Obviously not but bear with us for a minute.
It's October 2000 and George W Bush is looking good for victory in his battle with Al Gore. Republican strategists get giddy and start believing that they can win California. They divert funds from states like Florida and buy TV ads in the Golden State. The rest is, of course, a history of hanging chads. Al Gore won California easily but Bush only prevailed in Florida after numerous recounts and legal actions.
California is on the minds of the Tory strategists who have to make difficult decisions about resource allocation. The Party is at 52% in one poll (45.4% in the overnight ConHome poll of polls).
In this political climate should the party still be spending money in Harlow (Lab maj 357) and Battersea (Lab maj 336)? Should more money be directed to the seats that would win us a majority of one? Should some resources start going to seats that could win us a majority of 100? Should serious money go to some high profile battles against Cabinet ministers like Alistair Darling and Jack Straw, distracting them in the process? [The Tory version of the LibDems' (unsuccessful) decapitation strategy.]
The veterans of the 1997 and 2001 campaigns can't quite believe the current polls. They want targeting strategy to remain cautious. Others believe that the next General Election represents a historic opportunity to smash Labour. Reduced to 250 seats (or even less) the bolder targeters believe that Labour can be condemned to opposition for two parliaments if they are hit hard enough now.
More money is becoming available to Tory budgeters and it might be that the party could resource all seats (but is that a cop out?). There is still determination to flood LibDem/ Tory seats with money despite recent evidence that the LibDem vote is very soft in the south. Much will depend upon intensive polling of individual battlegrounds. The party won't rely on national headline polls to make these judgments.
