Vote for change?

Do the Tories still believe that somehow Obama's slogan will match their ambitions? Haven't they been watching as he's slid down in the approval ratings? Didn't they notice his lack of support for the UK's stance over the Falklands recently including sending Clinton (Mrs) to talk to the Argentinian leader?
So why now pick a slogan with such a tainted past?

BBC.

The Conservatives will contest the general election on six themes, the party has announced at its spring conference in Brighton.

They cover the national debt, the economy, family, the NHS, schools and changes in Westminster.

David Cameron dismissed criticism that the Tories were too "timid" in a video post on his WebCameron blog, saying their plans were "bold and radical".

Labour's Douglas Alexander said the proposals were "reckless".

The Tories have revealed their election slogan will be "Vote for change".

Well, lets look again at some change.

1. Barnett Formula? Nope no change there.
2. West Lothian question? No real change there either.
3. EU? Promise of useless renegotiations and referenda on major changes conveniently ignoring the fact that after Lisbon we wont get a chance as it's self amending.
4. Economy? Promise to match government spending targets. No change then.
5. Education? Promise of voucher system, but still keeping state control over the curriculum and no doubt all the useless trivia and regulation that goes with it.
6. Family? Obsession with marriage, though not strangely enough those of us who choose simply to live together.

Don't get me wrong I think there will be changes, but more likely it will be change forced upon us (the country) rather than changes made to the way we live by the politicians, in other words they'll be reacting rather than acting.
The Tories are also trying to hide the fact that most of our regulations come from another source too. Much of what will happen to the UK after the election will come from the EU, not Westminster.

So, Vote for change? Not really, the only changes will be the faces behind the policies, not the policies themselves.