The phrase 'common sense' makes left-wingers like me want to retch. It is not because I hate common sense, it's what it connotes in the eyes of Sun columnists.

Here's an example:

Jane Moore, a Sun columnist wrote about how she would be voting for 'common sense' at the next election. Here are her greivances:

Gurkhas being denied immigration. Which paper is speaking most loudly for Gurkhas? The Daily Mirror, which has remained constantly Labour for about 70 years now.

Soldiers' wives being deported, while foreign criminals stay. Mothers arrested for intervening in gang fights. Higher compensation for RPI injuries, than soldiers blown to bits. And the unemployed.

What left-winger is honestly not offended by any of these cases, or doesn't see them as rediculous?

The important thing to remember is with these cases, like those highlighted for example, under snooping laws, is that they are virtually isolated cases. And as Yvette Cooper pointed out recently on QT, they are rediculous. With the exception of the Ghurkas or unemployed, they are rare.

But I believe it is left-wing attitudes against colonialism, for immigration and for ALMP's that serve as the best way of slashing the number of the unemployed, or allowig Gurkhas to stay.

Oh, and the HRA is to blame for everything. Why? What's people's evidence for that? Again, there are some rediculous cases, and they need to be sorted out.

So do stupid cases about mothers intervening in gang fights, or giving more compensation to those with RPI injuries than amputees.

But, why is this seen as something 'liberals' are supposedly against?

Unfortunately, common sense is a phrase intertwined with other Sun favourites: 'PC wooly liberals' who are to blame for everything. Oh and 'hard-working families'. Who defines themselves as lazy, rather than hard working?

The trouble with 'common sense' politics, is that as 'common sense', it is only applicable to anyone sharing a certain political affiliation.

You have to make tough choices. I, like the Daily Mail (god I feel so unclean saying that), think we shouldn't be sending thousands to prison for not paying fines, as around 2,000 currently are.

I have two solutions. Switch council tax to a local income tax, and switch funding for the BBC over to income tax, without any cuts for public broadcasting. It makes savings in magistrate courts, and if someone is on low-income, they are more likely to pay it, if they are asked to pay less.

At that point, wouldn't the right-wing media screech? But I watch the Beeb as much as a woman on the council estate, they'll cry.

Or their campaigns against abortion. I'm pro-life. But I'm also pro-choice. So I support rapidly expanding sex education (and incidentally, to make foreign aid more effective, we should end Christian fundamentalism and spread contraceptives across Africa). But the government wants little kids to have sex, they'll say. Really? Or, if it is explained to kids the true facts about sex, but not encouraged, without telling lies, it is shown in the Netherlands to decrease teenage sex, and drastically decrease unsafe sex.

Common sense is about tough choices as well. But the lack of 'common sense' is always blamed on 'wooly PC liberals'. Look at knife crime. I'm marginally in favour of gun control, but largely indifferent. I am also marginally in favour of sentences for carrying knives. However, what difference will it make? Crime is not about tough vs. soft. It's about what works vs. what doesn't. Legalising drugs is 'soft', but it would stop bankrolling gangs. The gang that murdered Rhys Jones, takes in 3000% extra revenue, as heroin is sold on the streets by gangs at 3000% the extra cost it would be if legalised, as it has to go with 7 dealers before it makes it to the streets.

Ex-policemen, and medical experts say that drugs would be cleaner, and it is the most effective anti-crime measure, if drugs were legalised.

When the Sun talks about 'ordinary tax payers', is that to deflect attention away from the fact that the head of NewsCorp is a tax evader? 

This is where defenitions of common sense differ.

I find it common sense that a rich man pays more in tax than a poorer man. I find it is common sense not to encourage tax evasion. I find it is common sense to encourage genuine benefit claimers into work with ALMP's, and then providing cuts for those who would refuse to go on the New Deal, and then require those who don't find jobs to do voluntary work, like visiting the elderly. 

I find it common sense that all infants should get universal, Scandanavian quality childcare, as it is shown to increase social mobility.

I find it is against common sense, that (and maybe Tom Harris can back me up here) from what I hear, Tory MP's explain in private that one day the great 'monolith' that is the NHS will be broken up into private companies, and tens of thousands will die every year for not having insurance, and will be required to fill in 37 page forms to get insurance.

Here's another issue which is common sense: the Lisbon treaty.

Our opt-ins and opt-outs were stregthened. Parliament can send back legislation if over a third object. We lose no power over foreign policy, and I can only think the possible way this lie was come up with, is that the treaty required QMV. This also means that QMV requires a majority of citizens. So Malta has a tenth of our influence, Latvia and Estonia have a seventh. Oh, and there's something for UKIP. If they won a general election, the treaty now allows for a mechanism for a country to leave.

Europe is the best power of challenging the power of the US and China. It's 27 countries as one superpower, and it will remain that way. 27 countries have more influence as one, than France, UK, Germany etc. alone. We needed the treaty. It was common sense. We needed it to help Europe fight terrorism, climate change, poverty and tyranny.

It was not a 'violation of sovereignty'. For the first time, it shifted the EU structure in our favour, to one of intergovernmentalism. We would still be under EU jurisdiction if we left. But allowing the treaty to shift to the structure we favour, increased our influence.

The Sun opposed the treaty, because it violated their sovereignty. Because the EU is the most likely to break up Murdoch's monopoly.

It is common sense that our sovereignty cannot be violated by non-EU nationals controlling what taxes they pay, and controlling our democratic process.

So common sense, is subjective. As ironic as it sounds, it is true. That is why right-wingers often come up with lies about our lax health and safety laws, or Europe e.g. straight banannas, renaming sausages, making fisherman wear hairnets. 'You couldn't make it up!', the supposedly witty LittleJohn says. Well actually Richard, you could and you did.

But some cases aren't depending on political affiliation. Conservatives must stop pretending that they are the only ones who find certain cases, like the BMA's call the other day for ratings to be based on smoking content, rediculous.