The Conservatives would be, and always have been, far more concerned that current income should defray current expenditure with borrowings being related to capital works.

Whereas Brown had taken our income taxation down the most incredibly tortuous path, any future Conservation administration would eschew such complications and those which attend the hopelessly inefficient tax credits system and the ever-foundering Child Support Agency.

Conservatives recognise that an underclass has been created, with hope, without aspiration, without identity with society. Labour cultivates this state as they consider those people to be clients.

I am well prepared to concede that 40 years of creeping tokenism and obeisance to terms such as ‘celebrating our differences’ have morphed the Conservatives into something unrecognisable to Churchill. However, societies must change or die. The culture and mores of 1969 cannot be totally valid in 2009. It is less clear that the majority of citizens see things in such pale washes of colour – most people pride themselves on having rough common sense. A lot of trends defy what many of those consider to be sensible.

But, the days for fixed ideologies deciding the course of government are also dead – today pragmatism is called for and quick reaction to change in circumstances. So we can see that Conservatism is less dogged than heretofore and that is good. It does make it less easy to analyse and that produces some criticism from such as Heffer and Hitchens who see all as crystal clear.

As far as repealing the hunting ban is concerned, I am not concerned. I have killed vermin in the past but have never hunted for pleasure.

As to education I agree with you completely. I have been around long enough to see all of these changes and have had strong relationships with schools until very recently. I hear the chagrin of the really good teachers, many of whom flee to the private educational sector.

I could reply again about polls but neither of us are likely to change our positions. Thank you for the debate, it was edifying.

Getting back to the issue at hand, what are these differences between the Conservatives and Labour that you speak about? Please explain. You dispute my assertion that they are virtually identical, and if that is so then you must show me some differences because then you might at least have a leg to stand on, which currently you do not.

You are, however, correct about both political parties being against Grammar schools, although, as you might suspect, their reasons are indeed different. The Labour Party despises selective education because they want to shape an egalitarian society through our education system. Consequently they support Comprehensive schooling which has done so much bring educational standards down and whose aim is equality of outcome rather than opportunity, learning and educational rigour.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have capitulated to the Comprehensive agenda because, as I pointed out in my essay, they have found it far easier to simply agree with the Left rather than fight for their own values and beliefs, in order to get back into office (but not power). They obstinately refuse to go back to the fairest system of education which was achieved by selecting children by their academic ability, rather than selection by wealth (through catchment areas), interviews and religion, which is currently the case. Instead the Conservatives invest enormous amounts of time in coming up with schemes that give the appearance of being marginally different to Labour, but in the end merely constitute fiddling around at the edges of the Comprehensive system which is fundamentally flawed.

You also mention immigration; however, this important issue has become a non-topic for parties because we have ceded most of our migratory powers to the European Union. We can no longer control immigration from the European Union to Britain and only have reasonably loose controls over external-EU immigration. This is why, if you notice, in all news reports that the main parties’ spokesmen will only discuss the ‘non-EU’ variety of migration when debating immigration policy.

Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party support this state of affairs because neither of them opposes our membership of the European Union, and leaving the European Union is the only way to regain control of our immigration policy. Thus, the parties do not offer ‘different solutions’ because, for the most part, they do not have the power to do so. Yet, even in that small stretch of churned over earth between the two parties where they could actually differentiate between each other, then they do not. Both favour a points based system. Neither will place an actual numerical limit on the number of migrants. How are the two parties therefore different? Answer, they are not.

Between the growth of EU competence in policy making and the leftward shift of the Conservative Party, there is now very little difference between the parties. It is the same story elsewhere. From, education to healthcare; political correctness to environmental policy; from foreign policy and liberty to the economy and taxation – the Conservative Party are virtually identical to the current Labour Government, and therefore represent little more than a change of personnel rather than policies at the next election.

This is in fact what the Left and their allies in the media want. Under David Cameron, they know that all their reforms since 1997 (and indeed even before that through the EU) will be safe. For goodness sake, Cameron won’t even commit to repealing something as minor as the Hunting Act – what hope is there that he will tackle the serious constitutional changes that New Labour have wrought on our society, people and institutions?

The collapse of the two main parties would not mean that Parliament would necessarily splinter into a small number of political groupings. Our First Past The Post (FPTP) system acts in such a way that Parliament is generally only capable of supporting two major parties. But, the problem that we are faced with at the moment is that both political parties have moved so far away from the voters that they no longer represent the true divide in British politics and amongst the electorate.

You say, finally, that you must remain obdurate in holding the view that public opinion has not been misrepresented in newspapers because they mostly exclude percentage figures for those who say they will not vote or have not decided. Yet, you have now ceased to provide even a reason for continuing to hold this belief. Consider this: would it not be so difficult to admit, even to yourself, that perhaps you are wrong about opinion polling and that the papers do purposefully misrepresent their data to give the appearance that the political parties are more important than they really are? Why else would they leave out forty percent of the sampled opinion? Think about it.

However, I dispute that Labour and Conservatives have practically identical policies on on the most important issues. That would hinge on your subjective view of what are important issues. I see a great many and clear differences – not enough of them for my liking. I am in favour of grammar schools whilst they both oppose them. I am opposed to unbridled immigration on sheer logistical grounds of availability of resources – they both say they oppose some immigration but for different reasons and offer different solutions.

However, I see no merit in a parliament fractured into tiny splinter groups and could write far more than 10,000 words on that topic. And I must remain obdurate in holding the opinion that modern polling methods are valid and should not be altered to express imponderables such as Don’t Know and Don’t Care.

You ask why I do not presume to weigh in the opinions of those who don’t vote with those who can’t vote. It’s because they are not the same!! To do so would again be a misrepresentation of public opinion. By your reasoning we should just lump those who say they will vote Labour or Conservative in together. Since both parties have practically identical policies on the most important issues, therefore a vote for one is the same as a vote for the other. Thus the outcome will be the same, with Britain getting exactly the same type of government it already has, whoever gets in – and, as I said, by your reasoning these two sets of people should be grouped together.

As for those who you think cannot find a party to vote for whose policies reflect their own opinions, then may I suggest that perhaps you do not have a very good imagination? I (and many others I suspect feel the same way) do not ask that a political party represents every belief I hold (thought it would be nice if one could) but just that they represent a fair few of them. However, at the moment it has become quite clear that the political parties in Britain have become very good at representing their own interests and those of the political class rather than those of the people. This is partly why so few people now vote.

Further, what would be the point of setting up a new political party? As long as there are millions of people tribally voting for the main parties (often without any good reason) then a new party has no chance of making an electoral impact – however, worthwhile or brilliant its message and policies may be. Until one or both of the main political parties collapses then new parties cannot make any real headway.

Obviously, and I cannot see why a man who is essaying a degree dissertation is unable to comprehend that a poll can only reflect the opinions of those who have any and deign to respond.

As to the opinions of those who are not prepared to vote for any party, I cannot imagine anyone who cannot find somebody whose ideas mirror their own reasonably. If they wish only to vote for candidates whose views are identical to their own then they must stand for office as The Only I am Right Party.

When you comment on my degree of ignorance you do so from the arrogance of youth. Looking back on a long life I shudder to recall opinions I held as a young man.

Do you not think that it is ‘valid’ to hold the opinion that you are unprepared to vote for any political party because they do not represent your views or that you do not support the political system in its current state? Who are you to say that this is not a valid opinion to hold?

Currently the number of people choosing not to vote at General Elections is higher in total than any number of people being prepared to vote for any single political party (40% of the electorate). What’s more, there are even more that do not vote at local and European elections (as many as 80%). Even by a simple law of majority, not voting is a ‘valid’ stance.

To make out, as most opinion polls in newspapers do, that the Labour Party or the Conservatives are on 40% of public support, is misrepresentation. It is called an ‘opinion poll’. It does not matter if some people are not going to vote or have not decided, that is still an opinion. You cannot say, oops, these people don’t conform with our view, therefore we’ll just miss them out in our graphical representation of the results and pretend they don’t matter or exist. It is not that these people do not have an opinion – not voting is a valid expression of political discontent.

You say, ‘it does seem that many are misinformed as to the nature and reason for polls’. I would say that, yes, Victor, you are misinformed about the nature and reason for opinion polls – but don’t worry, you are not alone.

Chris, that is somewhat strange reasoning. Those who will not vote or have not decided do not have a recordable or valid opinion. An opinion poll can only reflect the views of those who do have opinions – hence the name and you really cannot claim that those who have no opinions are part of the ‘true public support’.

It does seem that many are misinformed as to the nature and reason for polls. You should not display that ignorance in your dissertation.

However, there are plenty of academic works that have examined the Conservative Party stance on the economy since Thatcher, which in some ways has changed little since. Roger Scruton noted that there is ‘no logical identity between conservatism and capitalism’, and as I actually noted myself, the economic policies Thatcher pursued were inspired by the Liberals Hayek and Friedman.

The Conservative stance on Marriage and being in the European Union and run by the European Union are not in keeping with traditional conservative thought. That is very clear. I can’t see how you could add much more to what I have already largely said that would not do more than repeat the points made.