Tories: Fighting the 2014 election four years early

It's almost as if the Conservatives take for granted that they will be elected next May/June and are now working to ensure they get re-elected four years later.

Why else would they set out to so unpopular? Medicial Examinations for the sake of 25 quid a week, a public pay freeze and moving the retirement age to 66. They know how to make themselves unpopular.

Why is it that they suddenly think people will find cutting public spending a good thing? Financial prudence - since when was that a vote winner? Perhaps if it was demonstrated to people that their taxes are being spent inordinately towards paying off interest on loans, but the Tories haven't done that. They seem to think people will vote for financial constraints sort of naturally. It is highly unlikely, especially given the shop-soiled, ramshackle policies they are (at last) offering.

They seem to be fast forwarding to fight the 2014 election in 2010. "We've had to act tough because of the mess Labour left us in".

Polly Toynbee brilliantly deconstructs the first couple of "phoney" policies from Cameron's Conservatives here. An example:

...the 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit would face tough medical tests and benefit cuts of £25 a week. The Sun loved this "shirk attack" on "loafers".
Leave aside the callousness of cutting off sick and depressed people's weekly benefits by £25 to make savings. To make the sums work, at least 500,000 registered sick would need to fail tougher medical tests for benefit cuts to pay for the £600m cost of getting them back to work. Let's stick with the numbers: there aren't 500,000 on the top sickness benefit to take £25 from, even if you cut them all. Then ask how you can find all these jobs, with unemployment at 3 million next year? The unlikelihood is mind-boggling.