Conservative members and MPs are happier than I have seen them for a very long time. Because they have stopped sinking, as they had been doing both before the general election and for a couple of years since.
The risk that they would drown, that Reform would replace them as the only serious party of the right, is now low.
There are two reasons. First, the perennial chaos in Reform - the constant controversies around funding and money, the endless gaffes by councillors, aides and members - means it is a long way from showing the kind of competence that a party pretending to government must demonstrate.
Second, the Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has found a voice, a set of simple ideas and poise.
The question is whether she can turn “we’re still here” into “ignore Reform, we are again the main party of opposition.”
The point, which I assume Badenoch grasps though not many of her slightly euphoric members here at the Tory conference in Birmingham appear to do, is that the polls show voters are prepared to listen to the Tories again, but they still see Reform as their main vehicle to challenge both Labour and a Westminster status quo which many of them hate.
Burnham gets this. His devolution and anti-privatisation agendas, and his Livercunian accent, are conscious appeals to those who feel ignored and hurt by the British way of governing since around 1979.
Badenoch will today attack him as a throwback to the political and economic mayhem of the 1970s. And if he cannot soon demonstrate he has a credible modern answer to the only question that matters - how to make the economy grow again for the benefit of the vast majority in this AI era - he will soon have a problem or many.
But she is also a throwback, and deliberately so. She is trying to regain her party’s reputation for economic competence, after 14 years of Tory led governments when the economy stagnated except for the near heart attack under Liz Truss.
With businesses, she is doing this by promising to shrink the state and allocate half the savings to reducing the government’s increasingly unaffordable debts - and also by halving the national insurance cost for them of employing 21-to-24 year olds.
Badenoch is also trying to woo richer voters, old and young, who would traditionally have voted Tory, but have despaired and gone to the LibDems, Reform and even Labour.
For them there are pretty transparent bribes - though I should say Badenoch passionately denied this to me, claiming hers were rational growth inducing tax reforms.
Whatever.
In practice, her proposed abolition of all child-care means testing and of stamp duty disproportionately helps those with well-above average incomes in their first round and direct impact. Though she is correct that they should stimulate economic activity that is of wider benefit.
But her expected cut in inheritance tax would be a huge boon to the children of the 5% of British households with most assets- and in its case, I cannot see an argument that it stimulates economic growth.
Per contra, it seems awkwardly timed both from a social justice point of view and for the imperative of shrinking the government’s deficit. As the OBR points out, by 2030 the number of estates paying any inheritance tax would double to 10% and very useful billions would surge to the Treasury.
Here is the important demographic backdrop. For those born at any point from around 1930 to 1975, it was super easy to buy a home when they were in their 20s or early 30s, because there were more houses available for fewer people.
This was their good luck, not their wealth-creating genius. The corollary has been a massive relative shift of wealth from young to old. 1/2