IT may seem an odd question to ask after all these years, but who exactly is Tony Blair?

In search of an answer, I'd like to suggest certain playful parallels with Dr Who.

Prime Minister Who has a number of similarities with the rejuvenated Time Lord, not least his ability to pop up all over the political spectrum, having apparently travelled to each new location as if by magic.

Like the Doctor, Tony Blair can be elusive and hard to pin down. Is he, for instance, the most right-wing left-wing Prime Minister we've ever had - or the most left-wing right-wing premier in our political history?

Is he preserving the Thatcherite legacy by giving it a human face - or does he tilt to the right while doing social good by stealth?

Is he a man of firm principle who stood against a great surge of public opinion, much of it from his own supporters, to join America's war in Iraq?

Or is he a craven chaser after power who chose the line of least resistance and sided with the forces of vengeful American conservatism because he knew George Bush would win and, therefore, wanted to be on the winning side?

Does he truly believe in the social justice and fairness that characterised the old Labour party, or is he a blithely pragmatic politician who calls on whatever it takes to stay in power?

If Tony Blair does believe in social justice - and part of me believes he does - how does he then justify tuition fees or the sort of privatisation beloved of earlier Tory governments?

The New Labour response to the public/private divide is that the seemingly dodgy means are justified by the end. If a new hospital or school is built, it matters not whether the money is public or private, so long as the hospital or school is open to the public.

Or so runs the slippery logic.

Tony Blair's time-travelling ways allow him to pop forwards and backwards across the political landscape, without troubling paths trodden by more earth-bound leaders. It is a deft way of getting around, but there is a price to pay.

Many natural Labour supporters have grown, at best, suspicious of Tony Blair - and, at worst, downright hostile. This potentially takes away his core support at a time when the 'converts', those who tried Tony twice but are now not so sure, are starting to drift away.

Tony Blair does, of course, share another similarity with Dr Who: when his time in the New Labour Tardis comes to an end, he will fade away only to transmute into Gordon Brown, the new Doctor.

THE Tories continue to have a mostly cheerful time of it, although, apparently, they don't want to be known as Tories any more. It's a nice, short word Tory, unlike Conservative, which is a bit of a mouthful.

But if brevity were the aim, they could always have gone for the 'Cons', which has a ring.

Maybe Tory is really a nasty, short word, especially with Michael Howard's continued harping on about "controlled immigration". What does he imagine happens now? Despite what Howard may parrot, Labour has controlled immigration more or less as tightly as any Tory government would.

So all Howard is doing, with blunt simplicity, is pandering to the worst fears and urban myths in a series of nudges and winks.

It's true that his party's "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" slogan is horribly brilliant, but I'll tell you what I'm thinking. After seeing the Tory election manifesto on Tuesday, I'm thinking this wasn't so much a programme for government as a scribbled list of bar-stool grumbles and grievances.

A sweaty fistful of moans hardly constitutes coherent policy. And while Labour has increased public spending in areas that matter, the Tories - and that's who they will always be to me - want to have it both ways: cutting taxes and increasing spending.

How exactly does that work?

So, for what it's worth, put me down as a 'no' for Michael Howard; but am I a 'yes' for Tony Blair this time round?

I'm still trying to make my mind up on that one.

Updated: 10:57 Thursday, April 14, 2005