The leaders of principal opposition parties should talk to senior civil servants in the run-up to a general election: it makes for good government. That’s why I wrote to the prime minister last week seeking immediate meetings between members of the shadow cabinet and the permanent secretaries of relevant government departments. I also wrote directly to Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, outlining our plans in key areas like health, education and crime.

Normally this process of engagement between opposition and civil servants happens towards the end of a parliament rather than just two years in. But these are extraordinary times. Instead of focusing on running the country, Gordon Brown has paralysed government by dithering over calling an election. Today we learn that the prime minister – having marched his cabinet to the top of the hill – has now lost his nerve and is marching them back down again.

But what will now be remembered is farcical weeks of secret briefings, hurried policy announcements and, most shamefully of all, the exploitation of British troops in Iraq for party political ends. They have all undermined the prime minister’s claim to represent a change from the years of Blairite spin.

Indeed, it’s becoming clear that he is actually worse than Blair: worse because he is prepared to abuse our armed forces for political ends and because he is being so cavalier with our democracy itself. The British people have a right to ask: why? Why has Gordon Brown broken his promise to make important government announcements to parliament rather than to the media? Why has he been encouraging election speculation?

There is a good reason for Gordon Brown to hold an early election, and that is to seek the democratic mandate that he lacks. At the last election Tony Blair said he would serve a full term.

In fact (not least because of Mr Brown’s plotting and scheming), he served for just two years. That’s why I have called upon Mr Brown to hold a general election, from the moment he moved to No 10.

But the prime minister insists that he needs no new mandate. So what then was his rationale? There can be only one: political opportunism. And here too is the explanation for his dithering. If Mr Brown was deciding whether to call an election on the basis of a sincere evaluation of the national interest, he would not have spent the past few days poring over opinion polls. You don’t need a focus group to tell you what the country needs.

Unless, of course, you’re Gordon Brown. Because the real truth to have emerged from this year’s party conferences is the contrast between an exhausted Labour government with no new ideas for Britain’s future and a revitalised Conservative party with a clear and intellectually coherent plan for real change.

While the Labour conference offered little more than a rag-bag of rehashed promises with no discernible theme other than a rerun of the past 10 years of gimmicks, the Conservative conference put forward a serious argument about Britain’s future, an argument supported by radical policies for long-term change.

We live in a new world where the old politics of an ever growing state has failed. Any convincing account of the priorities for a successful modern government must show an understanding of, and an intelligent response to, three key characteristics of this new world.

First, government must liberate opportunity in what is a new world of freedom. People today have more power and control over their lives – except when it comes to government and public services. So politics has to catch up, and our modern Conservative opportunity agenda is designed to make it happen. Our plans to encourage aspiration by abolishing stamp duty for most first-time buyers and inheritance tax for all but millionaires certainly caught the headlines.

But perhaps even more significant for the long-term future of our country are the plans we announced to break the state monopoly on schools. New providers will offer real choice to parents, unleashing educational innovation and transforming standards so every child has the opportunity to rise.

Second, we must recognise that the counterpart of this freedom is a greater sense of unease. Government must encourage responsibility so we strengthen the ties that bind society. Our plans to support families by abolishing the “couple penalty” in the benefits system are a good example: strengthening society, not the state.

A robust response from the state is vital, however, in responding to the third characteristic of this new world: insecurity. Today we face threats from crime to terrorism; from nuclear proliferation to climate change. We are the only party putting forward policies that match the scale of the challenge, whether through establishing a proper border police or introducing “feed-in tariffs” to unlock the potential of green energy – helping not only to cut our carbon emissions but also our dependence on unstable regimes.

This is a balanced, progressive agenda. It presents a stark contrast with a prime minister who, instead of thinking about the future of our country, is obsessing about his own political future.

For Mr Brown it is always politics before government. Such a partisan approach is not a strength but a weakness. It is why I’m confident that at the next election, whenever it comes, the British people will conclude that it is indeed time for change – real change that only a Conservative government can bring.

Times Recommends

• And lo, he ventured forth . . .
• Lying to your children isn't a crime
• A single way to improve IVF treatment