The vigorous Conservative campaign has not yet convinced the British electorate that Michael Howard and his shadow cabinet are a credible alternative in the election to be announced today, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
It seems Britons may not get the prime minister they want (at any rate immediately) from the general election Tony Blair is finally expected to announce later this morning. And that will be a cross Gordon Brown will just have to bear as he comes back centre-stage with Mr Blair (at least briefly) to pitch for an unprecedented full third Labour term in office.
If that also appears brutally dismissive of Michael Howard's claim, it reflects the current reality that neither the pollsters or pundits - nor, in truth, many Conservative voters - expect him to be summoned to Buckingham Palace on the morning of May 6th and asked to form Her Majesty's next government.
This is not to say Mr Brown or Mr Howard will necessarily be disappointed or broken by the election outcome, or that there is no uncertainty about the intentions of British voters who show themselves alternately sullen and volatile. Indeed both men will be counting on it: Mr Brown as he calculates how long he may have to wait to replace Mr Blair in Number 10, and Mr Howard as he assesses how many Conservative gains would ensure his survival as Conservative leader.
The Tory leader (as he no longer wishes to be known) can of course admit nothing of the sort. Since assuming the leadership from Iain Duncan Smith in that famously bloodless coup, Mr Howard has gamely maintained his party can recover from Labour's 1997 and 2001 landslides to win an outright majority.
He has finally instilled discipline into a party which appeared to have lost the appetite for power; is properly targeting marginal constituencies; and is credited (along with his Australian adviser Lynton Crosby) with "winning" the protracted pre-election campaign.
Yet the suspicion remains that survival rather than victory must be the name of the game for those inside Conservative campaign headquarters not already privately anticipating the succession of shadow home secretary David Davis.
The early Conservative poster campaign - "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" - has unquestionably chimed with those voters, core Conservatives and others, absolutely clear that "it isn't racist" to be worried about asylum numbers, uncontrolled immigration or Travellers illegally setting up camp in the green field adjacent to their heavily mortgaged homes.
The curiosity, however, is that when the Conservatives raise these issues of public concern, the recorded fall in support for Labour is not reflected in increased Conservative backing.
To the contrary, the suggestion seems to be that these "concerned" voters recoil when finding their views specifically associated with a Conservative party many plainly still consider "nasty".
And for all the excitement generated by the pre-election Labour/Conservative battle - which Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has ostentatiously ignored - the evidence of the polls is that Conservative hits against Labour have not yet convinced the electorate that Mr Howard and his shadow cabinet are a credible alternative government-in-waiting.
It is true, as Conservatives argue, that the polls have consistently overstated support for Labour - as early as 1992 when John Major beat Neil Kinnock, and again in 1997 and 2001. Yet as Peter Kellner observes, changes in methodology, mainly to exclude those unlikely to vote, now typically reduce Labour's estimated lead by some five points. Moreover, the parliamentary figures suggest the Conservatives need a six-point lead to become the largest party and a 10-point advantage to form a government.
Moreover the pro-Labour bias that has developed in the electoral system means that even on a uniform swing away from 2001, a Labour/Conservative draw on 36 per cent of the votes each could still give Labour a Commons majority of some 52 seats. It is worth remembering that Mr Blair won his first landslide in 1997 with fewer actual votes than John Major won in 1992, and again took 64 per cent of the seats in Britain with just 42 per cent of the votes cast in a lower turnout in 2001.
Yesterday's YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph showed Labour down six points from 2001 on 36 per cent, a bare three-point lead over the Conservatives, with a marked swing to the Conservatives in London and to the SNP in Scotland.
Yet a consistent swing of that scale across the country could result in Conservative gains of between just 20-30 seats, with Mr Blair still commanding a majority of between 85 and 100 seats, compared with his present majority of 161.
So as Mr Blair makes his trip to the Palace this morning to request the dissolution of parliament, Mr Howard knows as well as the prime minister that the polls suggest conditions set fair for a historic third successive Labour victory.
As one Conservative insider ruefully reflected, "if it weren't so, he [ Mr Blair] wouldn't be calling the election now, with a full year to spare."
However, Mr Blair knows one other thing, which brings us to the great unknown. Polls suggest the country has convinced itself it is ready for a Brown premiership, with the chancellor now considered Labour's main electoral asset.
In fairness it should be noted Mr Blair still has the advantage among Labour voters as preferred prime minister, although even they rate the chancellor as doing the better job.
The worry for the Conservatives is that this post-budget boost for Mr Brown suggests the economic argument is becalmed by their promises to match government spending on key public services, and that the electorate is not yet ready to break with Labour, even as it suspects the chancellor has only postponed inevitable tax rises.
The worry for Mr Blair is that it feeds into the well of distrust generated by the war in Iraq and the suggestion that this election could prove a referendum on his "presidential" leadership. The great unknown is to what extent voters are minded to punish Mr Blair and send Labour a message.
Mr Howard will be hoping it is at least enough to spare his party the agonies of another leadership crisis.
And the chancellor will be hoping it is sufficient to reduce the time it takes him to become the United Kingdom's next prime minister.