OH, dear, they're at it again. Like dogs returning to their vomit, or, in the case of repulsive Tory leader Michael Howard, a vampire returning time and again to loiter outside the blood bank, the Tories are back to flogging the same old dead horse.
Climbing painfully out of the political basement, they have once again tripped on the kerbstone of immigration and tumbled headlong into the moral sewer.
On first sight, Mr Howard, whose father arrived in south Wales from Romania in 1939, seems to have a real problem with those whom he perceives not to be as British as he sees himself being.
But, looked at a little more carefully, it becomes clear that the Tory supremo has other fish to fry as well.
His bigoted attitude to immigration is not only to do with simple pandering to racism within and without his own party (although there is certainly an element of that) but also has to do with meeting his own, quite pressing, needs of the hour.
Mr Howard has signally failed to revive the fortunes of his own party. It remains without policies, without initiative and totally lacking in imagination.
And so, the Home Counties' very own prince of the night is potentially facing fire from both sides. With an election on the horizon, he has to find clear blue water between his party and new Labour.
But the omnipresent Tony Blair is still pinching his policies. And this means that, without anywhere to stand and position itself, Mr Howard's party is looking at the worst poll results in over a century.
And this means, in turn, that, post-election, the Tory dogs will almost certainly turn on the pack leader and savage him, consigning him to the company of those other failures, Hague and Duncan Smith.
So, for his own survival's sake, Mr Howard has had to sit down and think - not an occupation that comes naturally to him.
And what has he thought? Why, he's thought that a quick bit of immigrant-baiting might win him a few votes in the general election and, at the same time, make him the darling of the Tory backwoodmen in and out of Parliament, maybe even enough to avoid the chief whip appearing with wooden stake and hammer in hand.
Unfortunately for him, new Labour is wise to the immigration gambit and has its own policies, which are just as vindictively racist, if a little more tactfully posed.
Playing on fears of a tsunami wave of foreign faces sweeping over this country is not Mr Howard's exclusive property.
David Blunkett managed that quite effectively as well and there is little doubt that new Labour can raise its own panic.
Undoubtedly, there is much campaigning for the left to do in order to combat this irrational fear of immigration, especially as is being pandered to by both main parties.
But, as the anti-fascist struggle and the response to the tsunami appeal have both shown, the British public is neither intrinsically xenophobic nor racist.
But Mr Howard shouldn't fear overmuch for his role as leader. His best protection is not racism, but the absolute dearth of any significant politician in the faceless ranks of his mediocre and unelectable party to replace him.