Britain:The electorate may soon be invited to bury what remains of Blair's government, argues Frank Millar, London Editor.
It is an extraordinary prospect, one that would have been unimaginable just three months ago. Yet it seems entirely possible the British electorate might soon be invited to bury the last remains of Tony Blair's government - while rewarding Gordon Brown with an increased Commons majority.
We have known for some time that the new prime minister intended to present himself as the "change" candidate. However, the full audaciousness of the Brown project only became clear this week during the celebration of Gordon that passed for a Labour conference in Bournemouth.
Nor does the crucial evidence lie in the further raids on Tory territory mounted by ministers like "have-a-go-hero" Jack Straw. Brown may have been obliged to mouth the words of the Red Flag on Thursday but the backdrop for his big speech on Monday was true blue.
Moreover, Straw's promised review of protections for those who defend themselves against burglars and assailants was entirely in line with Brown's promise to expel foreigners selling drugs or using guns while withdrawing licences from shops persistently selling alcohol to under-aged youths. In truth, there is nothing particularly novel about this political cross-dressing, the standing invitation to Tory defectors to join Labour's "big tent" or even that Downing Street tea party with Baroness Thatcher. These are all variations on themes we saw played out in the early Blair years.
The real audacity is the speed and brutality with which Brown and his disciples have moved to wipe Blair from the record. He was certainly airbrushed out of this week's conference.
One explanation ventured for the absence of a conference bookshop being that there would simply have been too many volumes bearing photographs of the former leader.
The Great Leader himself could hardly have paid a less glowing tribute to the three-times election winner, waiting to page 15 (of 18) before mentioning him, and then by way of reference to the Middle East and Northern Ireland.
The most painful blows landed on still-loyal Blairites, however, were administered by foreign secretary David Miliband, the man they had begged to stand against Gordon for the leadership.
Miliband was no more help than Brown in explaining to British troops or their families and supporters back home why they are in Iraq and Afghanistan and how their missions remain vital to the security of the United Kingdom.
But the foreign secretary had a reasonably coherent message for the Labour Party - "whatever the rights and wrongs" of the past, they had to focus on the future.
"While we have won the wars, it has been harder to win the peace," he declared: "The lesson is that while there are military victories there is never a military solution; there's only military action that creates the space for economic and political life." In a concession he and Brown may soon come to regret, the foreign secretary also conceded that Britain's foreign policy had alienated millions of Muslims.
For all who agonised over the war - whether for or against - this hardly constituted explanation, never mind defence, of all the lives and treasure expended in Iraq.
Moreover, if Muslim alienation is to be a factor in formulating policy, where does that leave this government's continuing assault on traditional liberties in the name of its fight against Islamist terror?
Acknowledgement of past mistakes might at least have appeared more credible and less expedient had it been accompanied by an admission that, as a result, the United Kingdom is now less safe. Still, at least Miliband was able to reassure his party "a second phase" of foreign policy was now under way.
His approach to these issues will be one test among many for David Cameron as he seeks to establish himself as a man of substance in Blackpool next week.
Yet for all the headlines proclaiming opinion polls carrying Brown into a snap election, an editorial in yesterday's London Timeswill have rattled.
"Do we have a prime minister with the policies of John Kerry/Al Gore and the paranoia of Richard Nixon?" it asked.
The leading article is understood to have followed Brown's personal intervention after claims that he had drawn on speeches from American politicians for his first conference leader's speech on Monday.
The editorial also contrasted Blair's interest in how America's Democratic politicians fought elections to Brown's tendency to see the Democratic Party as Labour's kindred spirit. "Mr Brown would be wise to revisit that opinion," the paper warned.
Cameron will be relieved by any suggestion in the Murdoch press that Brown is not quite the recently invented "un-spun" father of the nation and natural Thatcher heir.
He will place himself at the head of demands for a European treaty referendum, while choosing from the options presented by his policy commissions and setting out his vision for mending Britain's "broken" society.
The Tory leader needs a compelling narrative, and a party disciplined enough to let the country hear it.
But he may be emboldened by a somewhat underwhelmed response to Brown's Bournemouth conference and the certainty that, if he doesn't call an election after the hype, the prime minister will be thought to have "bottled it".
Driving Labour from power in one go may be mission impossible. However, Cameron also knows that "victory" for Brown will require him not just to win, but with a bigger majority than Blair managed in 2005. That would be Brown's real gamble.