Election campaigns have a limited potential to explore the policy lines of competing parties in depth, but they are unsurpassed for giving voters an insight into the capacity, consistency and coherence of their competing political leaderships. Judged by this yardstick, the first full week of formal campaigning in the British election has not gone well for the Labour Party and its leader, Mr Tony Blair.
Under pressure from the media and intensive political debate, a series of apparent reformulations of Labour policy on privatisation, Scottish devolution, trade union rights and the single European currency has excited critical comment from generally favourable sources. The London Independent, for example, speaks of the "miserable, defensive me-tooism of New Labour" and laments a leadership style that "seems to mean being resolute about not having any policies".
These are harsh words, but they echo a consistent refrain - that Mr Blair needs to become more proactive in the presentation of Labour's alternative policies if he is to capitalise fully on a palpable mood for change among the British electorate. If he gives the impression of inventing policy on the hoof in order to converge with the Conservatives he may become less and less convincing that he will be resolutely different from them in office.
Some such calculation clearly informed Mr Major's decision to opt for a long campaign which would optimise opportunities to probe Labour's vulnerabilities on such issues. On the evidence of recent days, it is paying off, despite the high prominence given to the politics of sleaze in the outgoing Conservative administration, dramatised by Martin Bell's decision to stand against Neil Hamilton.
Even as Labour leaders endeavour to demonstrate that they have justifiably elaborated on policy already announced rather than shifted their ground in opportunist fashion, the very coincidence of these issues has an unsettling effect. Mr Blair yesterday said his party is ready to embrace privatisation, following Mr Gordon Brown's comments on the subject over the weekend. This certainly opens up the question, although there is probably much less scope for funding Labour programmes here than might initially be assumed, irrespective of any ideological resistance by older Labour activists.
There can be little doubt that Mr Blair's remarks on television comparing tax raising powers of a Scottish devolved assembly to those of an English parish council have embarrassed his party in Scotland and exposed once again his insensitivity to Scottish opinion. The Scottish National Party made much of it yesterday as its manifesto was published.
If all this indicates confusion about how Mr Blair would handle what is bound to be an intense and trying legislative agenda on devolution and constitutional reform it bodes ill for the judgments that must be reached on him in coming weeks. On trade union rights the most recent formulations certainly modify existing commitments, at least by delaying their implementation. On monetary union, by contrast, the statement by Mr Robin Cook that Britain would not be likely to join EMU in a first parliamentary term if it, did not join in the first wave follows logically from existing policy.