Our mini-series this week revealed points of broad consensus and points of approaching conflict on the centre right in terms of how the tax burden is distributed.
All agree that something must be done. But everyone would prefer that someone else is the one to do it.
Government encouraged drivers to switch to it. Now some want to penalise them for doing so.
Parents and business need more help from the Government to avert a public health crisis.
A simpler tax system would bring many benefits.
The policy risks more than 4,000 jobs but will only reduce calorie intake by five calories per person, per day.
The salient point is that it is government intervention that raises the cost of living.
Aside any concerns about individual choice, it will undermine small shops and do little to hinder black marketeers.
Blame is an essential part of individual responsibility. Absolving overweight citizens of their agency enables poor behaviour – and mandates disabling legislation.
Only ten years ago we’d have been mid-table, but since 2007 single-issue campaigners have struck a string of blows against lifestyle freedom.
When more than 30 million of us regularly drink wine, why does the pub – not the wine bar – continue to represent political expediency?
And evidence from abroad suggests that it will fail in its declared aim of reducing obesity.
Steve Double called for one on this site yesterday, but available evidence suggests it would be deeply regressive and would not work.
There are liberal-minded left-wingers on the right side of the fight for freedom, and patrician Tories on the wrong.
The final article in our series argues that while the primary focus should be deficit reduction, there may yet be room to make life a bit easier, particularly for the poorest.