Theoretically, yes. But 'master-brands' might be a fairer description.

Just as the 'Ford' master-brand embraces models as diverse as Mondeo and Ka, so the 'Conservative' party has always described itself as "a broad church", tolerant of a broad diversity of centre-right thinking. Similarly 'New Labour', in the early Blair days, was "Tony's big tent". It's the same in the United States: Democrats and Republicans respectively accommodate all shades of blue and red. Political parties nowadays—short of burning ideological commitment—tend to be flags of convenience for broadly like-minded interest groups.

There have always been factions in politics, characterized by "-isms", "-ites" and "-ists" (remember McCarthyism, Blairites and Gaullists?) It is when these ideological factions become bigger than the political party that hosts them that the brand analogy breaks down. Ideologies can be transitory and even less permanent than the automobile manufacturer's sub-brands. These can be modified and up-dated; "-isms", "-ites" and "ists" pretty soon become frozen in time.

The automobile manufacturers have cultivated their master-brand strategies with great care. Nothing is allowed to obscure the identity of the maker and the clarity of his positioning.

Not so the politicos.

The name may be clear, but what this stands for rarely is. Political parties have had to modify their policies with the passage of time, but now that "we're all middle class nowadays" the Conservatives in particular have struggled. Back in 1997, New Labour comprehensively stole its policies. It re-packaged these and positioned itself as an acceptable alternative to the "nasty" Conservatives who, after 18 years in power, had become the party of sleaze and scandal.

This time round the shoe is on the other foot.

The Labour government has wrecked the economy and is mired in corruption. The Conservatives are presenting themselves as the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed alternatives. But they still struggle to find meaningful 'content' for their brand. They are terrified of ideology, knowing that the party tore itself apart over Europe before the '97 election. They are silent on immigration, one of the key issues that really matter to electors. It may be that they need a few "-isms" and "-ites" and start becoming a bit of an anti-brand.