I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to when you talk about sorting out the messes created by successive Conservative and Labour governments (there are plenty to choose from).

But if you mean that it is all very well arguing for tax cuts but first we have to repair the ropey public finances, then I absolutely agree.

I would add one caveat, though: Certain measures intended to reduce the deficit might tip the economy over the edge into recession and thus increase the deficit; while well-designed tax cuts for those on low and middle incomes (who tend to spend more of their incomes than the wealthy) might help to stave off a deep recession and thereby prevent a collapse of the public finances.

Given the current situation, a responsible government would aim to progressively restore balance in the public finances as the economy pulls out of recession (Ken Clarke went some way towards doing this in 1993-97 after the fiscal disasters of 1989-92), and thereafter to lock in the gains through proper budget discipline.

This would bring about a fiscal dividend in the form of lower debt service costs, which could then be returned to taxpayers or (depending on priorities and the requirements at the time) recycled into more productive public spending.

For the sake of argument let’s accept your point that we’re unlikely to form a government any time soon. That does NOT absolve us from the need to cost policies properly and generally behave like a responsible political party rather than some noisy pressure group.

The real self-indulgence is not having policy debates but your belief that we can promise everything under the sun without deigning to explain how we intend to achieve or pay for it.

You say people vote for us based on our principles, not because they have studied our policies, and I agree there’s probably some truth in that.

But if we abandon the attempt to forge a connection between the two then the only principle they will be voting for is motherhood and apple pie.

Of course, that’s precisely what our opponents say about us anyway, isn’t it? Which is rather where we came in…

Earth Calling Lib Dems, Earth Calling Lib Dems… please initiate reality check, over.

FFS people, it doesn’t matter how good, bad or indifferent our specific policies are. It doesn’t matter whether our fantasy budgets add up. It doesn’t matter where we would set the income tax thresholds or how we would improve efficiency in the NHS or how we would restructure investment in research into renewable energy or how we’d reform road tax or any other one of the million policies a party needs to have if it wants to get into government, because… get this: we are not going to get into government, and every single voter in this country knows it!

Nobody votes for a party that can’t possibly form a government based on what it promises to do when it forms a government, people vote for a party that can’t possibly form a government based on whatever principle they think their vote expresses or whatever message they think it sends to those parties that can from a government.

The challenge the Lib Dems face isn’t to convince everyone that we’d do a fine job of running the country, the challenge the Lib Dems face is to give voters a reason to vote for us even in the certain knowledge that we aren’t going to be running the country, and these masturbatory policy debates are completely counter-productive because they waste some of our precious air-time and column space shining a spot-light on issues which voters can only realistically influence by voting for someone else!

Talk about fighting battles on your enemies’ terms…

Yes, in the long run tax-cutting is a desirable process for the whole of society, but in the short-term tax spending is a consequence of the failure of society.

Before we can make society fairer we will have to start sorting out the messes that both Labour and the Conservatives have got us into in consecutive periods of government – we can’t raise the big sail of liberty at the moment because we are in danger of capsizing.

So set ourselves on an even keel first and then power ahead!

The underlying assumption seems to be that public money belongs to the government, which bestows all sorts of gifts upon various client groups and if it is a particularly generous mood maight just consider handing taxpayers back some cash.

This is a fundamentally illiberal concept of the role of the state in my view, one that Gordon Brown would no doubt wholeheartedly endorse.

I have more sympathy for the argument that we shouldn’t commit to handing back the “vast bulk” of any potential savings in tax cuts because of the state of the public finances (ie the structural budget deficit).

But if this is as serious a problem as some people suggest, then we cannot blithely go ahead with a shopping list of spending commitments as if they are unalterable and cannot be revisited in the light of economic realities. Instead we should be reallocating money that was earmarked for extra items of spending into reducing government borrowing.

So to be clear: If there isn’t enough money for tax cuts because of the state of the economy and the public finances, then there isn’t enough money for new spending either.

In reality, what many people here are saying is that there isn’t enough money for tax cuts NOT because of the need to reduce borrowing, but because of all those lovely ideas we’ve got for spending that money different ways. That’s a matter of political choice, not of economic necessity or fiscal rectitude.

It implies that – even at a time when the tax burden is rising and public spending has had seven years of rapid growth – we should give extra spending a higher priority than tax cuts.

I think that position is mistaken both economically and philosophically; and also misjudges the public mood.

I would rather objectives like taking low earners out of the direct tax system altogether (income tax and NICs), lowering the basic rate to benefit middle earners and simplifying and reducing the scope of tax credits (so that we are not paying state beenfits to above average earners) were seen as central to a liberal programme and not optional extras if we have any loose change left from continuing to feed a huge government machine.

And I would add your own critique of the Conservatives pointing out that they haven’t even gone as far as we have in mapping out their alternative position or even how we could form any judgement of what their ‘alternative’ might consist of.

I don’t have a problem with what’s in Make it Happen, or even what’s in Monday’s motion. My concern is when we start bandying about words like “vast” and “billions” when we are in absolutely no position to start quantifying what those words mean. And yes, I do accept that even 2 billion is still “billions” – but that isn’t the impression it gives.

My understanding is that a common sense amendment has been proposed, accepting the “principle” of tax cuts but keeping it in some perspective with other, higher priorities. If Clegg has any sense he will adopt this and tone down the language from now on.

Getting into a squabble where there can be no final answers does two things – firstly it places us at the centre of debate showing our relevance while giving us the opportunity to indulge in a bloodbath, and secondly, it removes the spotlight from our opponents failure to answer the same questions while removing the onus from them to articulate their (lack of) answers to the same questions we are being faced with at this point.

If we had a precisely-detailed and fully-costed manifesto ready with our publishers at a stage this far out from a general election we’d be ridiculed for not taking into account the way things will change between now and then, while also providing our enemies the opportunity to pick over all our ideas and choose the best for themselves all the while rubbishing our complete package.

The best that is acceptable for now is to have full agreement on the full range of coherent principles we wish to develop into detailed policy, building on a track record of good sense in being able to cope with the practise of continual ongoing adjustment.

So to adapt your metaphor our pen is hovering as we are being asked to calculate the sum on the cheque, signing will come later.

Conference is tomorrow Martin. When do you think they are going to be published? I fear you may have been watching too many Disney movies.

The problem is though we aren’t being asked to endorse a ‘policy’ – a policy would be costed. We’re being asked to endorse a ‘principle’.

That’s the way the LD’s work. There are those who regularly ‘pass’ comments on our website who appear not to understand these democratic checks and balances. Almost as though they were not party members or supporters. Almost as though they were just Tories trying to hide behind a false identity.

No, could it be….?

I should like to think not, but Clegg is pushing this line so hard (albeit very inconsistently) and making it so personal, that the pressure to go along with it will be enormous.

This could easily be overcome by finding a form of consistent phrasiology which doesn’t depend upon multiple usage of the term ‘savings’ – which can lead to obvious confusion.

As I see it the policy is to reduce expenditure by as much as £20bn (though it could be more or less), this would allow for reallocation onto our priorities with any remainder going on tax cuts. The size of the tax cuts will depend on the amount remaining.

This reflects a clearly liberal midset that spending will be determined according to principle AND according to income – implying that the role of the state is to be limited actively by the government not passively by revenues (which is an important, if subtle, point).

It doesn’t mean that overall spending is to be cut, necessarily, though some trimming is desirable in the several areas outlined. What it does mean is that we recognise budgets need to be balanced and we need to replace the sense of economic disorder at the treasury.

Spare cash does not mean we can afford to go on an impulsive shopping spree – spare cash means we have breathing space to make better and more longer-term plans.

Last week Ed Davey was saying we couldn’t guarantee there would be money left over for tax cuts from the hypothetical £20bn savings. Then Clegg told the Telegraph the vast bulk of the £20bn would go to tax cuts. Then Clegg told Radio 4 that there would only be tax cuts if there was money left over, and appeared to accept that there might not be. Then in the Evening Standard it was a “big chunk” of the £20bn again. Then Danny Alexander tried to square all these statements by saying that it was the vast majority of the money left over that would go to tax cuts.

Now in the Guardian Clegg is back to promising tax cuts “in the billions”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/12/libdemconference.liberaldemocrats