I understand the political rhetoric from the Lib Dems – that they have extracted hard won progressive concessions from the Conservatives, to  temper the worst excesses of a traditional Tory government. Some of them may believe this, more are –hopefully-  just trying to bring their party with them on a course that was anathema to the Lib Dem membership only a few days ago.

The rhetoric may be politically convenient, but it does injustice to the political reality. The coalition that has been formed is not the product of 4 days of Conservative concessions, but 4 years of change, in both parties.

The Conservatives are a progressive party – for most of us, we are the progressive party, and we should be proud of that label. The fact is that – though too few people have really recognised it yet– our prospectus for government is economically and socially liberal; it is designed to improve the quality of life for the many not the few; it is modern, it is compassionate and it is radical. In short, it is genuinely progressive.

The surprise, if there is one, should not be how much the parties were prepared to give away, but how much common ground there was to be agreed upon.  For sure, both parties had elements of their agenda that were not an easy fit with their own economically and socially liberal core – it is these which seem to be the casualty of negotiation and that should not be a disappointment for any of us! For certain, there are areas of disagreement that are more fundamental – on Europe, Immigration and Defence, but these have been resolved in line with public opinion, and are, I would suggest, totemic rather than indicative of our more general governing philosophy.

I do not want to upset our happy marriage, and we should give the Lib Dems some latitude as they bring their membership on board – but it is important that we make the progressive case for our own party. We cannot allow a narrative to develop that the Lib Dems are responsible for all the nice bits, but we are liable for all the nasty ones. The Lib Dems are not the only acceptable face of this coalition, and they should not, for long, make out that they are.

We need to be clear – it is not that a Lib-Lab coalition was the progressive option scuppered by Labour putting renewal in opposition ahead responsibility in government. That coalition failed not through lack of co-operation, but for lack of a common agenda. Labour were not the progressive choice, and when it came to the detail, that became clear:

o   The Conservatives are the party of a pupil premium and parental choice in schools; Labour stood for central control where the poorest kids get the lowest results.

o   The Conservatives are the party of lower taxes, and incentives to work; Labour was the party that scrapped the 10p tax, and imposed 96% marginal tax rates on low paid working mothers.

o   The Conservatives   are the party of renewable energy, micro-generation and green growth; Labour was the party that saw our reliance on fossil fuels increase, and voted against cutting government emissions by 10%.

o   The Conservatives are the party of political change, and empowered local communities; Labour was the party that increased Whitehall control and tried to block expenses reform.

The Conservatives are the progressive party. Labour are not.

The Conservatives are the only party that offered a progressive partnership. Labour did not.

As a party we must make our case, both now, and throughout out time in office: This coalition is not just built on pragmatic concessions, but on a progressive consensus.

If we as a party fail to do this – it will cost us dear, in the referendum, at the next election, but most importantly in power. We should not dwell too long on this now – but we must set about proving our credentials in government - progressive and proud!

The Conservatives have inflicted upon Labour their worst defeat ever. Rightly this has left Labour as nothing but idle observers for now; the Lib Dems and Conservatives must now make crucial choices – on power, on policy, and about the direction of the respective parties. The country is watching, and the one thing the electorate will find most infuriating is if either party looks in on itself to fight the battles of the past, rather than facing up to these choices for the future in a grown up and responsible way.

Here are the choices:

On Power:

Conservatives: A stable coalition that will deliver the bulk of our manifesto recognising that our political system must be reformed in a fair and reasonable fashion, or 5 more years out of office whilst Labour re-write the political rule-book to turn these 5 years into 50! The current parliament makes political reform not a choice but a fact; our only choice is whether it is done with our co-operation or against our wishes and our interests. We should recognise that a minority government without Lib Dem support is a non-starter, because why would the Lib Dems give up the certainty of electoral reform under Labour, just to let the Conservatives govern on their own.

Lib Dems: A stable coalition with the Conservatives which gives them real power to deliver on their manifesto, or a multi-coloured cocktail under Labour, with an unworkable majority, where their priorities battle with the demands of minor parties and special interests, as Labour fights to keep itself afloat on each bill. If Lib Dems believe in change, how can they prop up one of the most heavily defeated governments in political history.

On Policy:

Conservatives: Cutting the deficit, lower taxes, improved education, and empowered local communities are vital for our future, and were the bedrock of our 2010 manifesto. We can make common cause with the Lib Dems to deliver them, insisting upon more focus on spending restraint and public service reform, or we can watch a Lib-Lab pact deliver higher business taxes and ’soak the rich’ measures which will drive investment and talent out of this country, in the guise of cutting the deficit and ‘fairer’ taxes.  Even if we concede that a Conservative minority government, without Lib Dem co-operation, is a political possibility the scope of our problems requires a severity of action for which we do not have a mandate, and which would be all too tempting for a disparate but majority opposition to criticise from all angles for a variety of political motives. To think that such a government would survive long, or be popular enough to win a second election outright is madness. Of course, we should insist on our red lines – defence, immigration and the Euro – because public opinion is clear on these issues, and the Lib Dems will struggle to dismiss this fact.

Lib Dems: They can either follow their instincts towards education reform and economic liberalism, travelling a little faster than they would like with the Conservatives; or they can ignore the serious problems this country faces, take a pro-Labour version of electoral reform, but then be punished for the more important policy mistakes of their coalition’s senior partner – which the markets first and the electorate second will reject as they are proved to fail. The Lib Dems must not forget that Labour criticised both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives when we both had the honesty to discuss the public spending cuts required. The aim for lower taxes for those on lower incomes, which we share, is only deliverable with sound economic management, and lower government debt. Given Labour’s track record, and Brown’s own track record on the 10p tax, the Lib Dems should seriously consider not just which party can promise to support this policy, but who can actually deliver the recovery which will make it achievable in reality.

Finally, each party faces its own internal choice: Will it be held back by those who put old-fashioned and narrow party interest first, or will it embrace the clear instruction from the electorate to work together in the national interest?

Conservatives: Will we finally move on from the so called right-wing ideological purity that has cost us power for a generation, to deliver the sound economics, lower taxes, greater opportunity and reformed public services that the people want?

Lib Dems: Will they be strong enough to move on from their sandal-wearing, nuclear disarming, always harping from the sidelines base that will only accept one form of electoral reform, to become a credible party of the future, in government.

Ironically, the party which puts its narrow party interest first will, in fact, be putting itself out of real power for yet another generation.

When the voters make a choice at election time, their decision is often not about whether they support the candidate’s policy platform as neatly laid out in a manifesto, but whether they trust the candidate’s judgement in the heat of an as yet unknown crisis. In making that decision, voters rely on all manner of quite unpredictable observations of the man or woman asking for their vote. And so they should.

It is in this context that Obama’s inability to ‘deal with’ Sarah Palin could prove quite telling. First he decided to attack her, then to congratulate her. Perhaps in frustration, or even by mistake, he then made an inopportune comment on the stump a couple of days ago. Now he is being tarred as sexist, and seems quite outraged that the media dare even level such an accusation, yet equally unable to make it go away. Since McCain turned the tables on Obama by his choice of VP, he has had neither the strategic judgement nor the political agility to steady himself in the face of a surprise. And should it really have been a surprise in the first place?

It may be over-stating it, but when the world isn’t being swept along in his wake, Obama’s messianic fervour, that is his making, turns all too quickly to self-righteous indignation, which may be his undoing. When events are not unfolding according to the prophecy, he seems at best unsure of what to do…And that is not a quality needed in a President.

Compare that to the McCain campaign, which, when faced with a less than emphatic first reaction to Palin, stuck with the plan, and the narrative they wanted to establish – that she was a gutsy fighter who would make it through and deliver. Moreover, they turned the media criticism to their advantage, by claiming it was evidence that she made the establishment uncomfortable – precisely the narrative they had wanted in the first place. Team McCain have proved much more sure-footed in the face of adversity – and they are being rewarded with medium-term praise after short-term criticism.

McCain is at his best when he’s under pressure, Obama when he’s riding high. I know which quality I would want in a President. And that’s not because I’m an inherent McCain supporter…I am captivated by Obama…but the lingering doubts persist, and recent days are making them worse, not better. He still has a lot to prove…not, for me, in policy but in person.

If David Miliband’s intervention yesterday was supposed to inspire Labour MPs to pile in behind a nascent leadership bid, it should only serve to convince us that whoever is leading Labour, the party is now shot below the water-line and unable to right itself.

When you contrast David Cameron’s pitch to change our party with that offered to Labour by David Miliband – there are some fundamental differences which, for me, reveal why Miliband cannot revive his party’s fortunes.

1.  Miliband does not display any comprehension of what has made the Conservatives re-surgent. In contrast, Cameron had a deep fascintation, and  indeed a probable admiration of, Blair’s New Labour. Only by understanding your opponents’ success can you beat them.

2. Miliband doesn’t offer a credible critique of the Conservatives, that will gain traction. Calling Cameron ‘a politician of the status quo’ does not resonate at all – in fact polls show that ‘change’ is a word frequently associated with the Tory leader. Cameron, on the other hand, has found a number of easily understandable criticisms of Labour that do chime with public sentiment: that Brown is a personally awkward ditherer, who is unable to make a decision, and out of his depth; and that economically, Labour did not fix the roof whilst the sun was shining.

3. Miliband does not offer a viable alternative to the Conservatives. His ’Pursuing traditional values in a modern way’ is somewhat reminiscent of Prezza’s ‘traditional values in a modern setting’ – it does not form the basis of any policy prescription. Cameron’s ‘Social Responsibility’ – though not the easiest notion at first - is being fleshed out into a consistent approach that does resonate in modern Britain, and does deal with the problems people face.

4. Miliband is not a ‘natural’ in the way that Cameron is…those clips of him barking ‘What’s your name?’ at a kid asking for his autograph today are off-putting, that ‘pole up his spine’ pose he has in pictures is somewhat awkward, and his technical turn of phrase in interviews slightly tedious. Cameron has a disarming public demeanour, speaks a language that people relate to, and leads a life that looks not unfamiliar to many families – he even gets his bike nicked whilst calling in at the local supermarket to pick up dinner on the way home from work.

For these reasons, amongst others, Miliband is more moribund than messiah when it comes to turning round Labour’s fortunes…

Moreover, by contrasting Miliband with Cameron, we should realise that Cameron may well be one of these ‘once in a generation’ leaders with the abiltiy to bring about a paradigm shift in British politics.. on that basis, we must support him, and give him the confidence to pursue change that goes further, faster, wider and deeper, to ensure that , whenever the election comes, and whoever is Leader of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party is truly worthy to win, and ready to govern.

Nick Clegg may see his tax announcement today as the first major step in modernising the Liberal Democrats, a key stage in his stated goal of doubling the number of Lib Dem MPs. He has certainly chosen a prize ’sacred cow’ to slay. When the political history is written, will it be his Clause 4 moment or his P45 moment? (Presuming of course, the Lib Dems get a mention!)

I suspect it is the latter – not now, but in the long term, and not just for Nick Clegg, but possibly for his party too. It is however a gift for the Tories.

First, it narrows the political spectrum, allowing us to consolidate our support. It means the only opposition to the current government is coming from an economically more liberal direction – so the electorate have a more limited choice if they want to reject the government. And within that more limited offering, when faced with a choice between a party that has just performed a total volte face, and is now promising £20bn spending cuts, to pay for a raft of headline grabbing tax cuts; or a party with a broad-based agenda, that has consistently said it aims to lower taxation but never at the expense of economic stability, I suspect the credible choice becomes all the more obvious.

Second, such a dramatic change of direction  from the Lib Dems allows the Conservatives to help people make that choice. We can present what some may call incredibly bold, simply as incredible – the kind of policy that could only be proposed by a party guaranteed never to have to implement it. George Osbourne did this very well on Newsnight a few days ago. In an attempt to grab the voters attention the Lib Dems may have made themselves look even less relevant in the real political debate of today. Perhaps we should be sympathetic, having pursued such a strategy ourselves in 01 and 05…

…which brings me on to my third and most important point: The rashness with which the Lib Dems have offered £20bn of tax and spending cuts highlights the maturity of Cameron’s approach, and how far we have come since we offered those cuts in the previous 2 elections. It used to be that voters had a two-way choice – a vote to deal with social problems by pumping in more government spending, or a vote to fix a faltering economy, by cutting off the supply of money to an inefficient bureaucracy. Both have been tried; both have been found wanting, and now that is the choice between the Labour Party and the Lib Dems. What the Conservatives offer is new and distinct – an approach that says we can sustainably reduce state spending, lower taxes, and revive our economy  – not by simply cutting off the supply of money to the state, but by stemming the demand for money from the state. We do that by turning round social breakdown, and saving the costs of social failure. We also do it by making each pound of public money work harder, by putting spending power in the hands of those who know where the money is needed and how to use it. This is an holisitc approach to our social and economic problems, and a compelling agenda for government – it seems all the more so in contrast to a wave of speculative spending cuts that pay for some attention-seeking tax cuts offered by Nick Clegg

Some in our party may think the Lib Dems have stolen our thunder – I believe they have given us the chance of a landsilde.