So, congratulations on winning the leadership election under the new rules. Assuming the new rules ensured that you're not depending on the barking mad wing of the activists for your job security, and you've got license to actually appeal outside your core support to the voters who deserted you in 97, I've got a few ideas for you to mull over.

Michael Heseltine's been saying for ages that the Tory Party has nothing if not a nose for winning power, so I'm expecting some big changes from you in the next couple of years to prove him right. Unless you like being the kind of trouble that Labour had througout the 80s.

Not that I actually want you to win you understand, but it'd be nice to have an actual opposition in the country prepared to take on Noo Labour, provide actual scrutiny of legislation as it goes through and gut it of the kind of policies that make Genghis Khan look limpwristed.

Actually, if you follow the below, you'd probably earn the (grudging) respect of people like me. We'd never vote for you, but we'd not hate you quite so much.

Redefine the Argument

You've already realised that now that Labour has camped on your traditional territory. There's very few areas you disagree with them on principle: your disputes are largely managerial (How soon, how many etc). In many of the areas where you do disagree, the country sides with them. Hopefully you'll be a person who can do better than Michael at winning the personality war, although I suspect you'll have a harder time against Gordon than Tony.

So you're sharing space with Labour, and with the LibDems to their left, the only spare place remaining to you on the traditional left/right spectrum is further right. You've also realised (I hope) that that doesn't work - that way lies UKIP, and it gives comfort to the BNP. Much as some of your core support doesn't like foreigners, you're a democrat and abhor them as much as I do.

So if you can't find a comfortable, electorally effective position on the old battleground, time to find a new one. You need to reposition yourself somewhere that still echoes your basic values, yet attacks Labour and the LibDems from somewhere different. You need to redefine the argument on your terms. So here's the suggested positioning:

New Conservative: The Freedom Party (but do not under any circumstances allow this to be shortened to NeoCon. If there's an American parallel, it's Ainsley Hayes non-interventionist Republicanism, not Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's PNAC meets the Christian Right trainwreck)

You've always been the party of low taxes, small central government and non-interference in business. But you've coupled that with a narrow view of traditional values in personal and social behaviour, interfering wherever possible in people's lives where you didn't like their behaviour, even behind closed doors.

So, make the two areas of social and economic activity consistent: be Liberals (Libertarians, even) above all. As a central government, sing the praises of getting out of everyone's lives, and become True Believers in the principle of subsidiarity - power to the lowest possible level. All this is tempered with pragmatism - outcomes above dogmatism - but with the default assumption being for localism, personal responsibility and so on.

The vast majority of your existing policies will stay, but there'll have to be a few changes:

Europe

You're going to have to lose the principled Save the Pound rhetoric, I'm afraid, and portray UKIP (and their supporters still in your ranks who you'll likely need to purge) as your Militant Tendency. As a Freedom party, you won't care about the sentimental attachment to the name of the currency (and remember, for those of us in Scotland, the Pound Sterling was our Euro anyway). Of course, you'll care about the practical aspects - joining with maximum advantage for Britain - but that's it. This'll let you concentrate on the more significant difficulties with Europe - over bureaucracy in Brussels (causing higher taxes here) and over regulation flowing from it.

Discipline in Schools

None Of Your Business as government. The only thing you have to say about this is that obviously, teachers should be able to teach, but how they do this should be entirely a local matter, responding to local issues and needs. And that should be the case for all education matters. You can tinker with whether this is at a local authority, or individual schools basis for any given matter, allowing collective action where it's going to provide cost/benefit improvements.

Health, education, policing and so forth

Again, not your problem. Central Government would generally not be in the business of providing services. Devolve it to local authorities and individual providers to get the best deals. Let them form common services organisations for buying power, but hand it all over to the people who run it. This will also save you from national disputes with Unions - their disputes would never be with you. Your existing thought about giving people the choice whether to buy into this, or take the equivalent money and go to a private provider is probably consistent with the new brand.

Targets

In a sense, the government's role will be as super-auditor and QA guarantor. Not providing services directly so much as ensuring that those who do, do so well. This is the role that lets you control crime and punishment, but remember that the your outlook in defining sentencing is strictly pragmatic, not retributional. Sadly, some of the Labour reporting concepts will have to stay to enable this. The challenge to you is to innovatively come up with ways of monitoring and enforcement that don't impose the amount of bureaucracy and results fiddling we've seen.

Benefits

You'll have to go on providing the safety net. However, while of course, you need a system of assessment, it's probably worthwhile thinking through how much assessment provides value for money. At some point, it's going to be cheaper to just hand over the money. Remember, you're supposed to be trusting the individual.

Tax

As there'll be a sizeable shift of services away from central government, naturally the central tax burden will decrease. You'll need to give much stronger tax-raising powers to local government, though. I'd start with the Scottish model of income tax variation, and either increase the scope, or move directly to a local taxation system. Better yet, allow each authority to choose its own model. Once you've drastically reduced the total central goverment tax burden, you can dramatically simplify it; hold your much wished for bonfire of the tax system. Income Tax for individuals can stay, perhaps with a single rate as it may not need to exceed the current basic rate. Corporation Tax can stay. VAT can stay with some simplification. Duties on activities with long and short-term social costs can stay, with the revenues ringfenced to paying them. *Everything* else could go.

The Economy

Gordon already allowed the Bank of England to take control of economic matters. Applaud this, and move on, ensuring that success here is laid at the MPC's door, not political ones. Don't let Labour take credit for it, other than for following your party's natural instincts. Gordon Brown may have been the most successful chancellor in a hundred years, but only by doing less. Less intervention is good - it's your key message.

Immigration

Sorry, but your whole stance on this will have to go. You know really that immigration is economically good: immigrants do the jobs that no-one else will, for less money, and end up being higher net tax contributors (and lower service consumers). Immigration has enriched Britain for hundreds of years. Learn from the Swiss model: If they want to come, work and pay tax, fine. Happily hand out work visas - short term, long term and permanent. This wouldn't necessarily give them rights to services (although as above, it wouldn't be your decision anyway), or citizenship.

Personal Morality

Changing this, along with Immigration stance, is the key to losing your Nasty Party tag. Your 2005 manifesto seemed to have got the message that Clause 28-like legislation is unacceptable to the population. Keep it that way, please. Roll back the whole Labour regime of We Disapprove: Something Has To Be Done. You'll upset the Daily Mail, but meh. You'll get the Telegraph back onside, as this is the ideal vehicle for re-enabling foxhunting.

Drugs

Pragmatism and non-intervention, remember. Drugs are not bad in themselves, and you aren't in the business of stopping adults from selfharm. Drugs are bad because of the crime they cause and because they're expensive on health and policing resources. So you propose an open, from 1st principles debate on the definition of "Drugs". Legalise possession and sale of some currently illegal drugs (and tax them equivalently to booze and baccy, based on the social harm they cause). Propose stronger sentences on the anti-social symptoms of drugs, rather than the impulse to get out of it by chemical means. Propose helplines for reducing taking cocaine, as well as alcohol. Ask why the rest of the country is paying for healthcare for tobacco and alcohol-related diseases, not the Drugs Barons (sorry, "Tobacco Companies") and smokers/drinkers themselves.

Devolution

Your experience in Scotland has shown that supporting devolved power (combined with PR) saves you from annihilation, even in areas antipathetic to you. As the party of small central government, and subsidiarity, you'll welcome regions that want to take power from you. In areas where you're strong, you'll tighten your grip, and as for everywhere else, it's one less area to worry about getting right. Let them grapple with the complexity - they won't have you to blame any more.

Defense, National Security & Terrorism

You'll not be making the same mistake as Blair and going along with whatever the White House asks. Randomly interfering in other countries where there is no national defence issue will be a waste of time and money (as well as being illegal). Sure, combat terrorism for the sake of defending the UK, but civil liberties will also be essential - anything damaging those will need a very, very clear benefits case. You will be asking some very hard questions if the ID Cards bill comes back, along the lines of So how will this prevent terrorists from entering the country when Spain's system didn't prevent the Madrid bombs? and So why should the police have powers to demand to see your ID card? and So why will this megacomputer project succeed given your past record, and even your eGov chief doesn't think it'll work. You'll also be much stronger on Labour scaremongering.

Now, this thinking isn't entirely mine, or new. John Redwood was posing the questions before the election, and Alan Duncan suggested on Radio 4 yesterday (7th May) that suggesting there's a vacuum in British politics waiting for a socially & economically liberal party. No doubt these gentlemen will already have been on the phone in the lead up to your election. While I wouldn't give them houseroom in any party I'd join, they're asking the right questions.

Recruit and Promote More Humans

For too long, the face of the Conservative party has been old, and mad - you've collectively come across as an alien, an Alan B'stard or as a Hammer House character.
Justine Greening:
Human BeingHowever, you've started to turn this around - even Billy Bragg admitted that Justine Greening looks human enough to sit down with and have a conversation with. So keep it up, and ensure that while Anne, John and so on may have strong roles in forming policy, they're kept a long way away from selling it to the country.

Once you've got the new strategy in place, and branded yourself as freedom-loving and forward thinking, recruiting the next generation of activists on-campus should be much easier for you. Students being the natural anti-authoritarians and rebels they are must surely be starting to long for an end to the Labour hegemony - those starting College this autumn will have been at primary school when Blair took office.

Control The Associations

Of course, to do this, you'll have to discipline your local associations to support policies and pick candidates that can win, rather than just appeal to their dogwhistle prejudices. Some will see the light. Some will need ahem persuasion.

So you will need to do exactly as Labour did in the 80s: purge the militants. Drive out those with authoritarian impulses, locally and centrally. Given your age profile, natural wastage (to use the phrase beloved of business when job reductions are in the air) will help you here. Encouraging selected older activists (Herr Tebbit for one) to shuffle off into retirement having served their party and country for many a year blah blah blah shouldn't be too hard.

Remember though, the thing that made Labour a winning machine was party discipline. While this goes counter to the Freedom message about, think of it as the lesser evil: a temporary measure, a one-off purge to make the great leap forward.

So there's a way forward for you - take on board modernity, eschew the traditional UK political split, and attack Labour on freedom, choice and simplicity rather than their strength of social justice. You'll make inroads into the non-core Labour vote, and by out-liberaling the LibDems, regain some of the ground you lost there too, particularly among any of the Orange Book crowd feeling a bit marginalised.

And then, we'll all have a real fight on our hands.