This fuss over the ‘landmine’ of the Equality Act is completely ridiculous. The Act doesn’t require anything beyond a consideration of how government actions impact on people – which frankly is something I would expect any halfway competent politician to do anyway.

I think there is an argument to be had about the way that governments expect to pull a lever and have a wide-spread social effect – but it’s not specifically that Act.

More widely, I think the furore shows us something instructive about how Labour and the Conservatives approach society.

Labour is all about phrasing , not delivering , and just showing that they ‘care’; and requiring; and splitting people up into discrete little groups so politicians can try to target what are effectively bribes at them.

Conservatives are about making sure that overall, people have the opportunity to make of themselves whatever they want. It’s not about putting people in boxes – it’s about making sure that they all have equal opportunity to break out of whatever box they have been abandoned to by Labour.

The Emergency Budget was – let’s face it – tough on everyone. It had to be. The problem is not that our taxes were too low, but that our spending was too high.

There are a few things that strike me as obvious but which clearly aren’t for some – firstly, that to make work pay you have to make sure that living on benefits becomes less attractive: that doesn’t mean punitive, but it does mean, for example, that lavish housing benefits far beyond what people in good jobs can afford have to go. Secondly, that of course when you cut spending, those who use public services the most would be disproportionately affected if you make no other changes to reform those public services in order that they deliver better (this is the great argument that Betapolitics has been advancing in recent weeks). And finally, that when bodies like the IFS have considered fairness and progressiveness, they only look at what the state pays out. Why don’t they look at the opportunities for growth, for better jobs, for more social mobility as well?

It isn’t all about the state. It is all about society.

There are discussions all over the place about the threats to the Coalition itself. All anyone I speak to wants to discuss is how long it will last. Labour seem to think if they are nasty enough to the Lib Dems, they will eventually see ’sense’ and return to the fold.

So what are the ingredients for the Coalition to last? I’ve already discussed the structural and emotional elements, but there’s something else – just enough dissent from the memberships of both parties, and just enough uncomfortable concessions on policy from the leaderships of both parties, and just enough disagreement between everyone to ensure that voters still see the two parties as separate entities.

Hence, for example, Nick Clegg’s declaration that the war in Iraq was illegal. Hence the public discussions over a graduate tax. Hence as well Simon Hughes’ comments that David Cameron was only floating the idea of changes to the way council tenancies work.

This is all to the good. Firstly it is important that discussions be had on the big issues of the day – I don’t want a bunch of sheep who don’t think about anything, I want politicians who are prepared to be radical and argue their case. And secondly, it’s important that difficult decisions are seen to be taken in the public interest.

So like Goldilocks and her porridge, there needs to be not too much but also not too little friction so that voters understand that the Coalition is there to change things, there to argue the case for their own views, but – crucially – willing and able to come to the right decisions in the national interest.

It won’t always be comfortable – even Goldilocks burned her mouth – but in the end, we need to acknowledge that not everyone is right all the time, and it’s better to come to a conclusion after frank discussions than to steamroller through with no thought for the consequences.

The Saturday Times magazine (link here but it’s behind the paywall) had a great article about Apple, and how all companies basically want to be the Apple of their industry. Farhad Manjoo also came up with a list of the attributes that make Apple Apple.

He notes that discipline, focus and long-term thinking are key, along with a willingness to flout conventional wisdom. He adds a fanatical attention to detail, unrelenting focus on branding (and all that that implies, not just the look of the thing), and the ability to absorb the lessons and move on from mistakes.

That all sounds pretty good to me – in fact, I’d say that all of those things are essential for political parties. Perhaps his most interesting point, though, is his final one – that Apple’s essential skill is in remixing: taking the best of what’s out there, bringing it together, tweaking it and releasing it to fulfil demands people didn’t know they had.

I know that there are going to be people who say that the Coalition has no principles, that David Cameron has sold his soul for the sake of being Prime Minister, that it will all end in disaster.  But they are wrong and I can’t be bothered arguing again about this one. What I do want to say is this: for years, I was never really a fan of Apple products which seemed a little bit style over substance and poseur for me. But then I got an ipod nano. And then an ipod Touch. And now I am kind of thinking I want an ipad.

What happened? Well… I tried them out. They worked. They did what they were supposed to. When the battery gave up after 13 months (just out of warranty – as Apple batteries do), I took it to the ipod store and they replaced it for free. I use it for all sorts of things I never knew I wanted to do.

That is what the Coalition will stand or fall on. The internal stuff – the discipline, the focus, the attention to detail and so on – will wax and wane over time, of course. But the thing that will mean the Coalition is a success is the experience that users have, just as the thing that makes Apple a success is not the white earphones or the drag and do (though those features all help). The overall delivery and additional experiences that you never thought were possible – that is what keeps Apple desirable, and that will be what does or doesn’t get the Coalition re-elected.

Two weeks ago, I attended the launch of the Big Society Network in Downing Street. It is clear that this is an initiative that is very close to the heart of the Prime Minister.

The challenge is stark - many British citizens faced with huge economic, environmental and personal challenges in their daily lives still feel isolated, disempowered, unequal and disinterested in civic life. Social isolation and community fragmentation is increasing and average life expectancy can vary between wealthy and poor areas by over 14 years and all this against record levels of public spending and the growth under New Labour – not so much of the ‘Big State’ but the “Balloon out of all control state”. It is therefore increasingly obvious that the ‘Big State’ on its own is not the answer.

There are those who glibly dismiss the ‘Big Society’ as a marketing ploy and others who see at its heart something more sinister – a ‘leave everyone to their own devices’ solution to society’s ills. These people are missing the point.

In this modern era, for all the growth in the tentacles of the state - all empirical evidence points to a soaring disconnect at the heart of society. The Big Society Network’s vision is for a transformation of the recent political and economic crises into an opportunity – helping catalyse mass engagement and participation. It is simply the furtherance of compassionate ends by progressive means – creating the environment where individuals are empowered, neighbourhood groups are strengthened and community participation is increased.

That the goals are compassionate is clear – the whole purpose of the ‘Big Society’ vision is the betterment of the lives of British citizens -  it will be the marginalised, the ignored and the most vulnerable who will benefit the most from this movement. The means are progressive – they reflect a political attitude favouring change and reform. We need to challenge the idea that public services can only be delivered by the public sector – in some cases the state can act as a supporter, provider of funds and a facilitator – look no further than the hospice movement for clear evidence of ‘progressive compassion’ at work.

A new politics of ‘progressive compassion’ now lies at the heart of government thinking – the challenge now is to make it work.

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Or something. At Policy Exchange this evening, Danny Alexander looked somewhat non-plussed by Oliver Letwin’s descriptions of marriage versus friendship and their relationship to the one-party versus coalition government. But overall it was a fascinating insight into the nuts and bolts of how it’s working.

There are some key structural elements which mean that the coalition works. The way that nearly every department has a Lib Dem minister alongside Conservatives. The way that announcements are made as coming from the coalition, and ministers do not dwell on whether ideas are Conservative or Lib Dem. The way the cabinet committees are built, in a pyramid, with the ultimate arbiter at the top of the Coalition Committee (do have a look at the Cabinet Office’s excellent list of committees).  And finally, the coalition agreement itself is a useful blueprint to show both ministers and civil servants what is expected of them.

But more than that, the things that will keep this coalition performing are more emotional. The trust that built up during the negotiations, when there were basically no leaks (and what leaks there were turned out to be wrong – remember when Chris Huhne was supposed to be Education Secretary?).  The personal friendships which are being built up. The huge amount of common ground in fundamental beliefs which the parties found.

Perhaps the two most important things are external, however. The first is the national interest – it’s unfashionable to say so, but most politicians do have this first and foremost. The ultimate arbiter of whether this coalition government is a success will be the electorate in 5 years’ time. That is a great way to concentrate the mind. The second is the very fact of having to form the coalition – that means that everything has to be argued through by two parties which may have different ideas in how to achieve similar ends. That means that policies are better proofed against criticism.

I talked to a few people today about various political things, and we came to some fairly similar conclusions. That the government is moving faster and more radically than most thought possible. Yes there are some slip ups, but overall, the policies are getting put into motion swiftly and without too much fuss and that therefore they are delivering what they said they would. That while many feel that the Conservatives gave away too much to the Lib Dems during the negotiations, it was in fact the most sustainable way to achieve the right outcome. And that politics has irrevocably changed in our country.

Whether or not you think that is a good thing in the long-term, it is, I think, both necessary and desirable for our current situation.

On the way home yesterday, I went down a road called ‘New Change’ which is exactly what I voted for.