Not David Cameron's best speech – 6 out of 10, I thought. And, like Gordon Brown a week ago, the Tory leader tried to pack too much into it. But who's counting? The party faithful think they're on the brink of power again (they're right) and would have given him a standing ovation if he'd pledged his government to bump off all grandparents to help reduce the public debt.
Listening to Cameron's peroration after 57 minutes of anti-state rhetoric I remembered the Tories' campaign slogan in 1951 (before my time) when Churchill simply promised to "Set the People Free" after a decade of war and state controls.
Britain in 2009, unimaginably richer and more diverse than in 1951, isn't facing similar privation, nor the web of ration cards and frustrations of that era. Cameron painted an attractive picture of families, firms, schools, neighbourhoods glowing with the opportunities to be grasped.
But times immediately ahead are hard and Cameron dipped his hand in the blood which George Osborne had promised to spill on the carpet – all those public spending cuts to come – with repeated spine-chilling passages.
The dividing lines between the two main parties is clear enough now. It is as Alistair Darling, Peter Mandelson and even Gordon Brown have been saying for weeks, between a Labour party prepared to cut to rebalance the budget – over time – and a Tory party using the costs of the recession (primarily the bankers' recession, not Brown's) to hack back the state.
This is tricky stuff for both sides. Voters realised that only the state could rescue the crippled banking system, but were not glad to see it happen or the bankers bonuses rescued. Labour has failed to make the case for the active, interventionist state.
But has Cameron pulled off the rival vision, one which blames ministers rather than market theory and its exponents?
Is he persuasive in laying so many of the ills of society at the door of bloated, well-meaning but bungling bureaucracy ?
Does he really think that motherhood and apple pie evocations of "family, community, country" constitute a roadmap to recovery for what he calls "broken Britain", even if it is in his DNA?
Seeking to square the circle of sharp cuts in public services, of localising decision-taking and farming out responsibilities is hard to reconcile with Cameron's repeated promises to protect the poorest whom Labour has – so he kept saying – let down. The sums simply don't add up, even in the good times.
I rechecked the text. "I want every child to have the chances I had. That's why I'm standing here," the Conservative leader said. I do not doubt his sincerity, there were moments in the speech when he was clearly emotional.
What I doubt is his ability remotely to deliver meaning to such an extraordinary statement coming as it did from a child of privilege. Born in a palace though he was, Churchill in 1951 had a more realistic grasp of what was possible. It is possible to credit Cameron's motives but know that sincerity is not enough.
