D avid Cameron’s leadership of the Coalition of Tories and Liberal Democrats has in many ways been successful. The partnership is in fairly good shape. There have been resignations from the Cabinet, such as Chris Huhne’s last week, but they have happened for personal rather than political reasons. On the whole, Mr Cameron has kept Conservatives and Lib Dems united, and prevented party divisions, historically the bane of coalitions in Britain, from damaging the Government.

Furthermore, the polls show a level of support for Mr Cameron personally, and for the Coalition in general, that is rather higher than it would be reasonable to expect at this stage in the electoral cycle. Even though the economy still languishes on the edge of recession, voters respect the tough decisions Mr Cameron and his team have made to cut the deficit. They recognise that controlling expenditure is the necessary first step towards returning the public finances to health, and the economy to growth. Certainly, Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, has made little impact with his constant refrain that the Coalition is “cutting too far, too fast” – or indeed with his new line that he would keep rather than reverse the austerity measures.

Mr Cameron’s leadership has been effective, then, up to a point. But there are, as we reveal in our survey today, growing concerns among Conservatives about the direction in which he is leading both his party and the Government. About 100 Conservative MPS have signed a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to rethink the Coalition’s energy policy. They say the obsession with wind farms involves a commitment to an unreliable technology that makes electricity more expensive. They think it is “unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines”. And they criticise the changes to planning procedures that make it harder for local communities to resist the construction of wind turbines in their areas.

It is difficult to find fault with the case that the MPS are making. As this newspaper has frequently pointed out (and Christopher Booker has eloquently argued), wind turbines suffer from the elementary defect that the wind does not blow constantly. It can be totally absent at the times when demand for electricity is highest. The sums do not add up. Wind power cannot ever be the cornerstone of Britain’s electricity generation, because it is too expensive and too unreliable. A cheaper and surer alternative would be to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. It makes no sense to subsidise, on a huge scale, a form of generation that cannot deliver consistent power. A “green Britain” powered by wind turbines is a fantasy – and fantasy is not a sensible basis for political policy. We hope, therefore, that Mr Cameron will revise the Coalition’s energy policy. The arrival of Ed Davey, Mr Huhne’s more pragmatic and less ideological successor as Energy Secretary, provides a good opportunity to start that process.

There is also concern within the Tory party about the Coalition’s policy on foreign aid. Mr Cameron insisted, in Opposition, that he would make Britain’s aid programme more effective. He also promised that, while every other department except the NHS would have its budget cut, overseas aid would remain immune from any reduction.

His sentiments were laudable, even if they were at least partly designed to “decontaminate” the Conservative brand and convince voters that the Tories were no longer the “nasty party”. But that policy is more difficult to justify when, as we report today, leading politicians in India actually wanted to turn down the British Government’s aid, and had to be persuaded to accept it by pleading officials from the Department for International Development (DFID). That revelation will make many people wonder whether it would not be better to cut DFID’S budget and spend the money on the needy at home. Moreover, the Indian government’s auditing of British aid projects has discovered that £70 million disappeared mysteriously, presumably as a result of corruption, from one project alone. We do not question the importance of helping developing nations, only the wisdom of delivering aid when it is far from clear that it is used to help those who truly need it.

There is a third area of alarm: the apparent reluctance of the Coalition to back the men and women whose industry and effectiveness will be an essential part of any economic recovery. There is no getting away from the fact that bankers form part of that group: Britain will not push its way back to prosperity unless it succeeds in encouraging the financial sector to become the generator of wealth that it was before the banking crash. Financial services are essential to Britain’s economic performance: they employ 1.9 million people, and the taxes the sector pays amount to 12 per cent of all receipts. So why are ministers orchestrating a campaign to humiliate bankers? It may play well with voters in the short term, but many of the Conservatives’ most influential backers in the business world – such as Sir Martin Sorrell, who writes in our Business section today – are concerned about the wider message the Government is sending to wealth creators.

Most Conservatives believe that they are lucky to have a man as skilled as Mr Cameron in charge of both the party and the country. But there are growing, and legitimate, worries that in his eagerness to appeal to the electorate, the Prime Minister runs the risk of turning his back on the fundamental values of the party he leads. When Tony Blair lost the confidence of his party, his ability to achieve anything significant was severely curtailed. His dedication to government by focus group, and an approach to voters that might be summarised as “I am their leader, so I must follow them”, prevented him from achieving the fundamental reforms he had envisaged. We hope that Mr Cameron’s strength of character will ensure that he avoids following Mr Blair’s path. But the risks are real, and he should be mindful of them.