Dave and the summertime blues

He returns to Westminster to find himself out-waded by Gordon Brown, who told us pointedly that we were "all in this together" while his opponent was somewhere else entirely.

Postponing the visit would have been wise, though he feared doing so would make his trip appear opportunistic.

There was, however, some unease at the idea of the shadow cabinet members, including the ur-Tory international development spokesman Andrew Mitchell, rolling up their sleeves to help rebuild Rwandan villages. When the stunts start to look just like stunts, it's time to rethink.

Mr Cameron's woes go deeper than mere bad timing, with rumours of a backbench plot to unseat him and an unsettled mood in his party. I should think he will make short shrift of that when he faces his MPs for a pre-recess meeting later today, though he needs to rally spirits as well as reading a lesson from the moderniser's bible.

He cannot easily dismiss a marked slump in the polls. These, plus a miserable third place in two by-elections, are serious indicators of stalled progress for a party hoping to becoming the next government.

On the day Mr Cameron gave his winning speech to the Conservative Party conference two years ago, the image that compelled me was of a Tory dreamboat (he looked and sounded great), but the messages were so mixed it was impossible to guess which way he would sail. It was also tantalisingly unclear whether he knew himself.

Nearly two years on, this lack of a settled centre has become his greatest weakness. Not that there is another captain in sight. George Osborne is sharp and focused but lacks Mr Cameron's public warmth; David Davis looks a better shadow Home Secretary than a modern Opposition leader; and Liam Fox still hungers but without a power base for a challenge. Besides, Mr Cameron has real achievements in breaking the assumption of many in the urban educated middle class that Conservatives are regressive, selfish people you would not be seen dead voting for or even listening to.

What he still misses are contours, direction and an insistent focus that tells people what a Britain he ran would be like and why we should prefer it to the Gordon Brown variety. He is also less at ease than Mr Brown with the uncertainties and anxieties of the vast swathe of lower-middle-income voters who rank dependability highly in their leaders.

Try the test of imagining what he will say about any given issue, and it is hard to come up with reliably "Cameronian" responses.

Mr Brown is bouncing along on a well executed transition into No 10. It won't last, of course, but it could be durable enough to prove a serious impediment to the Conservative revival. Mr Brown is toying with an early election. A weakened and fractious Tory Party would make it more tempting for him to seek a mandate in the first part of next year.

Some Cameronians have helped bring about the present trouble by indulging a number of myths that have been damaging to their leader. The first is that he could set an easy pace, repositioning himself gently, avoiding clashes with his own party, and that the natural consequence would be a steady rise in the polls towards the 42-44 per cent he needs to be in strong contention for No 10.

The second was the self-satisfied "all in good time" argument, in which what the new party really stood for could be revealed in a display of policy fireworks when the reviews reported later this year. But the reviews are likely to be of mixed quality, and impressions have to be forged more steadily.

The third has been a lack of ability to sift good ideas from bad or to see that not all attention-grabbers are equally worthwhile.

If "hug a hoodie" is the caricature of your entire approach to crime then you are not in a good place whatever the Panglossian tendency may say. "Let me try again," said Mr Cameron recently. Well indeed: but that also means accepting with some frankness where things have been careless or confusing to start with.

Similarly, the party that should be the natural home of business produced an uncertain reaction to the Private Equity tax-breaks row that left it looking indecisive and contradictory.

Where Mr Cameron is suffering most, though, is in an ambiguous relationship with his own party in which he does not seem to have the upper hand. A torpid notion persists in his ranks that they can have a rejuvenated party but on the old terms: Michael Howard in David Cameron's body, if that is not too upsetting an image.

He was thus genuinely surprised that an early pledge not to restore selection in schools was not heeded — but parties do persist in hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the rest for as long as they possibly can. The resulting horror was so intensely felt by him because it proved how little many Conservatives understood that the old aims have to be delivered in a different way if the party is to regain power.

That ambiguity should never have been allowed to arise or fester for so long. Now Mr Cameron does have to remind them that he is the elected leader who sets the course — and that he will not be blown off it.

Summer is also his time to redefine the overlapping roles and competences that have begun to put a strain on his team.

The arrival of a new communications chief, Andy Coulson, and the increasingly influential role of Lord Ashcroft in overseeing strategy in target seats are both elements causing friction. One talented insider and early loyalist, George Bridges, has already left the deck as a result. A clear line of command and a fierce focus on the essentials must be the aims as he plans his autumn assault.

Just before he became leader, and after a rocky summer in his leadership campaign during which even he considered his chances dim, I watched Mr Cameron debating with two impressive performers from the other parties. No one could have doubted his star quality. He showed the first signs of an ability to bounce back from setbacks, adjust, but keep confidence and momentum. It was the first inkling that he had the political It factor.

Well, he still has — but he needs to decide what he wants to stand for before he is defined too firmly by his enemy Mr Brown as a mixed-up kid who "talks Left and acts Right". He could certainly put his fluency to better use in laying out a more coherent intellectual case for his brand of conservatism.

Opposition is a nervous, rackety, tense business, held together by fervent hope of victory and gnawing fear of another defeat. It has periods of disillusionment, thankless grind and miscalculation.

Project Dave isn't defeated, but it does need to grow quickly now into something more formed to be truly persuasive outside the ranks of those who wanted to be won over anyway.

Anyone who thinks there is an easier way back to power than sticking with it, and him, is, however, barking mad. I'm sure nice Mr Cameron will find a politer way of saying so today — but that's the score..

'Where Mr Cameron is suffering most is from a relationship with his own party in which he does not seem to have the upper hand'