A casual survey of the cinema listings suggests that the film Atonement is being well received in Blackpool. For the Conservative Party conference, however, Groundhog Day is more appropriate. In that movie, Bill Murray is stranded in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, by a blizzard which, as a weatherman, he should have anticipated, and condemned to relive the same day endlessly.

In the same spirit, David Cameron has been struck by a storm that, as a politician, he should have expected, sits marooned, and now seems destined to repeat the miserable fates of John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard.

Murray eventually escapes his torment through the help of a woman and by becoming a far better person. There are few indications that Mr Cameron and his party will do the same. The atmosphere at Blackpool is one of defiance and denial. The unofficial slogan of the conference, as Matthew Parris fulminated in these pages on Saturday, is “it’s not as bad as it looks, honest”. To an extent, I agree. It is not as bad as it looks for the Tories. It is substantially worse.

And it is worse for three reasons that make the argument for a November 1 election compelling.

The first lies in the opinion poll findings. Numerous Conservatives are taking comfort in the thought that these are “volatile” and, since they have swung sharply towards Gordon Brown, they could move equally dramatically against him. This is a serious mistake.

For the truth is that – with the exception of about seven days in late August when he remained invisible and silent in Scotland while public outrage was at its height over the Rhys Jones shooting tragedy – the polls have been remarkably consistent since the first weekend that Mr Brown took office.

The average Labour standing in the polls was 39.4 per cent in July, 39.3 per cent in August and 39.9 per cent in September. The equivalent Conservative figures have been 33.4 per cent, 34.1 per cent and 33.3 per cent. If this is “volatility”, what does stability look like? The only serious dispute among the pollsters is whether the Liberal Democrats are at 13-15 per cent (YouGov), 16-18 per cent (Populus) or 18-20 per cent (ICM). Everything else about the state of public opinion is settled.

This is, though, only part of this story. It is the longer-term trend that is stunning. In every poll between 1998 and 2006 Mr Brown’s personal approval rating was rather higher than Tony Blair’s and much stronger than the Government as a whole. During almost the whole of this time Labour was ahead of the Tories, frequently by notable margins.

This was why – despite their feuding – Mr Blair wanted Mr Brown to head the 2001 election effort and four years later had to beg him to appear jointly with him. It was only in the final months of Labour’s torrid leadership transition that Mr Brown’s status with the voters suffered. So what is being described as a “Brown bounce” or a “Brown blip” is really a return to the status quo.

This isn’t surprising. There have always been those who like Mr Brown’s serious demeanour and detested the Blair theatricality (it drove me nuts and I like him) that Mr Cameron has opted to duplicate. So, cute as the phrase “not flash, just Gordon” might be, “more beef, less ham” is better.

The second problem for the Conservatives lies in what might be politely termed the intellectual confusion at the top of the party. An argument can be made both for the antimodernising faction and for the so-called über-modernisers. Splitting their differences is not an option.

The essence of the anti-modernisers, or “core vote” lobby, is that the Conservatives should campaign relentlessly on the issues where the electorate is already sympathetic to them (crime, immigration, Europe and tax) and seek to persuade the voters that these are the most important questions. While this is presented as a strategic idea, it comes with the ideological assumption that the Conservatives would win only on matters such as economic management, education and health if they have dubious left-wing policies.

The heart of what has been dismissed as the über-moderniser, or “more vote”, outlook is the opposite. This asserts that economic management, health and education will always be at the top of the national agenda and that, if the Tories cannot make themselves credible on them, then they will lose irrespective of their advantages elsewhere. Yet again, strategic contentions mask an ideological underpinning. Über-modernisers think that for Tories to appeal on crime, immigration, Europe and tax they have to be unacceptably right-wing. It is not, therefore, possible to balance the “core vote” and the “more vote” strategies. They are alternatives. There are times in life when a man has to choose between apples and oranges. He cannot, pace Mr Cameron, keep ordering fruit salad.

The final twist lies in the “broken society” theme that is being showcased. It is the wrong message completely. It does not fit with the reality of an age of mass affluence. Society might have its fractures, but to insist that it is broken is desperate hyperbole.

Even if voters could be convinced that it were correct, why would they turn to the Conservative Party for a remedy? The harsh among them would snort that this was akin to finding your house in flames and calling out the local arsonist, not the fire brigade. The broken society vocabulary is also too bleak and negative. It is impossible to reconcile with the emphasis on hope, optimism, even sunshine, that Mr Cameron used to articulate to his activists. What we have is less a broken society than a broken record.

If the Tories stick to their course, then the outcome is utterly predictable. The real Groundhog Day takes place on February 2 each year. At this rate, if there is indeed a November election, Mr Cameron will no longer be the leader of his party next February 2.

Times Recommends

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