Exactly. I use the term “ideological” in a negative sense because I disagree with the Conservative ideology. I use the term to suggest that certain political decisions are made because they “want to” not because they “need to” or that it is even prudent or wise to do so…

Of course a Conservative would be quite within their rights to define, for example, my desire to build more social housing as ideological and they may well genuinely believe they are using the word in a negative sense also.

“If we moved the beds closer so that they were about this far apart, we could triple the number of beds per ward.”

At Birmingham in May 2010, I demonstrated my faith in the competence of our leadership by endorsing their decision to form a coalition with the Tories. That’s because I believed that they had sufficient skill and nous to obtain the best deal they could, and to deliver in government.

You appear to believe that I was wrong to do so. I”m not sure that you have even tried to explain how I might have known that I was wrong to do so then, but let’s leave that. You are suggesting that the performance of our leadership has been, to put it mildly, poor since then. We disagree to some extent, less than you accuse – and that’s alright. But I don’t have to agree with you.

And if we get slaughtered in 2015, and I think that there will be a generally accepted sense of what would represent that if it does happen, I’d retreat to row Z of the Party. I’d still be a member – I’ve been one since 1984 – but it might be more appropriate for others to hold the reins. My life does not revolve around being something in the Party, especially these days.

It’s interesting, because I’ve never said that 2015 will be a triumph for liberal democracy, as you suggest. I actually don’t know what the outcome will be, although I’m amongst the majority of Liberal Democrat Voice readers who think that the Coalition will hurt us then, hardly a rose-tinted view.

I’ve ‘enjoyed’ your gentle, and fairly courteous, misrepresentation of my position, one of trust, honest doubt and an element of respect for the difficulty of the position we as a Party find ourselves in. But as we’re now only really talking to each other, perhaps we ought to move on?

Sorry, couldn’t resist that.

There is a legitimate negative use of “ideological” when a measure is advocated with practical arguments that don’t add up and the real, hidden motivation is ideological: for example, presenting a decision to outsource as a money-saving and efficiency move when it may well provide worse value for money but it reduces the state. It can also imply that when the measure is seen as good in itself, the details are skimped – for example, in Thatcher government privatisations when the aim was simply to cut the state and increase the private sector, so the government cut bad deals that a competent businessperson, told to get the best deal for the public interest, wouldn’t have cut. In such cases the ideology isn’t necessarily bad, but the practical arguments may be dishonest or the implementation may be slipshod.

The idea that people doing things for ideological reasons is itself bad is of course rubbish. “Good government is no substitute for self-government” (Gladstone) – an ideological statement if ever there was one, hooray!

MarkG: your words are music to my ears. I fight that fight too. To refute a proposition in science, mathematics or philosophy is to prove it false. To refute a chess move is to find such a devastating response that no self-respecting player will ever make that move again.

While I think there is a defence of “playing politics” – that it refers to narrow party or personal advantage sought, for example, by attacking something you know is on the way out anyway or rubbishing someone who can’t reply, we should firmly resist the demonisation of the word politics. I heard recently from an MP who’d criticised care at a hospital and been attacked by doctors for it, “This isn’t about politics, it’s about patient care.” Since when has patient care been outside politics? I’ve blogged on both these last two issues on http://sibathehat.blogspot.com.

NHS excess capacity might be the stuff that simply has to be there to handle emergencies (or private failures) but may not always be used. Private suppliers can manage the amount of business they do to maximise use of resources and do not have to provide this backstop.

And the larger the proportion of private suppliers in the market the more likely that there will be pressure applied to change the rules of the game in their favour.

OK – let me spell it out clearly this time. It’s “lazy” because its innacurate. The Orange Book is not a “right wing” book. Several of the articles in it were written by people who are on the left of the party. Surely I’ve spelt it out clearly enough, now?

The. Orange. Book. Is. Not. Right. Wing. People. Who. Agree. With. It. Are. Not. Right. Wing.

There is the distinct whiff of sour grapes around.

I think the quotes I’ve given are ultimately from http://www.centreforum.org/index.php/14-news/releases/268-enoughs-enoughs-time-to-limit-pension-lump-sum-tax-relief which is a good read.

(thanks to my wife Ruth for this one)

“Orange Booker” is lazy short hand for those viewed by the “left” as “sell-out”, “right-wing”, and who’ve “stolen our party”.

Well, it’s shorthand, that’s true. We all need shorthand. I don’t quite know what might differentiate “lazy” from “appropriate” shorthand. What shorthand would you like to be used? (Hint, whilst it doesn’t have to sound abusive – I don’t think “Orange Booker” does – it mustn’t sound approving, or of course it won’t be suitable for use by those who disagree with that standpoint.)

Uhh. No. That’s why we have a representative democracy. Within reasonable limits, politicians take choices, sometimes unpopular ones at the time, and then the electorate get to give their verdict at the next election. Often their initial verdict may change if a policy proves unexpectedly successful or unsuccessful, and sometimes they will stick with their original opinion.

If the government continues with the changes and they prove a disaster. They get voted out at the next election. If not, they won’t. That’s democracy in action. Otherwise we’d just have direct rule by the mob.

Nick: I think there’s one over there who needs their spleen removed!!

Lansley (thinking to himself): When I said we need to prove the need to put doctors in charge of the NHS rather than politicians this is NOT what I had in mind!!