I am about to do something dangerous, something I might regret. I am about to allow myself to be labelled. The history of this is not encouraging. A few days ago Roy Hattersley wrote about how much he wishes he had not accepted the label “old Labour”.

And put it this way, the Tory “wets” are no longer paying a grateful retainer to their branding consultancy.

But the boy can’t help it. I am an über-moderniser. The moment the phrase was coined by George Osborne to described the keepers of the Tory modernising faith I realised the term fitted me perfectly.

There are plenty of people who think that what David Cameron should do now is gently retreat from all that modernising rhetoric. It is all too “Blair” they argue and there isn’t enough in it for Middle Britain. I completely disagree. A sharp break from the strategy that lost three elections is essential. When Mr Cameron stands up later today, he needs to show that he still carries the modernising torch.

Here, then, is the über-modernisers’ manifesto.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That optimism triumphs over pessimism.

Tory modernisers argue that the Conservatives must talk about more than the economy. Quite right. But we über-modernisers worry. We think that all this talk of the quality of life can easily lead the Tories to sound gloomy, angry, at odds with today’s society, banging on about anarchy on the streets.

And voters will come to associate the Tories with that pessimism, just as visitors to a car show associate the vehicle with the sexy woman sitting on the bonnet. Mr Cameron must talk of his confidence in modern Britain. A sunshine strategy, that’s what über-modernisers want to see.

When you talk about them, voters learn about you.

The Tory party members would cheer a vicious attack on Gordon Brown, but it would still be a mistake. Voters will not rely on Tories to tell them what to think about the Prime Minister. Instead they listen to Tory politicians and make their mind up about Tories. Are they reasonable? Are they pleasant? Are they in touch?

Über-modernisers regard last week’s ludicrous call for James Purnell to resign over appearing in a photoshopped picture as an indication that Conservatives still don’t get this point. And it’s an important one, since commenting about Labour is one of the main things that TV viewers see Conservatives do.

That to win, Tories must appeal to their core vote.

This may seem a bit odd. Isn’t the whole point of modernising to move away from a core vote strategy? Ah, but that depends on what you think the Tory core vote is.

Über-modernisers argue that the real core vote for the Conservatives, the people who have elected Tory governments for a century, are the middle class, and particularly women. The experiences, views and aspirations of this core have changed massively in the past 20 years and the Tory party failed to change with it. Instead the party chased after new voters who shared traditional Tory prejudices. This group is too small, lives in the wrong places and is disinclined to vote Conservative.

A proper core vote strategy requires a more liberal, tolerant Tory party in tune with working women and the modern middle class.

That brand decontamination comes before everything.

The very start of the modernising journey was the realisation that a proposition that could win popular support became unpopular the moment it was advanced by the Conservatives.

So before you can make a successful public appeal on crime, immigration or, say, voucher schemes for schools, you first have to persuade the voters to trust the party. You have to remove from the party’s brand the idea that, for instance, it doesn’t care about public services and that it dislikes foreigners. You have to show that what matters to voters matters to you and matters more than your obsessions – say on Europe – and more than Westminster gossip.

While Mr Cameron has made some progress, personally, on this task, the party as a whole has along way to go. Über-modernisers are concerned that the party overestimates how far voters think it has come.

That the danger is having too much policy, not too little.

When David Cameron became leader he was told by almost every commentator that he needed lots of policy. Not us über-modernisers.

Policies don’t win elections. Victory comes from voters feeling that a party is fit for government and preferably that voting for them is something to be proud of. And policies don’t tell people how you are going to govern either. The micropolicy produced in opposition by a research team too small to do it well forms only the smallest part of the real programme of a government.

So über-modernisers were always concerned about having large numbers of policy commissions under light central control. And we were right. The confusing mess of unfiltered policy ideas has been very damaging.

In his speech Mr Cameron needs to make a proper argument, accompanied by big statements of direction on important issues, but not make lots of small, poorly thought-out policy promises.

That you must show as well as tell.

It is not enough to say that you have changed. You must demonstrate it. It’s what you are that matters, not just what you say.

Since party reform is one of the few things an opposition can actually do, how you handle the party is vital. That means, for instance, that the leadership simply has to succeed in getting large numbers of women candidates.

And it also means the leader has to show he is strong. The problem with the grammar school row was not the issue. It was that it made Mr Cameron look weak. Party reform is not complete and Mr Cameron must not ignore it.

That is our declaration. And with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we über-modernisers mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Times Recommends

• Fantasy world fuelled by sex, drink and drugs
• In short, the story is growing on us again
• A literary feast that I can’t wolf down