As I have just commented on Charlotte's post, I am so glad we seem to have so many people discussing these issues. I am not politically satisfied by being in a party that thinks it has these two seemingly irreconcilable factions.

I actually see it more as a conflict between those who want policies for the world we are in (and there is a lot to be said for that), and those who want policies to create a different sort of world in which the problems to which what are termed "social liberals" find the solutions in state intervention to help the worst off would be significantly lessened, if not eradicated. This, I believe was the aim of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century liberal economic tradition.

I'm so glad too that people are talking again, and seriously, about Citizen's Income and LVT. I think it was a disaster for our party fifteen years ago or whenever it was to drop the CI policy. LVT and CI are key components of rebalancing the inbuilt economic advantage that currently accrues to capital, land and credit creation.

The reason we need to support people in kind (education, healthcare, housing, dole etc) with all the attendant risks of dependency and interference with peoples' free choices is that the wealth we all work together to create is not equitably returned to us all as of right and so some will never in that current welfare based system get to the point of being able to afford to exercise choice. Give us the hard cash to make such choices and those big government services need not exist for the most part.

Only at the weekend I wrote to colleagues on the ALTER executive suggesting that our next project ought to move the "Liberal Overton Window" in the direction of radical econommic liberalism. Re-open the nineteenth century debates about protectionism and free trade which have been largely forgotten, or at least corrupted by the idea that "free trade" means something protecting multi-nationals through WTO agreements or creating competition by providing protection for political allies in business (such as Murdoch in broadcasting in the 80s).

We should maybe have a reading list of the "liberal economic tradition" that would include people like Herbert Spencer and his "Social Statics" and Henry George and his "Protection or Free Trade" ("Progress and Poverty" gets a lot of coverage but some of his other work is at least as important in understanding why LVT is part of the "tarrif free" world that would benefit primarily the labourer).

With the ideological merger of Labour and Conservative in this country, into one more or less protectionist party, I personally think we are at the stage when the twentieth century can be "put down to experience" and we can once again build a political landdscape based on Liberalism versus Conservatism. And this time I think we can win it.

I mostly agree. Market should have some basic rules set and overseen by the government. However, having a role of a sort of referee, government shouldn't be also a player in the market, and thus shouldn't participate to the economic activity for instance by producing public services. There are other ways to secure access to public services for everyone, but it seems that the socialists have succeeded in their propaganda, so that many people can't distinguish financing from producing.

What I am concerned about is that even some people calling themselves "liberals" seem to be exploiting this prejudice for their own advantage.

I wish I knew - it would make my choice a lot easier!

I'm not sure whether I should be disappointed that nobody has disagreed much with me so far (I was looking forward to the argument!), or pleased that I can write posts like this without it being controversial.

I agree with the idea that we should have a critique of capitalism. However, I would argue that the problem with capitalism is not too little regulation, but what is regulated and how this regulation is created. Presently, regulation favours incumbents in the marketplace, raising barriers to entry. This position of safety gives companies a stronger hand when bargaining with employees over wages, amongst other effects.

I'd personally like to banish all use of the phrase 'neo-liberalism'. If it means 'Thatcherism' then let's not dignify it with the word 'liberal'. If we take 'liberalism' to include the opposition to entrenched privilege and protection, then we have to oppose privileges and protections granted to companies. The problem with Thatcher was that she attacked the privileges of unions and the protections on employment, without paying any attention to the privileges of companies or the wealthy. Brown continues in this vein when he bails out the investors in Northern Rock whilst ignoring the 'little people' who lost money in the Farepak collapse.

Now, my personal view is that the government shouldn't bail people out of bad personal choices. I think that the government should administer adequate distribution of wealth to ensure that everyone has access to the necessities of life and the capacity to engage in society and, after that, people make their own decisions (you know, liberty and all that). You're right to point out that there are protected groups and organisations in society, and this creates an unfair imbalance which needs to be rectified. But, for me, the solution lies in more liberty and less meddling from government (I distinguish 'meddling' where the government tries to run people's affairs for them, from tax/redistribution).