The big test for Cameron, given these tactical shifts, was whether he could convince voters that he was "the real thing"

As this review has noted, Cameron originally marketed himself as the "heir to Blair" - and sought to mirror in the Conservative Party what Blair had done for Labour.  This revolutionary modernisation was later succeeded by a more evolutionary modernisation. Despite this shift, and frequent tactical adjustments, Cameron was consistently marketed as stylistically similar to Blair: a young, fresh, energetic, often tieless leader - informal in style, at ease with modern Britain.  Such branding was designed to appeal to younger, aspirational, floating, liberal-minded voters. This presentational style worked triumphantly for Blair in 1997.  It didn't achieve the same "big bang" in 2010.  This isn't to say that it was mistaken.  However, an extra ingredient was essential almost 15 years after New Labour's first victory - namely, authenticity. Blair promised much and delivered little.  Post-1997, disillusion with the Westminster system deepened.  Under New Labour, election turnout started low and stayed there.  Votes drifted to the minor parties - the Greens, UKIP, the BNP.  The expenses scandal detonated an explosion of voter anger and contempt. Presented with what many saw as a "Blair Mark Two', voters were always likely to ask: "I've seen this movie before - will it end in the same way as the last one?"  The artificiality of revolutionary or uber-modernisation, and the tactical shifts that followed it, made it hard for Cameron to convince voters that his was an authentic mission.