To be fair on Ming, his '5 tests' aren't about defining ourselves in relation to the other parties, but defining Brown in relation to our core values (apart from electoral reform, natch).

In the generality, I think you're right. But I also think things are getting better.

Is electoral reform a make or break issue for you?

Your email communication is in many ways typical of the confused opinions expressed by members of the public who feel strongly about political issues but are not certain which way to turn. The desire for a 'clear long term vision' is a good example. It's very easy to have a clear long term vision - that's what manifestos are for - but politicians have shied away from it in the last 20 years for a number of very good reasons:

1. Not everyone agrees even within a Party, let alone a country, what that vision should be.
2. The media and various experts will delight in shooting holes in anything specifc, and 'clear visions' have a dreadful habit of leaving hostages to fortune.
3. 'Globalisation' has left governments more open to being blown off course by long term events completely external to the UK.

There are a couple of concrete examples of governments who had clear visions, and I think what happened to them is instructive. Harold Wilson's government 1964-70 had nothing less than an entire National Plan - a clear long term vision of the sort your correspondent demands - but the pressure of events soon overcame what were essentially unrealistic goals in the first place. Mrs Thatcher also had a vision, but she initailly took care in the 1970s and early 80s to conceal its full implications until time and tide were running in her favour. Both models show that governments are reflexive to pressures.

As I said, I think Politicians have to be very careful what hostages they leave to fortune. It's partly because they have promised so much in the past through 'Clear visions' and delivered so little that people are disbelieving. The fate of the Wilson government and indeed the Old Labour Party as whole gives us a stark warning about 'Clear long term visions'. Not everyone agrees with them and even if they are persuaded for a while, the political failure to meet inflated expectations is severely punished at the ballot box.

Thanks for the plug Tabman!

As far as the question of vision is concerned, I do NOT propose a detailed "National Plan" style manifesto- it is simply not deliverable. What we should be talking about is the principles that inform us and will also shape the way we respond to events. This is why Paddy's intervention is so welcome- it does precisely this; and actually anonymous- it is not just another motherhood and apple pie manifesto: it does set out specific ways that we will move things in the directions that Paddy identifies.

Bishop- to be honest I think your comments about Europe essentially say: "unless you change Europe you change nothing, and therefore your statements are meaningless"- I completely disagree, not least because many of the problems of "Europe" are the result of Whitehall gold plating European rules. In fact I would argue that unless we change ourselves we can not change Europe anyway.

A clear vision is not a mass of detailed policy- it is a set of unalterable principles that will be the framework for policy, and it is time for us to be explicitly ideological.

I agree that there is much too much regualtion coming from Brussels. I also think that Cicero is right to say that we will need to reform ourselves before we reform Brussels.

I also agree on being "explicitly ideological" (this was the sense of my post on Sunday morning) but this has to tie in with the real fears and aspirations of ordinary voters (idealy it should help shapes these fears and aspirations. It cannot be simply an exercise in theory.

I think its interesting that Cicero so empahtically rejected 'National Plans' in his comment. Naturally I can see why, but refusing to sign up to specifics in terms of a vision does leave a problem.

A point made by one of the anonymous contributors is quite right in this respect. To say that your political vision is: 'In a nutshell, liberals believe in individual freedom, accountable government, the dispersion of political power, social justice, the rule of law, the free exchange of opinions and goods, and the protection of the natural environment' is wholly inadequate. Cicero and others seem to think that it is sufficient, but in fact it is just truistic in this modern day and age. It will not inspire anyone or define you as a political force for the obvious reason that everyone else has their tents pitched on that site too.

To truly define yourself you have to get down to the nuts and bolts: Individual freedom - what conception of freedom will you prioritise? Accountable government - OK but how? Dispersion of politcal power - do you mean more regional assemblies, more mayors, more powers to councils? Social justice - but whose notion of social justice? There are some good cries here, but they all need to be expanded on in concrete terms to have any meaning. In fairness, the LDs do offer some good policies on some of these issues, but some debates, such as the one on what constitutes social justice and forms of freedom, are extremely complex and involve making some bold moral judgements. I will be pleasantly surprised if we hear from MPs willing to stick their necks out on these types of issues.