Here’s a simple plan:

‘The Blogosphere’ produces a simple black and white leaflet with the headline, “Free Trade is GOOD” and a brief explanation about why. We put links on to a website with more information. Keep it aimed at people who don’t read political blogs, keep it simple – the desire is just to get the message out there.

Then, get as many blogs as possible (at least the ones that support Free Trade anyway) to write about this particular campaign, encouraging their readers to do just one simple thing:

Print out the leaflet go deliver it on just your street, whether that’s 5 homes or 50. Just your street. That’s it. Well, if you feel confident enough write, “Hi, I’m from number 4″ on it, so that if people are interested then you have the means of making connections then go ahead, but you don’t have it.

Next month, do another one. Then another one. Then another one. Keep putting out non-partisan leaflets explaining basic political concepts and ideas in an accessible way.

So this isn’t exactly well thought out, but it does illustrate how it might be possible to use some of the tools of the Evangelical trade to help translate existing enthusiasm into growth of a movement.

A more ethically dubious idea, but stealing directly from the Evangelicals, would be to run a political equivalent of the Alpha course. Sell libertarianism, for example, not just as a political system but as a means of viewing the world that can bring benefits in its own right. People have compared libertarianism to a religion, so why not spread it like one?

See, political campaigning is supposed to be about big money – everything’s always done by ‘someone else’ funded by big party machines. Bloggers have no money and have access to a niche audience only. You see the problem…

Yet the blogosphere’s audience are the front line of political thought in the UK. They’re the most interested, most engaged people in the UK. If not the blogosphere’s readership, who? Well it’s the Unions, and the Parties, and the Churches. That’s who.

In other words, with our interest in politics comes the responsibility not to just sit on our arses moaning about the fact that people don’t understand Free Trade, that they think planning is actually quite cool, that protectionism ‘can be good’ and so on – we can do something about that if we choose to. The readership of the blogs are ‘big party’ sized – it’s already enough people to affect real change. Parties use a small number of people to reach a very large number of people. I suggest that the next logical evolution of the blogosphere is to do the same.

We have to start “evangelising” out in the real world, and we have to do it independently of any political party, so that the groundwork can be laid for public opinion itself to demand, of the parties, the sort of policies that will help this country. I see no other means of breaking the ‘dash for the centre ground’ deadlock that seems to have crippled real debate between the mainstream political parties, reducing elections to popularity contests and appeals to trust and competence alone.

Poor Ryan Cullen. He slaves, literally, for the good of Lib Dem Bloggers everywhere. He runs the thankless money pit that is Lib Dem Blogs and yesterday created a mailing list for all the bloggers on it with the hope of creating a nice, light space where we could swap tips and help each other out.

He forgot one small teeny problem: it’s a mailing list. What is a mailing list? It’s something you join if you want spamming with lots of emails saying ‘help! Unsubscribe me!’ and other emails telling other people off for all manner of mailing list related sins.

It’s old technolgy – clunky at the best of times and terrifying at worst. But it’s the people factor that seems to doom them: they seem to induce bad tempered flaming and megalomaniacal behaviour in otherwise reasonable people.

It’s not Ryan’s fault mailing lists are usually awful (although if ruled with an iron fist and made up of a largely static membership who all know what they’re doing they can, sometimes, become useful.) The basic idea of having lib dem bloggers help each other with the technical side of things is a good one. I don’t want Ryan ending up a miserable, bitter, twisted old curmudgeon like me – and neither do you – so if you’re on ‘the list’ and thinking about giving him hell, please don’t!

One of the most revolting and distracting aspects of this government is the way they conceal their intentions behind manipulative language.

As Stephen Glenn (fellow LD Blogger) notices, a ‘Food Security Report‘ has been published by the Government. The report “predicts” climate change, diseases and other yaa boo scaries will make meat so expensive that even the UK will find itself back in the days when meat was a luxury, not something to be taken for granted. Vegetarian Britain? Something tells me this report isn’t meant to be notification of a blessed, utopian cow, pig, sheep and chicken free future of tofu and hummus. It’s meant to inspire fear.

Presumably the intended reaction is that the Government should do more to improve the security of the food supply. “Well”, will come the reply. “There is something we can do…. if you insist….”

That ‘something’ is planning, of course. Announcing a ’5 Year Plan for Agriculture’ a little bit Stalinist for the British tastes, so they do it this way around instead. Create a panic. Offer a solution. Create a panic. Offer a solution… haven’t we been here before? Terrorists! (ID Cards!) Criminals! (ID Cards!) Foreigners! (ID Cards!)

The most certain path to national vegetarianism (deliberately or otherwise) and food shortages isn’t through Free Trade. It’s through planning – that’s what the lesson of history has shown repeatedly - yet here we are, once again, being manipulated into demanding something the Government’s almost certainly going to do anyway – this time in the name of ‘food security.’

Food Security. Sheesh. Are you scared yet? Can’t you feel that nagging doubt growing in your mind? Is my food secure? Can I really take the chance that it’s not? Oh, no, what’s the Tory policy on Food Security? What’s our policy! OH NO! We’re all doomed!

I refuse! Y’hear me? I won’t have it!

I owe James Graham a drink, but that’s not going to stop me responding to his latest post, where he complains about libertarians and their reaction to the Jo Swinson ‘ban airbrushing’ fiasco.

By the end of this post I’m hoping you agree with me that this is a completely pointless and unnecessary fight – yet tackling James head on is something I’m absolutely determined to do – he’s the strongest of the LD blogosphere’s social liberal wing and I like a challenge.

James, please, do kick us off:

Frankly, if we did all live in a state of complete separation of mind and body, the libertarians would have a point. The fact that time and again we learn that environmental factors affect behaviour is a problem they have never come to terms with.

James is, once again, begging the question. Environmental factors change behaviour… but what business is this of the state, or politicians?

I’m not against bans in principle. If a judicious ban or restriction here and there can help people exercise their own personal judgement instead of being influenced by a bombardment of propaganda, then in principle it is the only liberal thing to do.

Substitute the highly indirect ‘only liberal thing to do’ for what James seems to really mean, ‘we must act’ then the fallacy becomes more obvious: “Advertising negatively effects people’s ability to make good decisions. Restrictions to advertising could limit the negative effects. We must act.” We do?

Yet Jo’s proposal is not concerned with people being tricked into thinking Product X is ‘cool’ by professional liars, so James’ argument is not even relevant (after all that).

Jo’s proposal addresses an unintended side effect of professional lying: In order to sell a product it sometimes suits advertisers to associate their products with beautiful, glamorous people. For Jo these models and actors are just too beautiful. She believes that young girls and women are being psychologically harmed, and the solution is to make the images less provocative. Okay! It’s a policy. An idea. Run with it.

To disagree with it on principle is not just a philosophical issue – it’s a psychological and sociological one. We’re talking about the state choosing to get involved with the mental health of girls and young women as a collective while reinforcing the idea that they’re helpless puppets incapable of differentiating between the glossy airbrushed world of magazines and reality. To presume this sort of interference would have nothing but positive or neutral psychological and sociological effects is… very, very brave and bold.

After having a pop at libertarians, James states his own grounds for being sceptical about Jo’s proposal: What’s the definition of airbrushing? Is using lighting, corsets and make-up to produce an image any different to hiding a spot and nipping in a girl’s waist with Photoshop? He also wonders about the evidence that ‘airbrushing’ causes measurable, significant harm.  For example, have there been clinical trials showing a causal relationship between exposure to idealised images of people and serious, crippling mental damage? It seems unlikely.

Yet with this sort of evidence of serious harm libertarians would be interested in seeing the details of the proposed solution. In fact, this is exactly why I didn’t touch the Jo Swinson story when it first came around – no evidence, so no particular reason to pay it the slightest bit of attention.

James, on the other hand, agrees in principle with it but wants evidence before lending his full support… right. So, a world shaking ideological conflict then, I’m sure you’ll agree. We both, ultimately, want evidence before voting ‘yes’.

So, here’s the end of the post and we’ve learned… well… that this was a completely pointless?

Hot on the heels of my Machiavellian guide to Blogging, I though I’d do a follow up – an equally Machiavellian guide to Politicianing. If you’ve ever fancied yourself as Prime Minster, or even fancy volunteering your services to a party to become backbench vote fodder, this is the guide for you.

#5 – Look the Part

Every wannabe politician must start with the basics – great suit, great hair and if you’re a man no facial hair.

If you’re ugly (or look shifty/tired), consider getting plastic surgery. Don’t overlook cosmetic dentistry, either – A winning smile can do wonders.

If you’re male and in your twenties, consider shaving all your hair off and wearing a wig before you start your career. People will not believe your hair has grown back by itself.

#4 – Sound the Part

Lest you end up like John Prescott, Hazel Blears or Ken Livingstone, get some Received Pronunciation (RP) training. Don’t worry about people thinking you sound ‘posh’, trust me – that’s exactly what you want. As much as people say they want diversity in accent, they still think anyone with a regional accent is a thicko by default, and RP does, still, impress the right people.

#3 – Acting Lessons

Sincerity, Sincerity, Sincerity. Or, at least, the illusion of the same.

Case study: You believe that kittens are devil spawn and you want them exterminated. A voter approaches with a tale: The council won’t pay for her kitten’s head transplant operation. Do you:

a) Break the kitten’s neck and declare, “Problem Solved”?

b) Explain that you disagree with publicly funded kitten head transplant operations, and give her a copy of the pamphlet: “Kitten Head Transplants: A Cost Benefit Analysis”?

c) Sit quietly, then, with a single tear running down your cheek, reach across to this voter, put your hand on her shoulder and say, “I’ll see what I can do”?

If you didn’t answer C then you want to start rethinking your career choice. You don’t ‘get’ it.

#2 Critical Thinking Training

Not because you want to be able to argue properly, but because you absolutely do not, under any circumstances, want to get involved with real arguments. Learn the rules to understand how they can be broken and abused.

The trick is sound like you’re agreeing with everyone else  (you support and oppose fox hunting, for example) and importantly never answer the specific question you’re asked.

Instead, listen out for a key-words: “In NHS Hospitals, 300 people a day are dying of bubonic plague as a direct result of your policies! What are you doing about it?”

The key word here was “NHS”. Respond with your prepared statement on the NHS:  “The real question is why you support policies that would see hospitals closing, while our policies would see 5,000 new gold plated hospitals opening with 1,000,000 new nurses a month, in real terms?”

Admittedly this is advanced politics – it’s for Ministers of State. Still, it’s extremely handy if you don’t want newspapers running a story about what you actually believe – certain political death.

#1 – Accumulate Dirt

The ultimate politician’s weapon: Gossip. Upon arriving be sure to ingratiate yourself as with as many politicians as possible. You need to pass yourself off as a friendly, warm trustworthy human, and they’ll tell you all sorts in order to show you they’re important people ‘in the know.’ Keep a diary. Make notes.

Your aim is to accumulate a dossier on your rivals in order to blackmail your way to the top, whilst remaining squeaky clean yourself. Auto-erotic asphyxia is considered a bit of a no-no, even in these sexually liberated times so put your political career first for now and leave the fetishes until you’ve stood down as PM.