Here are a few comments that I have heard in the past few weeks. First, the Tories really won since they received more votes in England than Labour, but had 93 fewer MPs because of a grossly unfair electoral system. Yes, the Tories did gain 57,000 more votes in England, only 0.2 per cent more than Labour. But that only represented a rise of 0.5 points for the Tories since 2001. Yet we are still a union state, and in the UK as a whole, Labour was still three points ahead of the Tories in the overall share of the vote.

The discrepancy between votes and seats in England is not because of gerrymandering by Labour, as some Tories still seem to believe. It is a simple electoral fact of life refecting the distribution of votes around the country. Labour’s support is distributed where it counts, while the Tories have tended to pile up larger majorities in their safe seats. Labour is also helped by the way that alterations in constituency boundaries every 12 to 15 years lag behind population changes.

Secondly, Tory optimists argued that Labour had a bad result. True, its 35.2 per cent share of the vote was the lowest for a single-party government. But this does not automatically benefit the Tories. After all, many seats that the Liberal Democrats won from Labour, such as Bristol West, Leeds North West, Cambridge, Birmingham Yardley, and Hornsey and Wood Green, were Tory-held before 1992 or 1997.

Thirdly, it is claimed that the Tories are on their way back because they gained 33 seats, raising their total to 198, thanks to effective targetting in the South East. But this total is still lower than the 209 won by Labour at its low point in 1983. The influx of 50 new Tory MPs has certainly strengthened the parliamentary party with fresh talent and energy. But there is a big difference between increased morale at Westminster and a change in the party’s fortunes in the country.

The reality is considerably less reassuring for the Tories, as was spelt out yesterday in a report by the C-Change group of Tory modernisers, based on an analysis by Populus, pollsters for The Times. Tory support has only edged up since 1997. Its share rose by 1.4 points in Tory-held seats, but fell by 0.3 points in Labour-held seats. If turnout had been higher, the Tories might have done worse.

The party advanced in the South East and the eastern region, but fell back further in the Midlands and the North. Support was ten points or more lower than in 1992 in virtually every city or town with more than two MPs. In the six biggest cities outside London, there are now no Tory MPs, and only 66 out of 549 councillors, almost all in Birmingham and Leeds. Francis Maude, the Conservative chairman, said yesterday that the report offered “an absolutely on-the-money diagnosis” . He said: “We have been pursuing our vote into the southeast corner of England, and for a party that wants to be and must be are national party, that’s not good enough.”

The Tories are third among 18 to 34-year-olds, still way behind Labour among 35 to 54-year-olds, and are only ahead among over-55s. The Tory vote share has fallen sharply since 1992 among women (from 45 to 32 per cent), and professionals and managers (54 to 36 per cent). The previously massive Tory lead among the middle classes has virtually disappeared, and has been only partly offset by a rise among working-class voters, a declining share of the electorate.

The message is straightforward. The Tory party is out of touch with a large section of the electorate. Those who share the party’s values vote Tory, but there are not enough of them. Among the rest, the Tories suffer from being seen as not caring about ordinary people, being out of touch and opportunistic. A Populus poll showed that two thirds of Tory voters believed Britain was a better country to live in 20 or 30 years ago, compared with only 43 per cent of professionals and managers.

That may stir the hearts of true blood Conservatives, but it does not win elections. The Tories are seen as way out on the right, compared with Tony Blair, who is ideally positioned just to the right of voters’ perceptions of themselves, according to YouGov.

My own view is that the Tories have to stop being angry about modern Britain. Too often their spokesmen sound like the Daily Mail, moaning about the breakdown of family life, social values or whatever is the whinge of the day. Britain no long consists only of stable white families, and never did, of course. This does not mean talking endlessly about social tolerance and inclusion to demonstrate that you are a moderniser. Consistent practice and conduct are worth any number of well-intentioned gestures.

Rather, the Tories should look back to what Margaret Thatcher (and Mr Blair), did so successfully: appeal to peoples’ aspirations and hopes. A positive message is always more effective than a negative one. Many senior Tories now accept this view, though some MPs only pay it lip-service. C-Change and other groups are busily trying to translate this analysis into a policy framework. The speeches by the various leadership contenders have, mostly, been making the right noises about a fundamental rethink, reaching out, extending choice and so on. But, with a few exceptions, they have yet to address what a smaller state would really mean, and of how you can help deprived communities so unlike the ones they represent. This requires hard thinking, not just warm words. So no more talk, please, about how well the Tories have done, and one more heave.

Times Recommends

• Obama is giving his party whiplash
• Mamma Mia, how can we resist them?
• This loyal soldier deserves promotion