The first Conservative manifesto was a statement issued by Sir Robert Peel to the electors of Tamworth in 1834. It was stronger on principles and themes than details and policies. It was, nonetheless, an important step forward in restoring Tory credibility after the party’s debacle on the Great Reform Bill. In a sense, therefore, Michael Howard and his team have gone back to the future. The document released yesterday is rather light on words, but is designed to convey certain central campaign messages. It suggests the Conservatives are evolving, over time, from a dysfunctional rabble to a more modern and plausible political party.

Manifestos are never literary masterpieces. They are either criticised as too prescriptive or condemned as vague. Nor can they really serve as a comprehensive blueprint for government. The Labour manifesto was a particularly lengthy tome four years ago. It did not and could not cover either the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, or the subsequent Anglo-American intervention in Iraq. Yet these proved the defining events of the last Parliament. That the Conservative volume is short does not mean that it offers nothing.

The Tories’ themes are tax, immigration, crime, health and education. On the first, they are right to highlight an emerging demand for tax relief (especially for those with middle incomes) which will increase further if inflation starts to creep back into the international economic system. On immigration, though, while it is certainly not “racist” to raise the subject, the tone is too harsh even if the underlying policy is not without merit. On crime, education and health, despite passionate partisan rhetoric on all sides, what is striking is how Labour and now the Tories have converged on to territory and objectives that might be best described as “Blairite”. This is increasingly an argument about better means, not ends.

As always with manifestos, there are individual items that look as if they have been inserted to court votes, not express common sense. The pledge to review all speed cameras is immature. The public might not love them but most people appreciate that at least some of them are necessary. At the other end of the spectrum, the focus on frigates for the Royal Navy is old-fashioned and potentially inflexible. A little realism here would be welcome.

There is a more serious philosophical contradiction within the manifesto. At different points in the space of a few pages, Conservatives appear to be in favour both of empowering the consumers of public services and allowing the producers of them new autonomy. Meanwhile, localism is endorsed enthusiastically, but most of the prominent policy pledges involve, by implication, national targets such as cleaner hospitals or extra frontline policemen. The Tories would have been better off as the champions of consumers alone.

The most substantial concerns here relate less to any precise proposal than the capacity of the present set of Conservative leaders to implement them. Can the Tories, for instance, make the necessary distinction between their dislike of Tony Blair personally and the need to deliver on reforms which are Blairite in nature? Mr Howard is a politician of genuine weight who is well qualified to serve in high office. Can the same be said of senior members of the current Shadow Cabinet, let alone those more distant from the spotlight? As Peel would have agreed, government can be as much about the quality of people as the character of ideas.