Apparently the Conservative party has been rebranded again. In the past you might have thought that they were a rather eccentric group of Europhobic reactionaries, or the praetorian guard of market fundamentalism, or simply the “nasty” party exemplified by Norman Tebbit’s suburban snarl. Now we are told that all this is wrong. An old tradition has been revived. Welcome to the world of progressive Conservatism.

The architects of this curious edifice are Greg Clark and Jeremy Hunt, two hitherto obscure Conservative MPs who obviously have a close association with David Cameron. No doubt their intention is partly to irritate those of us on the centre-left who believe that we are the real progressives, but their clear political goal is to make the Tory party a safe home for the Observer-reading classes.

What is most curious perhaps is the rather incoherent list of politicians from whom they claim inspiration: Reagan, Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher. None of these heroic figures in the Conservative pantheon would have described themselves as progressive. They were all in their different ways advocates of inequality, status and hierarchy. Certainly Reagan and Thatcher would be horrified to find themselves described in the language of the centre-left – Friedrich Hayek, Mrs Thatcher’s intellectual guru, preferred the designation “Old Whig” – and Ronald Reagan’s election was an explicit repudiation of the “progressive” tradition in American politics.

Listening more closely to our progressive Conservative friends reveals the same old Tory tunes, even if they are partially disguised by a Cameroonian counterpoint: a suspicion of state action; a reliance on philanthropy, “good works” and voluntarism; and an obvious distaste for the world the Labour has created.

What is missing from this story of course is any account of class, power and inequality. These issues remain toxic for the Tories and they are studiously avoided by contemporary Conservatism – except of course to the extent that the state can be blamed for “declining social mobility” (see for example the report produced by Iain Duncan Smith on social cohesion). Today’s Conservatives cannot accept that unfettered markets are the cause of social dislocation, poverty and unequal life chances, just as they cannot really accept that taming corporate power demands regulation as well as the reestablishment of those social norms that used to impose some constraints on corporate greed.

Clark and Hunt also seem blissfully unaware of the contradictions in their argument. They say that Cameron means it when he talks about “general wellbeing” – but they can’t accept that insulating some areas of life from the operation of market forces might require action by the state. They identify climate change and “environmental catastrophe” as the biggest challenge facing all of us, but fail to see that only governments that have the capacity to act. And they talk of “competing with India and China”, without understanding that we need an effective system of global rules (once again negotiated by governments) to ensure that globalisation takes place under fair conditions.

Progressive Conservatism is an oxymoron, an incoherent political philosophy that crumbles when subjected to analysis. Our opponents have nailed their colours to a very flimsy mast. We have clearer principles and better arguments. Real progressives have nothing to fear from those who would seek to steal our clothes.