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.

David Cameron’s injection of morality into the political discourse has struck a chord.  He seems to have tapped into the zeitgeist:  our thoroughly modern and amoral society has over time become a tragically broken and immoral one - to such an extent that, though many still struggle to cast aside their well-cultivated amorality, people are ready to follow someone who is prepared to lead. And it feels good…

But, it might also be very dangerous, particularly for the Tory Party. We do not need a long memory to recall that we were once regarded as the nasty party – nasty because we were seen as judgemental and condemnatory. Given that morality is, by its nature, judgemental, the risk Cameron takes is great. I, for one, find myself conflicted. At a personal level, I am comfortable with the moral judgements Cameron makes; and I lament the social breakdown that we see everyday. At a political level, I feel uneasy that moral judgements divide our society into ’them’ and ‘us’; and I fear for where morality, mis-used, has led in the past, so could lead in the future.

To resolve this conflict, I believe we need to get some fundamentals straight. This might seem abstract and somewhat academic for the blogosphere, but it is very important. If we are to talk about right and wrong, good and bad – as we need to – then we also need to understand what we mean by those terms. And that takes us into the realm of meta-ethics, so bear with me…

Broadly there are two schools of thought:

1) That good and bad are objectively defined, commanded by some form of ‘categorical imperative’, or universal truth.

2) That good and bad are determined by looking at consequences, through applying some ‘utilitarian calculus’.

In political terms, seeing morality in the first sense is dangerous, because it writes people and situations off simply for what they are, and there is nothing that can be done. For example, it could lead to an attitude that sex before marriage is just wrong, so single mothers should be condemned and there is nothing more to it than that. Likewise, if homosexuality is objectively wrong, then its discussion in schools can be banned, and there is nothing wrong with institutional discrimination. Perhaps it was this kind of approach to morality that alienated our Party from our country over a decade ago, and which made many of us sceptical about talking in moral terms ever again.

If however, morality is seen in consequential terms, then it can certainly enrich our politics and harness support for fixing our broken society. If marriage is seen as good because married couples tend to bring up children with a sense of belonging and self-discipline, which leads to less gangs and youth violence, but more educational achievement and economic activity instead, then that moral judgement can have a positive political outcome. Unlike the first interpretation, it means we don’t write anyone off – we can incentivise good outcomes; but also, when people make bad choices, we can work with them to take responsibility and turn the consequences around. Morality ceases to be about judging and condemning, but is instead about supporting and cajoling. Morality, seen in this way, does not create fixed classes of ‘saints’ and ‘sinners’, but joins us all together on the mission of better outcomes for everyone.

That is a moral, and political, mission I am happy to join.

The leader piece in The Times yesterday was wrong. For me, Cameron’s Conservatives do have a clear view of what we would like to achieve, the vision we have for our country, and the narrative by which we would achieve it. It is a vision very different from the course which Brown is currently, chaotically, pursuing, and it is far more holistic than that which Blair espoused in 1997. But what I think doesn’t matter, I’m hardly one who should need to be convinced about where we’re going…the fact that The Times published such comments is a timely wake-up call that suggests we are not effectively communicating the vision which we are actively pursuing.

Some will use The Times’ piece to call for a far more radical approach to policy-making – they will argue that we need a more distinct approach to education or taxation or the NHS – and probably all three. That is rubbish – The Times is not asking for more radical policy, it is asking for a clearer idea of something much more important than that – the glue which holds it all together. In my view, this does not need developing, but it does need communicating… it’s the vision thing…

I warned in one of my early posts on this site that if we became too focussed on policy, we would neglect much of what made Cameron so successful in the first place. Voters will not reward us for pursuing the Wisconsin model of welfare reform or the Swedish model of school management – they will however reward us when we lift their eyes beyond the bleak situation that our country faces right now, and offer them the hope, indeed the conviction, that things can be so much better. Of course, after they’ve elected us, they will demand that we do make things better – so ‘policy preparation’ and ‘practical implementation’ are vital for our long term success and we should be paddling away at them right now below the surface, but ‘vision communication’ must be, and stay, our top priority in the way we address the electorate before the General Election. It might appear neat to plan a path to power based on numerous phases of development, and this outline is important to tracking our internal progress – but we can never afford to move on from the fundamental task of communicating in broad terms what a Conservative Government would stand for.

At the moment, if you read Shadow Cabinet members’ speeches, they are ‘Policy Speeches’ – with a section that links them into our broader narrative. Perhaps we need to change the focus – perhaps we need ‘Vision Speeches’, with selections of policy introduced to show how we would make that vision a reality. We should not fear being too broad brush, nor should we fear being too boldly aspirational. Voters make their decisions based on how they feel about our Party, not on one policy prescription or another. We can win if we raise their focus beyond the tired machinery of government, and address their hopes and dreams. Yes, we can!