This is a time for us all to set aside childish things. The electorate has spoken. They gave us more new MPs then at any time since 1931 and a bigger swing than Thatcher in 1979. But they did not give us a parliamentary majority. Our economy, not to mention our politics and our society, is in serious trouble and we need strong national leadership to put it right. Now is our moment to choose: to choose to squabble amongst ourselves in the shadows, or to choose to act boldly in the national interest – and ultimately our party interest – as our party has throughout its long and proud history.

The first childish thing we need to set aside is the idea that now is the time for us to turn inwards and have a post-mortem on our election campaign tactics. The biggest failure of our campaign was our failure to manage expectations. On May 6^th we did what eluded Messrs Major, Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard: we turned the electoral map a much deeper shade of blue. We secured a bigger swing than Thatcher in 1979 and that was after the Winter of Discontent and intervention from the IMF. We should be proud as a party today: proud that we together have turned almost one hundred seats Conservative through our hard work and willingness to embrace change with David Cameron. Every party has its siren voices luring it into the abyss with the easy idea that if only the party had spent more time appealing to its core supporters and less time addressing the needs of the wider electorate, that somehow things would be better. Let the Labour Party fall into that trap again as it did in the 1980s. This is not the time for us to naval gaze: this is the time for us to serve our country.

Serving our country does mean that we have to listen to the message the voters sent. We know that we did well and that Labour did badly and that the Liberal Democrat surge did not happen. But we also know that the public did not give us a parliamentary majority. We cannot simply behave as if they did, as much as we would like it to be the case. Our party warned the voters in simple and direct terms of the dangers of a hung parliament, but nonetheless they voted for one. In doing so they sent a message that they want politicians to work together to tackle our national problems.

We face serious problems as a country, and the most serious is our deficit. Just a few days ago, the European Commission forecast that our budget deficit would swell this year to become the biggest in the EU. Tackling this will require painful choices: choices that will in places reduce service provision, cost jobs and freeze wages. If we act alone as a minority government the task becomes harder, as people question our legitimacy to make these tough choices, and we face the near certainty of another election around the corner. And I haven’t even mentioned Mervyn King’s warning about the election victor being out of power for a generation.

The public has voted for cooperation and David Cameron was right to offer it. The public will not forgive us if this is not a serious offer. John Major is right that Cabinet posts for Liberal Democrats should be on the table. After all, a coalition government would give us the time and the legitimacy needed to tackle the deficit and start to get our country back on track. David Cameron is right to spell out our red lines, but he is also right to spell out areas of common ground. We agree with the Liberal Democrats on the need to tackle the deficit: indeed it was Labour that spent the campaign attacking both of us over our plans for tax credits and Child Trust Funds. We can work together to begin the radical schools reform we need to ensure that the next generation is properly educated. We both want a much more decentralised country and reforms to make our political system more open and transparent. And I know of few Conservatives who would disagree with the aspiration of reducing the burden of income tax on the poorest.

I am a supporter of first-past-the-post and think that the Liberal Democrats’ failure to break through in terms of vote share makes the case for electoral reform less compelling. I think we should argue strongly that the prospect of real power with us, real political reform, and an all party committee of enquiry on electoral reform is a good one for the Liberal Democrats. But we are involved in negotiations and are facing a Labour Party offering the prospect of an immediate referendum on PR, doubtless on terms that will serve their party political interests. I think we need to proceed cautiously, but also pragmatically, bearing in mind that if we think reform is coming it might be better to have a say in the design of the new system, as Disraeli taught us in 1867.

The example of Disraeli should be in the back of our minds over the coming days. We have been challenged as a party, and given the seriousness of the times we should set aside childish things and show ourselves to be equal to the challenge. If we follow Disraeli’s example, we can not only secure a future for our party, but much more importantly we can show our willingness to forge a way out of our difficulties as one nation.

Politics has been the loser in the last week. I do not just mean that our democratic system is debased in the eyes of the electorate. It is also the case that MP’s expenses have taken our focus away from our shaky economy and our many social ills. And as the European elections approach, discussions about European policy are practically non-existent.

Few will therefore have noticed the story that broke last week about the Conservatives’ potential partners in the European Parliament after the election. Sources have suggested that our new allies may include the Czech Civic Democrats, Poland’s Law and Justice Party and the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom.

Nick Cohen, in yesterday’s Observer, gives us a taster of what we can expect from our opponents if these reports are true. A long list of quotations from these parties and their representatives include the contentions that the election of Obama represented the “end of the civilisation of the white man”, “homosexuality will lead to the downfall of civilisation” and that “global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so”. If that wasn’t enough, Cohen goes on to report that MP’s from the Fatherland for Freedom party marched with Latvian SS veterans this year.

Before we get carried away, the Conservatives have not confirmed these reports. Last week, a Conservative spokesman said that we would be providing a voice for “a modern, open flexible Europe” and “we do not intend to comment on potential allies”. I believe in this flexible Europe, and I respect David Cameron’s straightforward assertion that “under my leadership, we wouldn’t say one thing in London and a different thing in Brussels”. As modern, liberal Conservatives we must hold David Cameron to this pledge.

My thoughts and prayers are with David and Samantha Cameron after the tragic death of Ivan.

I often find solace in poetry. This poem, written by Ben Jonson in 1603 following the death of his first son at age seven, is a poignant reflection on a loss that we all hope we never experience.

On My First Sonne by: Ben Jonson (1572-1637)

Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy,

My sin was too much hope of thee, loved boy;

Seven years th’ wert lent to me, and I thee pay,

Exacted by thy fate, on the just day.

O, could I lose all father now. For why

Will man lament the state he should envy?

To have so soon ’scaped world’s and flesh’s rage,

And, if no other misery, yet age?

Rest in soft peace, and, asked, say here doth lie

Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry;

For whose sake, henceforth, all his vows be such

As what he loves may never like too much.

Tony Blair memorably railed against what he called “forces of conservatism” in his 1999 speech to the Labour party conference.

This was a memorable speech not for its (sometimes offensive) partisan attacks on the Conservative party, but for its analysis on how conservatism in our public services was holding back much needed reform.

As Blair put it,

“Let us take on the forces of conservatism in education, too, the greatest liberator of human potential there is. [...]

“Not the right. But not the old Left either: no tolerance of failing LEAs.

“No truce on failing schools.

“No pupils condemned to failure.”

Philip Collins, Blair’s former speech writer, who may have written sections of this speech, has written an important piece in today’s Times. He argues that Brown has abandoned the reform agenda and surrendered it to the Conservatives.

This is an interesting time in British politics. The Cameron strategy has put us in a position to benefit from public dissatisfaction with Labour, giving us a 20-point lead. But more than this, the modernising instinct that we should support the government when it is right, is good politics from the perspective of public policy and electoral politics.

As Collins has it, Blair came to support essentially Majorite policies on public sector reform, as the means to improve these services. When David Cameron chose to support Blair’s school reforms, he was criticised for not opposing the government. But he was doing the right thing from a public policy perspective by backing necessary reform (albeit reform that didn’t go far enough).

The electoral advantage has come because Brown has foolishly backed away from the reform agenda. He has moved Adonis and lost Freud. This has allowed us to pick up the mantle of public sector reform and regain the initiative. The ideas and the energy, the momentum, in British politics is with us because we have chosen this course and Brown has roadblocked it.

All those who back the progressive end of defeating the forces of conservatism that hold back our public services have been abandoned by Labour and now have a home in the modern Conservative Party. If you’re reading this, Lord Adonis and Messrs Milburn and Field: I’m talking to you

Danny Finkelstein is in characteristically great form today with this must read piece in The Times.

The new Conservatism that  David Cameron has brought us is, as Danny writes, not a mere strategy that can be tossed aside when times get tough. It is a way of seeing the world and a new approach to politics, not a lick of paint over the same old Tories.

That is why those who think that now we’ve had the image refresh we can go back to the same old policies just don’t get it.  Of course, we must adopt our policies to the changed economic conditions. But we must not throw the baby out with the bath water.