So you either choose someone who is closer to your views in your party so you can wag your finger at the government or you can choose a less of two evils and back someone who has a chance of winning and whose views are still closer to yours than the present government.

If you look at some of the policies of this government - the redistribution of wealth, the “one size fits all” education policy and the blatent disreguard of our law making institutions, to name just three, the lefties quite clearly are getting their way.

On the other hand, the draconian measures to “counter terrorism”, the private sector involvement in the NHS and an unwillingness to restore power to the unions are examples of policies the left side of Labour hate (not to mention the war…).

Blair compromises on issues he is less concerned with or is unable to get his way on, in order to give him power to push through his own ‘unLabour’ agenda. I am not sure if Blair is unprincipled or just realistic, but he is certainly effective.

The question is, should the Conservatives follow Labour’s path much less effectively by electing Ken as their leader, or should they take a step back and put together a consistent, principled set of policies to counter the rott that our country finds itself in?

A principled opposition or one that just wants power?

Again, I think you forget the Conservatives are two parties, just like Labour. What Blair succesfully did was to tell his extremists to go to hell. A Conservative leader has to do exactly the same.