Steve Richards: The tide has turned, and the Tories are swimming against it

Since the autumn of 2008, Cameron and Osborne have been much less sure-footed

British politics always arrives late. There is an epoch-changing crisis and party politics carries on for a few years with the same suddenly outdated themes.

In the 1970s a Labour government was elected twice even though it was standing against the tidal sweep of change. Quite possibly a Conservative government will be elected this May, but the underlying currents are not moving rightwards. Already David Cameron and George Osborne swim against the waves, which is why they make what appear to be pre-election cock-ups and their teams argue over tactics. They are not "mistakes", but signs of the struggle to keep afloat.

In the late 1970s Margaret Thatcher was part of the sea change as Jim Callaghan realised he was drowning and there was nothing he could do about it. She did not lead the change, but became its populist advocate. Britain's corporatist hyper-activity, mighty trade unions and raging inflation had become the aberration.

When she declared that it was time to get government off our backs she reflected the prevailing mood. The crisis had been triggered in the early 1970s. The political consequences followed later in the 1980s and 1990s in the form of the Thatcher/Reagan era, a period that outlasted both of them. The 1997 election changed little as Blair/Brown had decided in their very different ways that they would swim with the tide and make the most of the cash provided by lightly regulated markets.

The big change, the sequel to the 1970s, happened in 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the near closure of many other banks. The reaction was immediate and precisely the opposite from the reactionary cries for a smaller state that marked Britain in the late 1970s.

The tide turned during the Today programme in September 2008 when two figures from Goldman Sachs pleaded for more government intervention to save the banks. Ever since government hyper-activity has been part of the solution and not the source of the problem. In the US, Germany, France and the UK, Keynes is back in fashion. Here Labour and the Liberal Democrats have broadly agreed on the response to the crisis, from the nationalisation of Northern Rock to the need to keep spending until the recession is at a safe distance. On these issues Cameron and Osborne have been backward-looking while claiming to be the instruments of change.

There are three areas where the underlying currents move away from the right. First, governments have shown it is necessary to spend their way out of this recession, the reverse of the 1970s lesson. Second, regulation has become more important and valued. No one is calling for less regulation, although David Cameron appeared to do so in his party conference speech last October. Third, international co-ordination is unavoidable, an echo of the climate change agenda. Gordon Brown discovered the virtues of the EU during this crisis. He could never stay in Brussels for more than 10 seconds when he was Chancellor. As Prime Minister he has not been able to keep away. There is no point in a country going it alone now or in the near future.

Since 2008 the Conservatives have not been able to represent genuine change because they do not believe in it. Cameron and Osborne are what they have always been, a formidable duo, astute, intelligent, smart readers of the rhythms of politics. That was obvious within days of Cameron becoming leader when he supported Tony Blair's proposals for schools, rather than opposing them on the grounds that Blair was a dangerous socialist, the pattern of previous Tory leaders as they fell into every trap New Labour set for them. His support was one of the most important moments of this parliament. In policy terms and positioning it transported the Conservatives to exactly the right place, in mischievously sincere alliance with Blairite New Labour. Blair became pointless from that moment on and Cameron had a purpose and a role.

Yet since the autumn of 2008 Cameron and Osborne have been less sure-footed. It is not easy keeping a balance when striding against the tide, as they opposed the nationalisation of banks, called for cuts in the recession and sought to clumsily rearrange a regulatory structure that is adapting to the new interventionist mood.

We know about the changes to their approach towards "tax and spend" over the last year or so. Now there are wider concerns about their plans to scrap the Financial Services Authority (FSA), a policy contrived so they can blame Brown for the inept regulation of banks. The structure had nothing to do with colossal oversights. The overwhelming culture of the times demanded booming banks must be left alone. Now the FSA adapts to the new era and has become an agile, determined regulator. This week the chief executive, Hector Sants, announced he was standing down. Perhaps he will join the Bank of England with its already overcrowded cast list of governors and deputy governors preparing to regulate under the Tories. But it would be more straightforward to let the FSA get on with it rather than move them all in order to make a political point.

On Europe, the Conservatives' position continues to baffle those in Brussels who observe other countries acting out of self-interest all the time. They do not understand the self-interest in their case. Under the Lisbon Treaty the European Parliament has the right to initiate legislation for the first time. The dominant body is the centre-right EPP. The Tories would have been one of the stronger forces in the grouping at a point when it had tangible powers. Instead they have left for the margins, an act of parochial defiance at a point when the world has no choice but to work together to sort out the economic nightmare.

Once more in Britain the electoral dynamics are out of step with the era changing events. Voters are fed up with Brown who seems to have been around since the Middle Ages and they seem to have decided that the rest of them have had their time as well. Probably they will kick them out and opt for a change of personnel. But in this case an exhausted government does not mean a death of ideas or a wider cessation of energy. Left-of-centre think tanks boom and some have more members than ever before. Their meetings are packed as they debate the future role of the state and the other themes that will shape the next two decades. That is not by chance, or down to the organisers. Their ideas chime with the mood of the times.

A Conservative government is doomed to struggle, however brilliant its leading figures. Even if they are swept away from their 1980s preoccupations some Tory MPs and columnists will resist loudly. That is why for all its expedient desperation this week's Commons vote for a change in the electoral system was more significant than it seemed.

The Government and the Liberal Democrats, wheezing with mutual suspicion, march together in favour of a referendum. Senior Cabinet ministers tell me they see no difference between their views and those of the Liberal Democrats. The likes of David Miliband propose far-reaching constitutional change. Rightly Nick Clegg is far more wary of reciprocating, but there is much talk in his ranks of realignment after the election. That is where real change lies and depending on what happens in May it could begin quickly or take another 10 years. Politics struggles to catch up, but it will get there in the end.