Not fair?
I think that the very fact that "fairness" was put forward as the unifying theme is reason enough to question the presence of such.
Sorry: but "fair" is one of those weasel words that is used by politicians to cover every eventuality and one for which i have very little time or respect. What is "fair" to a Daily Mail reader is likely to seem remarkably unfair to a reader of Socialist Worker - and vice-versa.
As for the nit-picking/tinkering. Part of what i did was summarise...but part was inject an overall impression. The overall impression was one of confusion.
There was next to no policy on the big digital issues - and what there was was almost all brushed into a single list towards the back.
Traditionally, the Lib Dems have come from a background that respects liberties - and there is still some of that in the manifesto. But equally, there is a lot of nit-picking regulation. The two things that relate most to the internet are the idea of regulating air-brushing in ads (i presume they also mean photo-shopping) and the requirement for panic buttons on social networking sites.
Both are low level, petty, controlling measures.
Therefore, in terms of big picture/thematic stuff...Labour is "steady as she goes": we got it right and we're offering more of the same.
Tories are wishing to roll back the state (whether they eventually deliver on that or not) and remove a lot of intrusive petty control from our lives and our data.
And the Lib Dems want some sort of nebulous "fairness", supported by a raft of measures, some good, some bad - but all pointing in different directions.