Imagine how Neil Kinnock would have been treated had he shown the economic ineptitude that the Conservative Party displayed this week. Howls of derision would have greeted the Labour leader's promise of “fiscal responsibility” and a two-year council tax freeze. Every time Mr Kinnock proclaimed his belief in tax breaks for married couples, the media would have asked: How? When? How much? And his protestation that he would “share the proceeds of economic growth” would now be impaled upon the twin accusations of idiocy and profligacy. There is no growth; what proceeds?

As for the pledges tumbling from the mouths of Opposition spokesmen - marriage guidance counsellors and maternity nurses for everyone, thousands of new schools, £16 billion on a new high speed rail link - we would have screamed from every corner: How? How are you going to pay for all this? Not even new Labour has squandered enough on advertising, consultants and bureaucracy to meet the bills being racked up in advance by the Cameron Conservatives.

Instead of derision, the Tories have enjoyed deference. In place of scrutiny, eulogy. No ridicule, just respect. Yes, this is about class: a cowering media is doffing its collective cap to David Cameron and George Osborne. They perform a U-turn on market regulation? How wise. They cover up the absence of ideas about how to deal with the financial meltdown by proposing that all parties work together? How responsible. Mr Cameron performs a series of spectacular flip-flops over the entire Tory approach to the crisis? How dignified he was; how commanding; quite the prime minister-in-waiting.

In pictures as in words: here is Mr Cameron looking statesmanlike, there Mr Osborne outside the Treasury. And look, walking in a straight line together, with William Hague! Looking very serious! We must all run that picture - they look as if they could rule the world.

Admittedly Mr Cameron's Conservatives are more media smart than to fall over on a beach, as Neil Kinnock did, but their ability to fashion the correct picture opportunity doesn't make the lack of scrutiny any less of a disgrace. To see the media cringing before them is like watching the proletariat bowing before the lords of the manor. Fourth estate? Estate worker, more like.

I have nothing against Michael Gove - in fact I like him rather a lot. But take the free schools or new academies he has been promoting this week, which is about the most substantial policy the Tories have. Has anybody even asked who will pay the capital costs of these thousands of new institutions? In Sweden they rent office space, the cost included in the per pupil budget; here, our per pupil funding does not include rent. Either the teaching budgets will be squeezed or Mr Gove promises to raid the budget currently allocated to rebuilding all schools but spent first in the most disadvantaged areas.

On Mr Gove's figures, that would pay for at most 1,100 new schools over nine years. And with 200 pupils in each school. Pretty small schools; they will not be replacing anything. What they will do is pick off the kids with the most educated and aspirational parents from existing schools. Fine if you are one of those kids, not so good if you are one of the children left behind.

Critics say that the Swedish free schools, attended by about one tenth of pupils, have proved socially divisive. Mr Gove's new academies are likely to be, too. Which groups of parents are going to have the drive, the time, the acumen and the professional support to back their opening?

These new schools will be all-ability, first come first served; non-selective and without faith-based entry. Lists would open 12 or 18 months before each new academic year begins. But this favours the well-informed middle classes and, for instance, the mother who does not need to work and can make sure she gets there with her application form among the first 30 parents. It also favours those who can afford to travel farther to school.

Mr Gove says he is “completely open-minded” about inventing a fairer way, such as banded entry, but does he need to be, when nobody is asking any questions anyway? Our education system may well need some sort of shock, but is this the right one? The collective critical faculty of the media has collapsed. They seem to be grovelling in awe at this new political elite, tarts at a millionaire's cocktail party. There is a touch of lèse-majesté about Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne - from their insouciant confidence to Mr Osborne's almost explicit message that we can deal with these rich people because we are rich like them, or Mr Cameron's habit at party events of slipping into a seat among members of the audience, whom the media have turned into willing serfs.

That doesn't matter if you are comfortably off. But where they do have policies - from free schools to the frozen council tax, from tax breaks for big inheritance, for marriage or for employing nannies - the Tories are pandering relentlessly to the wealthier. I clicked at random on the Conservative Wall, which is a computerised series of tiny pictures of party supporters. Up popped somebody called Anastasia Beaumont-Bott. Before I giggled, I Googled her: turns out she is the 19-year-old founder of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Tory. In some ways, Mr Cameron really has changed this party.

But is it enough? The Tory leader wants you to believe that this is all about him, rather than his policies: “Leadership, character, judgment - that's what the country needs at a time like this.” But as a superb presentation by the Populus pollster Andrew Cooper showed at a fringe meeting organised by The Times this week, the Conservative lead is based only on the strong leadership of Mr Cameron, party unity and irritation with Labour and Gordon Brown.

When asked whether the Tories understand the way people live their lives or care about the problems ordinary people face, the lead fades to nothing. As one ordinary and less well-off voter confronted Mr Cameron on Panorama this week: “Several members of your Cabinet are millionaires...What matters is, how can you understand [us]?”

The leadership believe their party's reputation has been sufficiently decontaminated that they can afford to start being real Tories again. That is wrong. Their lead on management of the economy is shrinking, Labour is ahead on the NHS and on schools, and nearly half of declared Conservative supporters say they may vote differently in the end. What they want is a change, not necessarily a change to the Tories. The electorate is still sizing up the Cameron Conservatives. Now where is Labour's fresh alternative, its surprise, its symbol of change - dare I say it, its Anastasia Beaumont-Bott?

Times Recommends

• Nerdy cafés no longer maid in heaven
• Cameron will not break marriage vow
• Avatar will make the case on climate