If there’s one thing the last few days have taught me, it’s that it’s perfectly okay to cut public spending so long as:

• No-one loses their job
• No-one loses a ‘service’ or subsidy
• No-one has to pay more for something they previously got cheaper or for free
• It doesn’t cause any sort of short, medium or long term negative impact on the economy.

Just to be clear, that means it’s never, ever, ever okay to cut public spending. If you absolutely have to – say for example that spending is far beyond what you can claw back in tax… let’s call it a ‘deficit’… then what do you do?

Borrow more? It’s taxpayers that have to pay back the debt, with interest. Put taxes up again? The question becomes who should be taxed, and how do you get them to pay, and exactly how much can you extract from people before they actually protest?

It’s almost as if there’s…. wow… like no easy answers. Except there is an easy answer: Cut spending. At least, that would be an easy answer if it wasn’t some sort of social taboo to even considering the idea. Especially if the name of your party rhymes with “Rory”, in which case you’re especially not allowed to consider cuts, cos, you know, you’re doing it for fun because you’re evil.

But consider: Say I steal £1 off 100 people and give you the £100. Should I do it a second time? Apparently refusing to do it a second time is a greater crime, because I’m denying you £100 that you’re now expecting. The poor suckers who are losing the £1? It’s only £1 isn’t it? Hardly worth getting in a flap over.

If they knew how much you really really needed that money, they’d be happy to cough up, right?

See, whilst many (most of them apparently on Twitter) are psychologically able to ignore, or excuse, or basically discount altogether the taking money from people bit of public spending, there are some of us that just can’t.

One day it occurs to ask the question, “What exactly gives them the right to help themselves to whatever they want?” and the answer turns out to be because they can. Then you get a bit angry and frustrated, feel almost entirely helpless then, just to make things that little bit worse, everyone else in the world comes and slaps you in the face for even daring to consider such heretical notions.

The taking from me bit doesn’t count. I don’t matter. It’s the no longer giving bit that counts. Think about how people feel! Think about all the things they could do with that money, or that job, or learn from those people or achieve with the support of those others! Don’t you understand? Have you no feelings?

Apparently not. I just keep thinking, “But it’s not your money. How can you live with yourselves taking it?”

Then I wonder how we got into the sort of situation were people feel they have to take the money, that their need is moral justification enough. Is our economy really so pathetic and broken that people are reduced to state sponsored beggary? Perhaps it might be an idea to start thinking more about root causes and genuine solutions than ‘firefighting’ our woes away at the expense of the future.

N.B I’m not a Lib Dem or a Tory. Thank you.

How’s about this for a bit of perspective? Ian Hislop asks the audience on Have I Got News For You who’s read “The Agreement” and asks for a show of hands of those who think it sounds pretty good. “Just me then?” he says, embarrassed. Oh dear, thinks I.

The Coalition’s biggest challenge is going to be finding something for the casual observers to like about this new administration. Civil Liberties, dealing with the deficit and forming a stable majority Government isn’t quite doing the trick. It matters because elections are won or lost based on what these casual observers reckon, not the opinions of the well informed and up to date. Electioneering is a numbers game, and there’s more casual observers than politics dorks.

It’s probably quite safe for Opposition politicians to tell people, for example, that “The Agreement” is almost entirely Tory policy and that the only concession the Lib Dems have won is referendum on electoral reform that they’re probably going to lose anyway. If that’s what the majority end up “reckoning” they can’t be lambasted them for their ignorance. Politicians have to respect their opinion, even when the issue at stake isn’t a matter of opinion at all.

It’d be a mistake to believe that because this Coalition has managed to slip through some good stuff reversing much of the Authoritarianism of the previous Government that this means we’ve “won”. No-one really voted for it. It’s happening because the two Parties have the opportunity, means and desire to do it – and helpfully can blame each other for it when the Daily Mail starts their hysterical screaming about “political correctness gone mad!”

Civil Liberties barely came up during the Election campaigning. The appetite for controls on “everyone else” for the sake of a modicum of additional safety hasn’t gone away. Both Nick Clegg and David Cameron are populists, not ideologues – but their version of populism seems to have a much more adult, cool tempered flavour for now – and that’s to be welcomed. The test will be how long it lasts and whether or not they can find a ‘new politics’ solution rather than following their predecessors into reactionary control freakism.

It occurs to me that while there’s been this lovely – and very welcome – support for Civil Liberties from The Coalition, there’s something we absolutely don’t know about yet.

Let’s face it, the images coming from Cameron and Clegg together are beautiful. They’re funny, relaxed and surprisingly open and honest. They benefit from the virtue of being squeaky clean and shiny, brand new.

But there’s another area of policy where many Tories and Lib Dems agree with each other (and disagree with Internet Libertarians like me), and that’s on State Puritanism. You know the kind of thing - punitive sin taxs on tobacco and alcohol and mutterings about price fixing and ‘nudging’. Crucially, there’s Drug Prohibition too.

Look at how the Lib Dem’s amnesty policy was dropped – the rationale for the Amnesty was that it’s impossible to find them (by the very nature of illegal immigrants existing below the State’s radar) and the only people who really benefit are the criminal gangs who exploit them. The argument against, ‘moral hazard’ or encouraging people to sneak into Britain in the hope of another Amnesty 10 years from now is the same logic that keeps Drug Prohibition in place – legalisation will encourage use and development of recreational drugs, and this would be worse (apparently) than allowing the continued engorgement of the pockets of the black market drugs industry.

The Lib Dems have no real power, or motivation, or desire – to do anything about this. While a battle against Labour’s worst authoritarian instincts appears to have been won, we can’t really be so certain the battle against mainstream politics’ desire to nanny us has seen any progress at all.

Yet this Coalition is going to enjoy a honeymoon period no matter what. To grumble now appears churlish and wilfully difficult… but perhaps, as bloggers, that’s what we’re for.

Watch this space…

So, the good and the bad. I did promise, didn’t I? Well the section on Civil Liberties is better than any of us dared hope, thanks to the addition of a Freedom Bill/Great Repeal Bill which could cover anything not already cover. The list of things we know for a fact we’re getting includes:

ID Cards, Identity Register, Child Register and Next-Gen biometric passports? GONE

No Fingerprinting of Children without parental consent. SORTED

Extension of Freedom of Information Act. GOOD

A switch to Scottish model of DNA retention. AT LAST

Protection of right to trial by jury and right to non-violent protest. AWESOME

Reform of the libel laws to protect freedom of speech. SUPERB

And more. Seriously, there’s MORE. And this doesn’t include what might end up in the Great Repeal/Freedom Bill (HINT: Digital Economy Act three strikes, site blocking).

This is extremely promising and marks the first time our Government has done anything that I’ve gone, “Wow! Cool!” at for… well.. over ten years, I guess. I’m genuinely surprised and amazed and hope that this shows a willingness to be bold in this area.

The bad for me is the section on the ‘Green’ economy stuff, which represents quite an ambitious program of economic planning (irrespective of the perceived need to do so.) Will be interested to see if this gets the same focus and attention.

Back to good we have the end of child detention in immigration centres. On the bad side we appear to have merged the Lib Dem and the Tory policy on dealing with illegal immigrants. If you’ll recall, the Lib Dems intended to find some of the illegal immigrants and give them an amnesty to stay. The Tories wanted to deport them but can’t actually find them. The new policy is find them and deport them. Compromise, eh? Wonderful.

More on this as it sinks in and the actual behaviour of the Government becomes apparent… but put it this way: I’m a bit worried about the odds of getting pieces onto Liberal Central at the Guardian if the Coalition carries on like this. My career as a semi-professional writer may be killed off before it’s started.

Damn.

Leaked by Liberal Conspiracy. Looks pretty real. It’s big, so I’ve hidden it with SpoilerVision™

Yes please, show me the leaked agreement. I’m genuinely interested.

UPDATE: Turns out it was real after all. Now available on the Lib Dem website For Reals, Yo! THE AGREEMENT!