What’s the evidence that “People are pig sick of the nanny state”? CCTV is overwhelmingly popular, ID cards (which are a truly terrible idea) are supported by about half, Labour has gone up in the polls since it swung to greater levels of economic intervention and started nationalising stuff, welfare reform policies which involve far greater intrusion into people’s lives get 90% support – I struggle to think of an example of a policy which involves greater state intervention, has been introduced in, say, the last five years, and is massively unpopular.

This puts me in mind of a parallel from my working life as a software architect. One of the great unconquerable challenge of software design is the ‘requirements’ problem, and the tendency of projects to expand far beyond their brief (this is known as ‘feature creep’ in the parlance of the industry). Whole forests have been felled in the quest to record every conceivable means of tackling the problem, and conferences around the world take place on a regular basis, where well-meaning and intelligent people lament the incredible difficulty of finding a way of doing something incredibly simple: figuring out what a piece of software should do, how it should do it, and then making it do exactly that.

The current vogue is for ‘agile’ development, which stresses a need to be reactive to customer demands, even as these change. But, when implemented naively, this attempt to constantly canvass the views of the end-users of the system results in a huge list of demands. The art of project management is in working out what’s achievable, and persuading all involved that this is what should be done.

The biggest problem is that people will, without fail, almost always answer ‘yes’ to whatever they’re being offered. Do you want to be able to send email from your word processor? Why yes, that would be great! What tends not to be pointed out at this point is that this commitment now means that a) that time cannot be spent on, say, fixing what’s wrong with the current software or b) developing alternative features.

The point of my long-winded aside is to say that the fact that, when asked, people seem to think that CCTV is a good idea does not in any way whatsoever imply that, if fully appraised of the trade-offs involved, they would actually favour it in reality. The question is not “ID cards or no ID cards” but “ID cards or whatever else the time, money and effort required to implement ID cards could be spent on”. The liberal critique of schemes like ID cards involves pointing out that they don’t really offer us much in the way of security, but cost a hell of a lot of money and inconvenience. That money could be better spent elsewhere and the inconvenience would be better if it could be focussed on people who’ve actually done something to deserve it.

Stay tuned for part 2 of my misguided series of analogies between software development and politics in which I explain modern government by reference to the CADT model!

Indeed you do keep going on, about the same old irrelevancies every time someone calls you on your inconsistencies.

“I do not , in any case ,believe think tax cuts are a realistic option without unacceptable suffering the Liberals are only worried about being under attack in Conservative seats having been to the left of New Labour for so long .”

And yet just a few comments ago you were applauding the supposed tax cutting policies (non-existent) of the Tories?

“On tax a 50% top rate , will not collect any money ( We have recently gone through the IFS figures ). The whole thing is a fiction really . There is also the local income tax which means endless sneaky raises and above all as this “Policy” will never happen .”

Have you actually read a Lib Dem policy paper produced since 2005?

As for nurturing Matty , I enjoyed your PC horror but you take me out of context .The context was of a string of conceited pompous little me-isms ending with the claim to have more important things to do when he had made a prat of himself. .I suspect he is not actually doing anything much and is actually sitting around at home , that’s all ; (probably knitting .. in a dress….drinking babysham …like a big girl )

By stand up and be counted I mean things like being prepared to take on the Unions and lose ..and then win. Defeat Nationalisation despite a virtual civil war. Where were you? Oh yes mostly in the Labour Party of Michael Foot. Your suggestion that Liberals will fight it out with the NUT is frankly comical . They are the Liberal Party

On tax a 50% top rate , will not collect any money ( We have recently gone through the IFS figures ). The whole thing is a fiction really . There is also the local income tax which means endless sneaky raises and above all as this “Policy” will never happen .Its chief use to be presented as whatever you want it to be. This is not how it works .Most politics take place after elections and Liberals show no stomach for cuts that I have noticed .

I do not , in any case ,believe think tax cuts are a realistic option without unacceptable suffering the Liberals are only worried about being under attack in Conservative seats having been to the left of New Labour for so long . They have to overcompensate for the abiding impression that they are meddlers and tax raisers by instinct . Its not policy, its advertising.

If you are saying Conservative s have no ideological loathing of the state you are right . Yes we housed the country after the war and yes we want to solve the third world conditions of Labour’s Heartlands I `m not ashamed of that . We must be one nation agai and it sickens me that the chance has been wasted . The end is always a free and civil society , not a state utopia

I do not believe if they thought they might be in power they would say any such thing As for subsidising some life styles that is arse about face . Marriage , if that’s what you mean is currently subject to considerable tax disincentive . The attempt to keep the young out of prison started under Margaret Thatcher .I am, not sure it works but if people who carry knives get slung in a hole I cannot say I would lose any sleep. I daresay you think its all societies fault

For all that I do agree with you that Clegg has stuck to his guns is shifting right and has done so despite the poor timing of it . I am not sure it can be believed but if it can then you are far close to me that Red Hundal . Few of your fellow Liberals seem to agree

Looks like I have made two little friends. Great

Of course. As it would be anyone.

“The Conservative Party is not foaming about gays women immigrants and so on ”

Not at all bollocks. I disagree on the rank and file, who foam plenty, but the Tory blogosphere usually doesn’t, no. And yet, above: “which if it was real job would not be mixed with child care would it .” Either this is knowingly and deliberately obtuse or it’s the clumsiest and most melodramatic slipping of the mask of “liberal conservatism” I have ever had the privilege of witnessing.

“economic Liberalism we remain the only Party to stand up and be counted”

Bollocks. I refer you to pretty much every announcement made over the last three months. Your guys don’t understand the first half of “economic liberalism”, never mind the second. There are plenty of decent economists in the party, I’m sure, and I think the reason they don’t set policy is because you all know they’d terrify the living shit out of the electorate (I’m thinking mainly of El Redwood here). So “standing up and being counted” (whatever you think that means) is just not an option for you economically at the moment.

“We are the only really low tax Party (by choice )”

Bollocks. You DO NOT have a policy to lower the basic rate of tax AND raise the threshold at which basic rate becomes higher rate. The Lib Dems do. Too easy. Next.

“the only one which does not have to boss every one around all the time”

Bollocks. You want to give tax incentives to one particular model of living and give everyone counselling so that they’re more likely to live up to it, you want to throw everyone who carries a knife into prison and you want to make it easier for the police to spy on people and follow people. You can’t help being bossy – it’s what you do. The only area where you have a hope in hell of approaching liberalism is your education policy – and the Tories and Lib Dems both essentially took that from the same PolEx paper. David Davis’ civil libs stand was pretty honourable, and for the moment the rest of you are making the right noises. I would be horribly, horribly unastonished if Cameron ditched the commitment to scrap ID cards once he’d got into office. I long to be pleasantly surprised.

For the contrary argument. I refer you to Clegg’s speech on Monday, and perhaps to the Times editorial which summarises aspects of it quite well:

“Power, said Mr Clegg, should rest with neither corporations nor the State, but at the lowest appropriate level. Large monopolies should be broken up. Individuals may require help before they can live independent lives, but there should be no assumption that the State runs large tracts of the public realm. At a time when ministers have argued that their intervention in the economy warrants greater state protection, this is a salutary prospectus.

Mr Clegg has also, in his year in charge, subtly shifted his party’s policy position. They are no longer tax raisers and they want to cut tax for the least well-off. The default Liberal Democrat position is now to call for reductions, rather than increases, in spending. The timing of these changes was inauspicious but, if Mr Clegg can hold the line through the recession, he will emerge in the right place. Under David Laws, the party has abandoned its echo of the teaching unions and is committed to schools reform and a premium budget for poorer children. The Liberal Democrats have advocated individual patient budgets in mental health and signalled that the principle should be extended further through the NHS.”

This isn’t the whole story, of course, and to some extent the Times is picking out what it likes hearing. The new Green Road plan is avowedly Keynsian in its intent. I’m not sure I’m happy with the messaging, myself, but I’m certainly happy that it’s a better way of spending 12.5bn than on a small and temporary VAT cut. I think it quite nicely underlines the principle that what government spending there is has to be (1) investment-based, (2) meaningful at a local level and (3) a bloody good enough set of ideas to justify taking the cash off the taxpayer.

Please would you address the questions I asked, it will probably go a long way to deciding whether I do join a party, as currently I still have an open mind.

Perhaps this is not the place to find Liberal Liberals and should be renamed New Labour and its fawning Labour-lite acolytes .If it is truly to include Liberals then as many Conservatives should be here as anyone else .Or Nick Clegg is lying about his ability to remain equidistant and the Liberals Party is , as many suspect , a covert ally of Brown , Red Hundal and their terrifying authoritarian future

@Newmania, simple question: why would I as a Liberal Democrat be interested in “allying” with a party that fundamentally isn’t liberal? And I’m not sure Clegg said both were “equally likely”. As I recall his take has always been that both are “equally unlikely” but it’s a matter of emphasis I suppose.

As someone who is interested in finding out more about each of the parties it is only fair to give you the opportunity to explain why I might consider joining the Conservative party as a viable option.

What would I get from membership of the party, what would be expected of a member and what role would be open to play in the party processes? How does the average member contribute to the policy-making? How wide-scale is internal consultation on voting matters at parliamentary and local council levels?

What political activities do conservatives engage in, other than of course haranguing non-conservatives?

Well there’s a surprise , amazingly you are unable to find any single issue about which you agree with me more than red Hundal , my flabber is ghasted ,and if you think that pathetic cop out about being to fuckwit dumb to understand the question allow me to disabuse you . You are not that stupid, no-one is .
I did not say spelling and grammar are outdated. I described the pitiful snobbery you were invoking and along the way demonstrated I know more about it than you ever will which , it so happens , I do. You seem incapable to following that as well and in this case plausibly .
Still there is plenty of time in the future for you to tell Sunny how far short he falls of the good sense of the Conservatries Party , I look forward to it. Now you run away to your vital titting about which if it was real job would not be mixed with child care would it .

You would have to spell out what you believe in, if you want it to be commented on. Liberalism is the opposite of conservatism, and socialism is (all too often at least) another kind of conservatism perpetrated on behalf of a different vanguard/elite. Fit yourself into that spectrum.

Clegg is saying nothing very different to what the rest of the Lib Dem party is saying. This strategy to paint Clegg as a Tory and the rest of the party as socialists, is just Tory wishful thinking and spin.

This site is, of course, largely misappropriating the word liberal, and I have criticised it for this in the past. The left believe in expansion by co-opting identity groups, and, for some, this is probably their attempt to co-opt “liberals”. A bit like your line on Clegg, perhaps.

Which is fine. All’s fair in love and war etc. It’s an assault on the English language, but I think our American friends have done more harm to the meaning of the word liberal than anyone else. Socialism, left-wing, right-wing are also on the verge of losing all meaning. Conservatism too, obviously, if there are any liberals in the conservative party, has lost all meaning.

Replacing the tax credit system with something that isn’t horribly bureacraticm and increasing the tax threshold to take those currently claiming it out of income tax completely, would be much more effective. Working Families Tax credits require you to actually be working. You work, pay tax, then go to the same department to claim it back, thus paying two groups of public servants to administer the system.

Why not simply ensure basic benefits are good and up the tax threshold to a sane level? Many liberals favour a citizens basic income (or a negative income tax) as a medium to long term objective, that’d be much more equitable than the current bureacratic mess.

I don’t have objections to most political views. I have disagreements with them. I’m a Liberal, that means I like reasoned debate.

As to agreeing with your views? I have no clue, your incoherence and lack of clarity makes it impossible to understand what they are. If you could manage coherence on occasions I might be able to come to a decision.

I do agree with you that rules of spelling and grammar are pointless and outdated. But understanding why they’re there is useful. Clarity is king, if you’re going to write multiple paragraphs worth of text, what’s the point if no one can understand what the hell you’re trying to say?

I am hard pushed to think of Liberal who could slip easily into the Conservative Party other than Nick Clegg

That’s obviously because you can’t think. Ask George Osborne who he’s tried to headhunt (I can name two of our shadow cabinet, but won’t as it was in confidence). Ask Alan Duncan who he’s said he thinks he can work with.

But for as long as you and yours give prominence and exposure time to the likes of Dorries and the rest of the Cornerstone headbangers, none of the Lib Dem MPs would even consider jumping ship. If Clegg was the unprincipled careerist some seem to think he is, he wouldn’t be in the third party in the first place, neither would Huhne, Laws, Cable, Goldsworthy, Featherstone…

In fact, pretty much all of our shadow cabinet is more talented than most of yours, with the exception of Hague, Willets and Grieve, who in your cabinet has half a braincell that functions? It certainly isn’t Osborne.

Now, I have other things to do with my time, I’m not going to bother repeating myself again for the hard of thinking.

doing so would absolutely hammer millions of people living on low incomes and increase the number of people who are worse off in work than receiving out of work benefits, Reform and improve tax credit system, yes, but scrap it, not so good.

Probably a mutual socialist or whatever you think you are this week ( anachronistic I think , ask Nicholas Soames ). I agree the Conservative Party has huge dollops of Economic Liberalism (unlike the Liberal Party when it matters ) It is quite Liberal in many smaller social ways nowadays as well . I am also aware that Liberal on occasion cooperate with Conservatives at local level but then that can have little to do with politics
Perhaps its my sensitive nature , but I am sure I detect a rancour between Conservatives and Liberals that I do not between Labour and the Liberal Party . It is certainly noticeable in my local paper and was in Islington. A Shirley Williams for example could be in either easily. I am hard pushed to think of Liberal who could slip easily into the Conservative Party other than Nick Clegg and he is (perhaps ) lying .

Still lets be positive .Are you are you saying that you actually agree with me in many ways ? Are you saying that despite appearances you actually have no insuperable objection to my political views ? Well I am gratified would you like to tell me what it is that I have a lot more right than , oooooo lets say a Sunny (red ) Hundal
I `m settled back, I have a large drink and I await your compliments after all I am a very moderate Conservative and he is a left wing New Labour acolyte so its more than a fair test

Well ?

That’s illiberal in two profound ways: one, it treats people as possessions of the state to be supported/punished as the state sees fit and two, in practice it just means the state has to do more and do more complicated things to produced the desired end. Both totally inimical to Lib Dems – two part-answers to the benefit dependency problem are the lowering of tax on the low-paid to give them more capacity to fend for themselves, and cutting off tax credits to the higher-paid (although to be honest I’d rather we just scrapped the monstrous tax credit system, so if, as I recall, the Tories do not support them, then that’s one small point in their favour). But there’s a lot more work to do here to find out how we got into this mess and what is a fair and liberal way of resolving it so that no-one is harmed – what we can say is that neither Labour nor the Tories are remotely interested in doing this work.

I wouldn’t call them more illiberal in the sense of individual liberties and rights, Labour clearly take the award for that. However in New Labour’s recent willingness to also abandon some of their more root causes (the recent welfare bill, also other tax measures tht disproportionately affect the poor) the Tories have also backed them most of the way (I think the second hand VED was the exception with Lib Dem’s supporting it for green credential points). I find this to be a different type of illiberalism which is just as important to keep track of.

Let’s just go with Iraq war for starters, given (as Aaron has pointed out) Cameron’s recent slip sliding and spin away from that fact.

You said ‘readily’, so – with respect – I don’t believe one example is enough. I say this because a few people here seem of similar mind, in that the Tories are just as illiberal as Labour. If the Tories are as illiberal, it certainly seems of a different kind: their ‘illiberalism’ is less blanket, more targetted. I’m not sure Labour Ministers even understand the notions of necessity and proportionality – they seem totalitarian, and I don’t think the same can be claimed of the Tories, who may call for ‘stronger’ measures, but seem very careful about how legislation is worded, so that it isn’t as broad, as catch-all, as Labour’s.

On things that usually spring to mind about illiberal measures proposed by Labour, such as ID cards and detention without charge, the Conservatives and LibDems have acted well together. LibDems seem less equivocal, they seem more principled, more willing to stand against them in the first instance, rather than act accommodating at the beginning but later oppose. I can think of only one disappointment here with the LibDems – they seemed more supportive of RIPA than the Tories. But that is the only minor mark I can think of on an otherwise good record.

Where I live, the Conservative administration is kept in office by Labour votes in order to keep the Lib Dems out.

You are, once again, talking factually inaccurate bollocks. Well done.

Oh, and I’ve already told you that the modern Conservative and Unionist party already contains a fair few liberals, what do you think Churchill was for a start?

Or who will prove me wrong , who would ally with the Conservative Party?

That was what I was thinking of and I think that’s fair enough. The Liberals Party also wanted to get rid of our nuclear weapons although Clegg held out. I think there is a place for Liberalism abroad although I supported our troops and the US myself. In general I admit Liberals can be good at ‘abroad ‘ good at opposing authoritarian governments , good at spotting injustice good where there is a battle we had a hundred years ago here , to be fought . The truth is that in the UK , as practically every social objective the Liberals wanted has been achieved it is noticeably more comfortable far far away. This allows it to avoid the fact that here it is a statist Party that would like to be Libertarian and is sadly confused

Which is why I think Clegg used the terms he did—he was talking about what people generally understand Socialism to be, and responded by his view of liberalism as an alternative. And given he’s constantly talking about ‘progressiveness’, then by default he’s taking a left wing position, isn’t it? Progressive as opposed to conservative?

My sense is that Nick Clegg does, on the whole, favour both a public repositioning of the LibDems somewhat right (though, to some extent, the positioning difficulty arises from a not massively coherent or sustainable pitch for some ‘left of Labour’ space in the 2005 election – though you did get the prize of Brian Sedgemore!). In substantive policy terms, I think it is fair to judge his instincts to be somewhat to the right of those of Ashdown or Kennedy.

Except that I really don’t think that’s the case. He’s making a cleared pitch for Liberalism. Moving the party “down” the scale, not left or right. Trying to clearly sell the distinction between Tory vacillating/ Labour corporatism and genuine liberalism.

relatively weak on the importance of structural and class-based disadvantage.

I’m not sure that’s true though. Maybe in that speech, but I’m sure you’ll agree that one speech, for a specific audience, cannot convey the whole man. His strong support for policies such as the pupil premium, where schools get extra for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, his strong support for redistribution and a decent safety net, are all indicative to me that he does take structural issues seriously.

It seem to me that comparing now to when Tawney was writing, the class-based barriers in society have largely gone. He would be disappointed that there is still such inequality, and perhaps surprised, too.

It is a characteristic mistake of the left to shoehorn all problems into a class analysis. And it is statistical fallacy to define a kind of “class” by educational achievement or skill etc, and then notice a correlation between class and achievement. And if it is not class, it is some other kind of identity group that is co-opted and represented. The terms left-wing and right-wing, it seems to me are primarily about which identity groups you seek to represent and which you oppose. (And it is not always the left representing the less well off.) This is not ideology, but mere tribalism.

I consider it offensive to be lumped into an identity group and expected to have political beliefs corresponding to the stereotype of that group. Amartya Sen is good on this point.

…

Taken literally and absolutely, “equality of opportunity” would demand that parents do nothing for their children, unless every single other parent is willing and capable of doing the same. This is absurd, parents should be praised not condemned for helping their children, and the system should simply do its part in maximising opportunity for everyone (often by getting out of the way).

Of course the bright kid from the poor background should be given every chance, but this is not a service to the rest of her class – raising the average achievement of people with poor backgrounds – because that is an arbitrary lumping together of diverse people.