that we are ‘for them’.

This piece first appeared in the Conference edition of the CWF magazine, Forward

The 1922 Committee have been particularly vocal in their criticism of the Prime Minister, complaining that he does not consult backbenchers enough and that he is walking away from the traditions of the Tory Party. Many are also frustrated that senior Government positions went not to Conservative members but to Liberal Democrats as part of the Coalition deal. Some Conservatives who felt they were due a place on the front benches still find themselves looking on from the back.

The elections and AV referendum on Thursday are an important day for the Conservative Party, and in particular the relationship their leader has with his backbenchers. Mr Cameron has in the last week or so seemed to have become more Conservative in his tone, making more explicit Tory claims and standing against the Lib Dems more. This all seems to be a way of him aligning himself with his party once again ahead of a big test on Thursday.

If the AV referendum brings in a No result – which seems more and more to be the likely outcome – then the Party will be happy. It will be a big victory for many backbenchers, who have campaigned strongly for a No vote and who believe that the concession of a referendum to the Lib Dems was a bad move by Cameron. A No vote would close the door on that period of the Coalition, but there is concern that Mr Cameron will offer some sort of consolation to Nick Clegg if AV is rejected. If he does so, any sense of a resorted relationship between the leader and his party would risk being lost, as many would feel like Cameron’s main concern is with keeping the Lib Dems happy, not the Tory faithful.

If the referendum surprises everyone and ends in a Yes result, then there will be serious questions as to whether Mr Cameron can regain the trust of his party. It would probably not lead to him being forced out as leader, but it would require him to do some serious thinking about how his party is working. There would be strong opposition from the back benches, and it would not be impossible that one or two more vocal members would raise the question of no confidence.

There are also the results of the local elections to contend with. Whilst the Tories will suffer, Mr Cameron is surely hopeful that they will not record too many losses. If they do, the associations with the Liberal Democrats will be blamed by many; calls for Cameron to distance himself from Nick Clegg and his party will increase.

It is impossible for a leader to lead his party when those behind him are unwilling to follow. Mr Cameron is dragging some of his followers along at the moment, and May 5 is a crucial day for both the leader and those being led. Cameron and the Tory Party will either come out of it stronger and rejuvenated, or battered, bruised and asking serious questions about the next step. For Mr Cameron, the latter is the only option he will be hoping for.