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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Today has been all about Tories in chaos; Tories divided; Cameron not in control of his own Party; Tory stunts that prove they’re not ready for government. Davis must certainly not have intended this, but any analysis on the likely consequences of his actions would have suggested it was not a risk worth taking. What did he hope to achieve? A by-election victory that would force Brown into re-treat, a re-treat that could only spell the end of his premiership. It was never going to happen, because Brown always had an easy way out – simply don’t rise to the bait, by not contesting the election. Or even if he does choose to put a candidate up, there is no way he can be expected to win, so the result won’t be framed as a failure, and he can argue that the votes of a few thousand people in one constituency will not be allowed to influence his decision to protect national security. The only hope was that Davis’ decision would spark a public uprising against Brown  - but given Wednesday’s editorial in The Sun, and the poll in The Telegraph that 69% of people support 42 days, this was never going to happen either. Davis’ decision was therefore a political mistake – particularly given that the party has already fought two by-elections back-to-back, and didn’t really need another, unnecessary, one to sap its resources. He would have been more successful staying put, securing a Tory victory at the next election and repealing the act then.

Today could have been about questioning the real price of Labour’s victory: 1) Why Gordon Brown was prepared to enact bad legislation to embolden his own position? No matter whether you support 42 days or not, the bill is so convoluted given all the compromises that have been shoe-horned in to get it through, that it is practically unworkable. 2) Why Gordon Brown was prepared to scare the public to strengthen his own chances of survival? He talks of the grave dangers in not passing the new bill – and yet there hasn’t been one single occasion where current law has failed us. 3) Why Gordon Brown was prepared to spend tax-payers money in bribing rebel MPs, just to save his own skin? In short, why is a man who puts political posturing ahead of national security worthy of the title Prime Minister?

These questions do not deal with the more academic and nuanced arguments about the Magna Carta and our inalienable rights – but they do play to the negative narrative that surrounds Brown at the moment. I fear that Civil Liberties could become our new ‘Immigration and Europe’ – issues that we bang on about because we think they’re important, but that do not feature high up the voter’s priority list. Davis might well be making a principled point, and a few ‘Conservativehome-ers’ might be getting excited, but the voters aren’t listening. What they are hearing is ‘Tory chaos’ on every news broadcast. We’ve been down this route before, and we know where it got us…

David Cameron held the first ‘Cameron Direct’ town hall meeting earlier this week.
On the same day, John McCain challenged Obama to a joint town hall meeting every week between now and November 4th.

In my view, Cameron should go further than his current idea and issue the McCain challenge to Gordon Brown – since Brown is so keen on listening and learning at the moment. Ok – perhaps it should be once a month given our electoral time-frame, and no doubt there are technicalities that need careful handling to ensure the events are genuinely fair. But it is a good idea – both for British politics in general, but for Conservative strategy as well.

Cameron is good at conversational politics, and is faster on his feet than Brown; like it or not, sharing a platform with the incumbent can lend gravitas to the skillful challenger; the town hall environment would give Cameron the ability to show he is just as serious a politician as Brown, but much more human; there are now swing voters out there who are struggling to decide, who want the opportunity to weigh the options and make up their minds – the zeitgeist may be moving back towards political engagement, and this initiative would help give momentum to that. It would be good for politics and good for the Conservatives too.

And that may be the reason Brown would never agree… he doesn’t want to get out-flanked by the public, and outshone by Cameron. Yet, this intiative turns the Labour solution to their electoral catastrophe – telling everyone they will listen and learn – into another problem. And surely, with our recently re-discovered campaigning and media skills, we can run a persistent guerilla campaign that forces Brown to take part (Team Cameron might find inspiration from The West Wing Season 6 here!) – because every time he refuses to take part, he reinforces his electorally fatal image as a bottler, a socially awkward ditherer who can’t relate to the country he claims to govern! 

There are no doubt those who think the risk here is really for Cameron. Remember Blair did not want TV debates with Major in 97. When riding high in the polls, the only thing these town halls might do is expose him to unnecessary risks. But that’s only if you subscribe to the view that our poll lead is secure. I don’t. Cameron is not yet where Blair was in 97. The current attitude is much more anti-Labour than pro-Conservative. Yes, it is encouraging that people will now lend us their vote to send Gordon Brown a message in a by-election, but will they give us their vote so we can form a government after the next general election? Cameron needs to prove to the public what we know to be true – that he is worthy of their support. Once he’s done that, he will be home and dry. For me, challenging Brown to town hall meetings, not as a stunt, but as a genuine and persistent campaign to re-ignite political debate amongst the public, would stand him in good stead.

We have a strategy, and we should stick to it:

We will commit to spending the same on public services as Labour – but we will show how that money can be spent to make those services more responsive, more efficient and less demanding on the public purse in the longer term.

We will commit to re-balancing the tax burden now, to give relief to hard-working families, and to incentivise business to get the economy growing. But it is only when we have real growth that we can afford to reduce the tax burden overall.

We will commit to tough measures that ensure people take responsibility in their lives. However, we will do so not to rebuke them, but instead to build their confidence, to help and support them to be economically and socially active citizens again, because that is good for them, and good for society.

Just because this agenda is not rash, doesn’t mean it isn’t bold, and doesn’t offer real change. We have to decide whether we are the enemy of the state and the judge on the way-ward, or whether we are the friend of the citizen and the guide to the lost.  

The people of Crewe were not bought off by a last-minute £2.7bn tax give-away from Labour – so there’s no reason to believe that even if we were to double it, we would do any better. Edward Timpson did not win in Crewe by promising to cut funding to Leighton hospital, but perhaps, in part, because he ran marathons to raise money for that hospital.

I suspect, now the stakes are finally looking real, the battle for the heart and soul of our party is just beginning…when that battle is won, then we will be ready for government.