Since my last article strongly opined that Gordon Brown’s premiership will come to an abrupt end at the next general election – whenever said ballot may occur – and that David “Call Me 'Dave'” Cameron will be anointed Prime Minister in his place, the Tories have very much reverted to type and, in so doing, have thrown my whole hypothesis into doubt. What does this mean? Simply put, the usual murmurs of discontent have arisen from backbenchers and supporters alike, all directed towards their incumbent leader and his perceived lack of ability, nous, direction and experience.

As alluded above, the pattern is familiar to anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to British politics since New Labour’s colossal victory at the 1997 General Election. It’s worth bearing in mind that David Cameron is the fourth person to occupy the hot-seat at Tory HQ since John Major resigned in the wake of his ignominious exit from 10 Downing Street; that is to say, the Conservatives have lost three leaders since they were relegated to the role of Official Opposition in the House of Commons and have never come close to winning a general election during this self-same period, either.

One would imagine that they’d be aware by now of the perils of undermining their leader so publicly and would take steps to avoid such dangerous activity wherever possible. However, it seems as though failure to learn from one’s past mistakes is not a trait which is exclusive to New Labour.

For the Tories to turn on Cameron now and stab him in the back en masse would represent not only an act of insanity and stupidity: it would be akin to committing ritual hara-kiri as far as the next election is concerned. Brown would emerge victorious, Cameron would go the same way as Hague, IDS and Howard, the Party would return to a state of abject disarray and they’d be lucky to pick up the pieces before 2012 rolls around. No, another change in the leadership is not the way forward for the Tories. What they need to do is keep a brave face on things and avoid panicking at all costs. If they play their cards right then the next election is theirs to lose, not New Labour’s to win.

See, here’s the problem: those Conservative backbenchers and supporters who have been criticising Cameron recently are, if anything, too realistic for their own good. Their recent denigration of their leader is in no way unmerited, for any politically-savvy commentator – especially one who has borne witness to a decade of Blairite bullshit – ought to be able to see through Cameron’s façade and realise that there’s nothing of substance beneath the sloganeering and hype.

However, don’t you think that some New Labour figureheads had grave moments of doubt as May 1997 drew ever closer, waking up at night bathed in cold sweat and wondering when the public would realise that their emperor was wearing fewer clothes than Paris Hilton during a heatwave? Of course they did! They must have done. Where New Labour succeeded back then, and where the Tories are failing now, is putting a brave face on things. Rather than revealing that they can’t even scrape together a notional pair, they need to bluff their way through the next few months until the public is convinced that they’re clutching a proverbial straight flush. As long as they can hold it together until polling day, the victory should be theirs for the taking.

To prove my point, let’s briefly examine the downfalls of Cameron’s forebears.

In hindsight, William Hague was the best leader the Tories have had since Thatcher’s heyday. At the time, however, he was widely ridiculed both within his party and without; his initial PR campaign, which sought to portray him as a youthful counterpart to Tony Blair, was disastrously mis-managed and left his reputation in tatters thanks to a stream of jaunty baseball caps, staged theme-park visits and outlandish claims of quaffing 14 pints of beer a day in his youth. By the time Michael Portillo was appointed to the role of Shadow Chancellor in February 2000 – yet another ill-advised move on Hague’s part – the bulk of the damage was done, but Portillo’s presence in such a high-ranking position served to derail Hague’s campaign further still. Following a disastrous showing in the 2001 General Election, at which the Conservative Party managed to gain but one extra seat in the Commons, Hague’s days were numbered.

The ensuing leadership contest was notable for two main reasons: firstly, it succeeded in electing a man of whom hardly anyone had ever heard, in the form of the MP for Chingford and Woodford Green, one Iain Duncan Smith; secondly, it provided only a modest layer of wallpaper to cover the ever-widening cracks, replacing one bald, easily-satirised and quirkily-accented principal with another. IDS’s term lasted a mere two years, in which he managed to accumulate more derisory nicknames from the British media than most politicians earn in a lifetime. In October 2003, one final humiliation – this time pertaining to spurious salary claims made by Duncan Smith on behalf of his wife and paid out of the public purse – was enough to precipitate a vote of no confidence, the camel’s back well and truly shattered, and the self-styled ‘Quiet Man’ duly lost the ensuing poll.

The next sacrificial lamb to land on the barbeque at Tory HQ was Michael Howard, a man once described by his colleague Ann Widdecombe as having “something of the night about him.” Delighted satirists took Widdecombe’s remark and ran with it, portraying Howard as a vampiric maniac whenever the opportunity presented itself, but for once Tory MPs were quite willing to rally around their newest leader after years of post-Thatcher strife. In any event, the 2005 General Election yielded better results for the Conservatives than they’d attained under Hague’s guidance – a net gain of 33 seats – but Howard still announced his intention to stand down “sooner rather than later” in order to give his successor time to settle into the role.

All of which, naturally, brings us to David Cameron. Cameron was elected to the role of Conservative Party Leader in  December 2005, beating off a strong challenge from the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, and has remained in situ ever since despite the dissipation of the party unity achieved during Howard’s reign.

So is David Cameron really the best candidate the Conservatives have? Not by a long shot. Indeed, many have come to realise that William Hague would be a far better alternative, his reputation having been rehabilitated since he returned to the back benches in 2001, and – should Cameron’s showing at the next nationwide ballot fail to meet expectations – it seems likely that we’ll see Hague return to the Tory helm sooner rather than later.

Hague’s ‘success’ in winning the post-Major leadership contest in 1997 was something of a poisoned chalice for both himself and the Party, as New Labour’s colossal Commons majority meant that the Tories stood little or no chance of winning in 2001 and the selection of such a good candidate at that stage of the game was effectively a complete waste. Did Hillary Clinton stand against George W. Bush in 2004? Did Barack Obama? No, because it’s very difficult to unseat an incumbent candidate, even one as lousy as Dubya, and they knew they’d have been blowing their chances by standing too soon. The same holds true in this instance. Had Hague been appointed in 2001, or even 2005, he’d be in a far better position to unseat New Labour than Cameron is now.

Nevertheless, the Tories have made their bed and now they have no choice but to lie in it. Cameron must overcome his recent troubles – the row over the future of grammar schools, the ill-advised decision to fly to Rwanda while his own constituency was flooded, a couple of by-election disappointments, criticisms from leading Party donors, etc. – and forestall further rebellions within his party if he is to survive. If the Conservatives manage to present a united front and avoid panicking, at least in public, we may yet see Prime Minister Cameron safely ensconced in 10 Downing Street within the next 12 months. Those po-faced Tory dissenters simply need to become more poker-faced, that’s all.

IMAGE SUPPLIED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY RECORDING UNIT.