Which brings me to today. For the first time I had that same sorry sinking feeling I had when it became obvious that Bush might secure himself a second term.

It’s about imagining the television coverage of the election as the seats come in and the BBC saying, “Well, if Labour are going to win then this seat is exactly the sort of seat they need to hold onto isn’t it?” and the reporter on location says, “Indeed. There’s going to be some smiling faces in Millbank tonight. This seat was crucial for them, and… yes… the Tories are looking very glum here, John.”

In 2004 you had the macho man-with-a-plan Bush junior versus the effete well-its-complicated-really Kerry. Despite the strength of feeling against Bush, the Democratic Party found itself unable to ‘leverage’ it – Kerry was a profoundly charmless character. He was an empty vessel on which to hang anti-Bush sentiment. It’s hard to believe there was a doubt about how that election would turn out – hindsight is a wonderful and terrible thing.

No two elections are alike, of course, and American politics cannot be compared with British politics in any serious way – but I’m starting to wonder just how many people want Cameron? Is there a chance that he could be the Kerry of British Politics – utterly failing to capitalise on an utterly hated incumbent?

My preference for a Tory Government over a 4th Labour terms is a reluctant one – but it’s inspired by the idea that if Labour are rewarded for all they’ve done with another term, they’ll have no hesitation in giving us more of the same – and, in fact, be emboldened to go further.

It’s the little things, of course – the attempts to subvert the Data Protection act, the attempts to rig in the internet in favour of the movie studios, the 90 days detention… but most people don’t give a toss about any of that.

Then there’s the economy – an enormous enlargement of the public sector and regulation on the private sector at the same time as a huge enlargement of debt. No-one seems able to explain convincingly why Britain will avoid the same fate as Japan – who, having hit zero percent interest rates engaged in massive public works with borrowed money… and then spend the next decade without growth because of the burden of that debt.

But most people don’t give a toss about that either. They just want to see the bankers spanked.

And that’s the people who care, obviously, the ones who care enough to have gone looking for answers to the question, “what’s wrong with this country?” – and often fallen foul of theatrical misdirection, showmanship and propaganda. The problem is Global Warming! The problem is dirty businessmen! It’s all the fault of immigrants! Hey man, look at the shiny. See the shiny thing? Look at the shiny thing. Look at it. You want the shiny thing, don’t you? Follow the shiny… follow it… that’s right, follow the shiny…. and you didn’t notice I just stole your watch, did you? No? Wonderful.

And the Tories? Well their answer to the problem, “what’s wrong with this country?” is to point over the benches at Labour. Labour is the problem.

Technically it’s probably true – but guys… seriously? It’s not good enough. It’s like saying ‘the management’ is what’s wrong with a company. Sure, it might be true, but not helpful in figuring out what needs to be done.

The closer to a General Election we get without any serious or interesting policies from the Tories, the more Brown’s accusations that Cameron is a vapid, empty shell begins to stick. They’ve been saying it for years now and, I think, people are starting to believe it. Some will believe anything if you say it often enough. Hell, maybe Brown really is just getting on with the job?

Away from the exciting and interesting world of online Grassroots Tory activism there’s a party facing the public that seems to be determined to feel like having dinner round Nana’s place. Tory Totty and Cameron Cuties ain’t going to win you an election. Not this election.

I thought this matter was settled. I thought Nick had ruled out a coalition with Labour. Apparently not!

The ground has shifted again and Nick Clegg has elaborated on the party’s position:

… which all sounds fair enough, but he’s left himself some wriggle room here – does mandate mean popular vote or the number of seats? It’s a crucial question considering how few votes Labour needs to win a seat in comparison with the Conservatives (and the effect is exaggerated still further for the Liberal Democrats).

The idea that the public are the kingmakers is a noble one, but there’s a problem – the single biggest vote will be for the ‘couldn’t care less who wins’ party, that will make up anything between 40-60% of the eligible voters, making them the nearest thing to a ‘majority opinion.’

The real mandate is ‘do what you want, we don’t care, you’re all the same, my vote doesn’t matter anyway.’

Even if, say, the Tory and Lib Dem vote adds up to more than 50% of the votes of all eligible voters and they go into coalition, there’s still a problem: Neither party has a mandate from the majority for their policies, so how do you decide which policies to go with?

Or have we all got so used to the idea that the government doesn’t need a mandate from the majority (just a majority) that we don’t care anymore?