As you point out, their mood can also become dangerously unstable. No doubt the menace implied by your comment “You will only need a single ticket” was intentional. Whether the comment was wise is a different question.

Adolf Hitler understood the politics of desperation all too well. Those not in favour of Hitler’s populist remedies for 1930s Germany’s anxieties were also given, shall we say, short shrift.

Of course, a simple promise to give everybody some free money (in the depths of a recession!) is morally a million miles away from Hitler’s promise to commit mass murder. However, the phrase “desperate policies for desperate times” does seem to apply to both cases. It does not make me proud of my continuing membership of this Party.

No doubt people who had followed the debate closely and were prepared to read between the lines could work it out. But remember that most people wouldn’t even have known what the wording of the amendment was unless they were provided with it.

If Stephen had wanted to ask a direct and fair question, why not simply quote the amendment and ask whether people agreed with it?

As it is, the question could scarcely be more loaded. In effect, it conveys, “Nick Clegg wants to cut your taxes if there is money left over after we have met our commitments. Some people disagree with this. Do you endorse Nick Clegg’s approach?”

Of course, that’s par for the course, considering the way the amendment was misrepresented by its opponents during the debate.

It is quite possible to be in favour of the tax cuts for low & middle income households the party agreed last year but to be against going further than that this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7636990.stm
“Sir Menzies’ paper contains an estimate from the Royal United Services Institute which suggests that the Ministry of Defence’s procurement plans for new equipment are now underfunded by up to £15bn over a 10-year period.”

I’m becoming less convinced of how robust these plans actually are.

And Martin – we’re already talking of 4p income tax cuts for the people your referring to without any of the MiH overall cuts.

Of course I read it.

What I’m suggesting is that you ask your members whether or not they agreed with the amendment.

If that’s the question you were trying to ask, I’m afraid you made an abysmal job of it.

But that comparison is quite wrong.

The conference voted nearly unanimously for “Make it Happen”.

The contentious issue, of course was the amendment about the relative priority of tax cuts, reducing inequality and tackling global warming.

Why not poll your members on whether or not they agree with the amendment?

You will only need a single ticket.