ON Tuesday night, as Big Ben tolled, John Major gave his troops just 72 hours to "save the Union".
His message echoed the "New Labour, New Danger" theme so curiously missing from the campaign itself. His warning that Tony Blair, pro-devolution, "soft" on Europe, would preside over a shift in sovereignty which would ultimately threaten "the United Kingdom as we know it".
It should at least provide a potent rallying cry for a Tory party viscerally opposed to a package of Labour proposals for constitutional reform which would indeed change the face of Britain over the lifetime of a parliament. But, even if Mr Major believes his last ditch stand for the constitution can prevent the seemingly inevitable, it was difficult yesterday to find many Tories who share his faith.
Politicians have recourse to a number of devices when confronted with something unpleasant or awkward. Ask them about a leaked document, or critical comment from a colleague, and they'll maintain they haven't yet had an opportunity to read the detail.
Before he joined the Tory "chicken run" in search of a safer seat, Dr Brian Mawhinney would often rebuff troublesome journalists with the assertion "That's not what they're talking about in the pubs in Peterborough."
The assertion often contains a solid truth. The concerns of the metropolitan chattering class do not always match those of the people in their constituencies.
"Don't always believe, what you read in the newspapers undoubtedly finds a resonance across the country. And, in the final days of this election, the Tory hierarchy has urged similar scepticism about rumours of divisions among the campaign chiefs and positioning by cabinet ministers for the leadership battle which would surely follow a Labour victory.
But this is no media fiction, no press invention. A snap survey of senior Tories yesterday left little doubt that, if Mr Major thinks he is preparing for another term in government, his colleagues have next to no doubt they are headed for the opposition benches at Westminster.
And the big talking point is the speed, or otherwise, with which Mr Major will depart the scene. Indeed, listening to the various theories (already well advanced) it will be speedy in any event. Tories on left and right are divided (naturally) about the precise timing of a leadership contest.
The left, which wants Michael Heseltine to succeed in order to pave the way eventually for Chris Patten (by way of a by election after his return from Hong Kong), favours July. Its reasoning appears to be that the new intake of MPs with no experience of an independent existence at Westminster, will initially be beholden to their constituency chairmen and parties.
By extension, the theory runs that, in the aftermath of defeat there will be a groundswell of sympathy for Mr Major, a recognition that he fought a valiant personal campaign but was routinely let down and sabotaged by others. In such circumstances, the fancy is that the party would have a strong disposition to follow his lead in the nomination of a successor. And the expectation is that he would nominate Mr Heseltine.
This seems a distinctly odd proposition. Mr Heseltine is 63, some 20 years older than Mr Blair. Assuming a full term, he would be 68 at the next election. And he has seemed to many out of touch and out of date in this. But a television appearance on Monday night persuaded one defending MP he'd just watched a "brilliant Leader of the Opposition".
Also, there may be a strong argument that what the party needs is a caretaker during a period of reflection in changing political circumstances, where a dramatic lurch to the right could he a serious misjudgment.
It has also been suggested that during this campaign Mr Heseltine may have established better credentials with the Tory Eurosceptics. (Remember how he swiftly accepted the "blame" for that poster depicting Mr Blair as Chancellor Kohl's dummy.)
But it's hard to see the right buying into that, and still less into a "caretaker" scenario which promises or threatens the return of Mr Patten, who is decidedly not "one of us".
Their disposition would be to have Mr Major stay until the autumn, permitting the party conference, as one puts it, "to have some influence on the outcome". But noises about extending the party's electoral college, to deny MPs sole choice in the leadership, could also gain an airing at the annual conference. And so the right, too, appears to be inclining to a July contest.
Deciding who to back is their enduring problem. Malcolm Rilkind has shifted his position, but he may not be returned. Stephen Dorrell is deemed to have blotted his copybook. And of the true believers, Redwood, Portillo, Howard? Well, there they have a difficulty.
One rightwinger yesterday described Mr Howard as "a slimy opportunist ... oily, two faced". Mr Portillo's Spanish background is being whispered mercilessly against him. "Spanish lips", as one critic dubbed him. Another, while proclaiming him a "every admirable man", said brutally "While it's useful to be an immigrant politician in American polities, I'm not sure it would work in Britain."
And another suggested that, for all Mr Portillo's adoption of the Eurosceptic rhetoric, he was different. "Our Euroscepticism springs from things like having had our fathers fall in the war.a The difficulty for this man is that his preferred candidate, Mr Redwood is considered by many to he simply unelectable, a "Keith Joseph type figure" who might provide ideas, but not leadership.
As for Mr William Hague, the current Welsh Secretary, at 36 he is surely unproven, and he really hasn't done anything yet.
Sound like a mess? It is. And this is much of the Tory party just hours before the polls open, a party which never truly reconciled itself to Mr Major's leadership and which remains defiantly divided about its future direction. Critics, and some supporters alike, clearly see why a spell in opposition beckons and is necessary.
The Prime Minister, of course, will have none of it. And he still hopes to laugh last and loudest, at the pollsters, his press and media tormentors, and his own disloyal colleagues. But, if the voters reject him tomorrow, who would blame him for leaving his party to get on with its
He once famously said he would leave the leadership at a moment which would surprise everyone. If defeat is the outcome, some of his supporters wouldn't be at all surprised if he announced his intention to do so before Friday is out.