David Cameron is trashing his own party, and it's not a pretty sight But Mr Cameron is also the first outright moderniser to lead the Tory party. He fought the last election under the banner of "progressive conservatism," a blatant contradiction in terms. Modernisers are hostile to tradition, view history as irrelevant, and insist on pressing forward with what they regard as progress at almost any cost. Whatever party they belong to, they are united by a scorn for ordinary activists, whom they regard as awkward, obstructive and backward-looking. Ambitious modernising politicians will therefore seek to define themselves in opposition to their party, the classic case study being Tony Blair's challenge to Labour members over Clause Four. Even by the time of the 2010 election, it was still impossible to tell which of Mr Cameron's warring identities would become dominant. The signals were, to begin with, ambiguous. His Big Society idea - with its Burkean reverence for the little platoons, suspicion of central power and encouragement of civil society - was at heart an Establishment proposition: it enraged many of the modernisers, who hate localism and will always destroy alternative power bases. Mr Cameron hinted that he regretted voting for the Iraq invasion, distancing himself from neo-Conservative adventurism and linking himself to the ancient school of Tory scepticism about foreign entanglements. Over the last year, however, the Prime Minister has made a decisive lurch in the opposite direction. One of the earliest signs was his appearance on a TV chat show during a trip to the United States. No conceivable benefit to Britain, let alone the Tory party, accrued from this rather humiliating bolt into celebrity politics, almost certainly done with an eye to building a transatlantic profile after leaving office. Meanwhile, Mr Cameron has abandoned his wariness of foreign intervention. As Libya and now Mali show, he has acquired Tony Blair's enjoyment of a prominent role on the global stage. And this week, in another Blairite moment, he turned on the Conservative Party. Gay marriage is an admirable cause, and there is no reason to doubt the Prime Minister's sincerity in pressing forward with the Bill. But the political choreography involved has been disturbing. Conservative strategists seem deliberately to have set out on a course of action designed to make Mr Cameron appear virtuous and wise - in contrast to his party activists, who have been caricatured as bigoted and out of touch. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, was quite explicit about this on Newsnight after the vote on Tuesday night, when he launched the most vindictive and contemptuous attack on ordinary Conservatives since Theresa May's conference-speech assault on the "nasty party" a decade ago. This sort of thing is, of course, straight out of the New Labour handbook. It is time to remind the Prime Minister that the Conservative Party, which he has the temporary privilege of leading, has been one of our great civic institutions for the past 200 years. Throughout this period, it has gained its strength and durability from its deep provincial roots rather than its metropolitan centre, allied to the strong sense that it represents the British nation as a whole. There is something ugly about the casual way that Mr Cameron and his allies are disdainfully trashing the organisation he leads in order to promote his own popularity. It is very easy to understand the strategy. He is aiming to fight the coming general election as if he were part of a presidential system. Voters will be invited to elect Mr Cameron personally, not the party he represents. Indeed, he is seeking to place himself above party. On Tuesday night, Mr Cameron found himself at the head of a grand, cross-party alliance opposed only by his own Conservatives. It is all very reminiscent of Tony Blair before the Iraq invasion; it comes as no surprise to learn this week that the two are in close touch. For all I know, Mr Cameron's strategy may well work, and perhaps there is something about the structure of modern politics which means that every prime minister, from wherever he starts out, turns into a variant of Mr Blair. But Tory membership is sinking. According to a report by the House of Commons library, it now stands at between 130,000 and 170,000, down from around 250,000 when Mr Cameron became leader, and three million in the post-war period. MPs I spoke to yesterday believe they may have lost 10 per cent or so of their remaining members this week alone. If the fall continues at the present rate, membership will fall below 100,000 before the next election. If that happens, we are about to embark on an entirely new kind of politics.