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!

As the dust barely settles on one of the most extraordinary chapters in British history, we enter  yet another remarkable political phase as the leaders of the country’s political parties try to form a stable government against the back drop of an extreme cocktail of economic crisis at home and in Europe. Let us be clear,  Labour has lost its mandate to govern and the Conservative party have achieved an enormous  advance but the results of the election were unclear and there have been vast regional/national variations.

Britain is on the brink of a possible huge economic crisis, it is at serious risk of losing its coveted triple A credit rating amid fears that the hung parliament will trigger a domestic debt crisis. The markets concern is growing that a weak goverment will not be able to tackle the record budget deficit of £163 billion.

A friend of mine who lives in Paris asked me yesterday ‘what’s to become of the UK?’ It was a poignant question, and I reflected to myself on the tragedy that just as the country’s desparate economic situation cries out for a strong and decisive government, the election has delivered a decisively unclear result .

The media obsess about the possible outcomes: a Tory minority government (backed by some sort of supply and confidence arrangement), a Tory-Liberal coalition, a Lib-Lab minority government propped up by the smaller parties and Uncle Tom Cobley. Clearly for the Conservatives the first two options offer different attractions, the preference of the party might be for a stable Tory-Liberal coalition, but key strategists will be asking at what cost?

Whilst for many of us on the progressive wing of the party, the prospect of a stable coalition with a party to the left of the Conservatives is not one that frightens in – there are many activists who are clamouring for a minority Conservative government. The huge problem of plumping for the option of a minority goverment is that we are living through an unprecedented ecomonic crisis that has to be faced down and we need a strong government that is capable of facing the issues and that can last the course. The so called ‘progressive partnership’ of a Lib-Lab coalision would be anything but, an agreement  to do no more than to keep a party out of power that has won the largest number of votes and which the voters clearly see as part of the solution.

Whilst any of the options that are presently being discussed may cause the activists to baulk, the voters have delivered their verdict and in some respects perhaps they are calling for something more than a coalition government? Perhaps, they are calling on members of our political class of every hue to work together to address the critical problems we face.

Lets just turn the clock back to 1931 for a moment as I quote from history:

‘The Wall Street Crash had heralded the global Great Depression and Britain was particularly badly hit. The then Labour government was trying to achieve several different, contradictory objectives: trying to maintain Britain’s economic position by maintaining the pound on the gold standard, balancing the budget, and providing assistance and relief to tackle unemployment.

In 1931 the situation deteriorated and there was much fear that the budget was unbalanced, which was borne out by the independent May Report which triggered a confidence crisis and a run on the pound. The Labour government agreed to make changes in taxation and expenditure in order to balance the budget and restore confidence, but the Cabinet could not agree on the two options available: either introduce tariffs, or make 20% cuts in unemployment benefit. When a final vote was taken, the Cabinet was split 11:9 with a minority – including many political heavyweights – threatening to resign rather than agree. Due to this unworkable split, on 24 August 1931 the government resigned.

The political crisis generated much concern and the leaders of both the Conservative and Liberal parties met with King George V and the Labour Leader, Ramsay MacDonald, at first to discuss support for the measures to be taken, but later to discuss the shape of the next government. On 24 August MacDonald agreed to form a National Government composed of “men from all parties” with the specific aim of balancing the Budget and restoring confidence. The government would then dissolve itself and a general election would be held on party lines. A small Cabinet of just ten Ministers was formed to take emergency decisions, with ministerial posts divided as proportionally as possible between the three parties.’

In some form or other National governments remained in office until 1940.

Whilst we cannot expect HM The Queen (yet!) to personally broker agreement, what is clear is that there is another option for our political class with strong historical precedent. This is not merely some sort of  beefed up Tory Government of All Talents but a government that would be formed by agreement with the Leaders of all of our main political parties to govern in the national interest  and sail the ship of state through perilous waters for a limited time.

The major drawback of two party coalition governments is that the junior partner (often the third in the election) wields a disproportionate amount of power, holding a gun to the head of the lead party and extraordinary as it may seem, there are many people in the Conservative party who feel that they have much more in common with members of the Labour  party than the Liberal Democrats and would have far less fear of a government that included Frank Field as Minister for Welfare Reform, Kate Hoey as Minister for London, Jack Straw as Lord Chancellor and dare I say it, Lord Mandelson as Leader in the Lords.

These are not quite unprecedented times and there is real precedent for a political class agreeing to govern in the national interest for a limited period and tackle fundamental problems. David Cameron clearly has won the right to lead that government and if by next week there is no agreement with the Liberals the case for a National Government should be made and perhaps the political class could prove once and for all that it is capable of sweeping aside narrow, tribal allegiances to govern in the interests of the nation we love.

Marcus is Chairman of Conservative City Future

A deal will have to be done. The Liberal Democrats are the (very) weak kingmakers. There is – somewhere – a deal that can be acceptable to Cameron and Clegg. The main ‘national interest’ issues are restoring stability to the economy, resolving our situation in Afghanistan and reforming how government resources are allocated. Voting reform and restructuring the House of Lords are important issues that need serious consideration BUT voters are not pressing for these questions to be answered today.  

Cameron should offer Clegg a free vote on holding a referendum on proportional representative within the next parliament. In exchange the Lib Dems will support the Conservatives on a vote-by-vote basis. In this pact it would not be in the Lib Dems’ interest to bring a Cameron government down, unless the spirit of the deal is reneged.  

Gordon Brown is not an appealing option. The national interest is not the same as the Liberal Democrats’ interest. When Clegg made his statement earlier this morning he was wisely continuing the lofty campaign position of wanting to support the party with the most votes and seats. In the current climate any parties that do a deal for nakedly partisan interests will be punished at the next election. If Clegg goes back on his word, he will be rightly viewed as being another old style politician. If the Lib Dems lose their ‘new politics’ image they will have nothing left. The Labour party will not do themselves any favours if they prostitute their beliefs in order to cling on to power. If Mervyn King is right about power being a poisoned chalice, having an extra few years of Government is not worth sacrificing long held principles for. 

Nick Clegg leading a Lab-Lib coalition is the wild card in the pack.  This is an unlikely outcome for so many reasons. But it has been an uncertain night. It’s now up to those who have had no sleep to make a solid agreement.

What was the most important political event of last week? Was it the volcanic ash sponsored travel chaos? Was it Cleggmania? Was it the Sky News debate? For me the event which will have most impact on Election 2010 was the release of a slew of economic data showing the recovery to be finely balanced.

Inflation rose from 3% in February to 3.4%. The Retail Price Index rose to 4.4%. The consequence of this is that most of us are becoming poorer. The British economy only grew by 0.2%, making it unlikely that there will be many inflation-matching pay rises in the near future. None of this may be as televisually exciting as exploding volcanoes or beautiful Liberals but when it comes to deciding elections I am with Bill Clinton; “It’s the economy stupid”. 

Gordon Brown has tried to claim the economic agenda as his own. His tactic has half-worked in the sense that people are unsure whether the Conservatives have the ability to make the correct economic judgements. Brown’s tactic has not worked in convincing most voters that he is our economic saviour. We know who is responsible for this mess, and it’s not just far-away foreign bankers. 

At the moment we seem to be heading towards the very un-British state of affairs of having a hung Parliament. The British public are not convinced that Labour or the Conservatives deserve a mandate. The rise in Lib Dem support is – almost certainly – not due to their policies. It is a protest against two parties of government. Nick Clegg won the first debate because he stood to the side and then channelled the anger of everyman against the political elite. 

The good news for the Conservatives is that the election is there to be won, but it’s going to take a big performance to seal the deal. This performance may happen on Thursday as the topic of the final TV debate is the economy. Whoever wins the BBC debate will have almost unstoppable momentum going into polling day. 

How should the Tories take advantage of this situation? Firstly, the tone needs to be right. No-one ever won a popularity contest by talking about an ‘age of austerity’. The electorate wants solutions that give them hope. Most people I speak to logically understand that some cuts are necessary but emotionally wish this were not the case. Cameron has to convince the undecided that he is an expert pruner. Every act, including cuts, will be done carefully and to ensure that British society emerges stronger.  

Secondly, Gordon Brown should be held to account for the mess he has created. Labour is trying to promote the myth that he is a great economic decision-maker who saved us from Credit Crunch meltdown. If the public believed this Labour would be ahead in the polls. The incompetence of his decision-making is there to be exposed.  His beliefs, such as that increasing NI tax will get money into the economy rather than take money from it, show that he is not the right person to lead a recovery. 

Thirdly, David Cameron needs to offer simple, realistic solutions that will create positive outcomes. He is part of the overwhelming majority of public opinion in stating that improving our economic situation is the Conservatives’ domestic priority. Cameron needs to invest himself in leading the economic recovery by ensuring that people know he will personally be on top of the subject. The Conservatives also need to talk about how the economic collapse hurts the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and how their proposed solutions will help these groups. 

Fourthly, the economy needs to be the main focus for the rest of the campaign. I am a great fan of the Conservative manifesto. I agree with Jonty Olliff-Cooper when he says that it makes him mad that the Conservatives are caricatured as having no substance. The Big Society and PBAge ideas are the biggest governing ideas a party has come up with since the 70s and they truly excite me. But we are political geeks. My girlfriend describes me as niche-normal, which is a lovely way of saying abnormal. Its not politicians, and assorted geeks, who pick what elections are about. It is the voters.  

When the Tories were well ahead in the polls there was a dangerous assumption that they would win the election. This is no longer the case. The British electorate are there to be won over, as long as we do it on their terms.

And on we go… Four down, 27 to go.

First Twitter casualty. I’m sure there will be more. As Dizzy rightly says, anyone who says they haven’t done something that would look horrible on the front page of the Sun is a liar.

First election conversation overheard on the bus:

So who are you voting for?… You mean you don’t know or you don’t want to tell me?

And then the phone was clearly banged down. Whoever she was talking to REALLY didn’t want to say.

The Spectator was the in-flight magazine on the Prime Minister’s campaign flight. That will, I imagine, not go down terribly well. It’s the kind of thing that could make you paranoid.

Mandate Comms (via Iain Dale) has generated some Wordles (suspect there will be plenty more of them to come too) of DC, Brown and Nick Clegg’s launch speeches. Unsurprisingly, David’s majored on change, country, and people. Brown’s was all about British, people, decisions. And Clegg’s… well his was mainly about Labour and Conservative. If you’re going to campaign as different, and you aspire to anything serious, I really do think you want to say your good points as well as using the others’ names as a pejorative.

Snog, marry, avoid has come to politics. Paul Waugh has done the number crunching, and the results are in: snog Nick Clegg, marry David Cameron, and avoid Gordon Brown. But not with any degree of enthusiasm…

And fantastic news. I love Tunnock’s caramel wafers. And teacakes. And basically anything they make. We used to get them as a huge treat at school at the end of term. You can’t normally get them down here, but I found some in my local Sainsbury’s last week which was very exciting. But nearly as exciting as that is that the boss of Tunnock’s has endorsed the Conservatives’ National Insurance plan.  Momentum is all.

Time for some actual politics though. David was on Today this morning. Evan Davis’ final question was about whether he’d managed to fulfil his promise to abandon Punch and Judy politics. I think for the first time EVER I heard a politician give a one word answer. Obviously he then expanded on it. But the key point was that he admitted failure.

Politically this is remarkable. Politicians DON’T admit to not achieving – they generally can’t. And of course this is only a tiny thing, not a policy that affects peoples’ lives, and not very important in the wider scheme of things. But – politicians getting into the habit of admitting the truth could go a long way to redeeming some of that VERY broken trust.