When was liberalism anything other than left wing?

[matgb]

Really pleased that the radical shift to the left in taxation policy was passed at today's Lib Dem conference--couldn't make it into the hall to hear the debate unfortunately, but a genuinely redistributive policy that will genuinely help those earning the least in society has to be a bloody good thing.

Shift to the right?

For some reason there are a bunch of people convinced that it's some sort of shift to the right, and I haven't yet seen a decent explanation as to what definition of 'right' they're using. Admittedly, I've been utterly swamped on the registration desk and attending fringe events, so I've not had time to read through the debate, and as it's 3am and I'm back on the desk at 8.30am I'm not going to now.

Can someone please explain what the 'rightwards shift' is supposed to mean, as having finally read a copy of the Make It Happen paper I can see something that's both genuinely Liberal and nicely left wing in a genuinely radical way.

I'm not too keen on the tone of some of the marketing language they've used, and the over use of 'families' combined with 'no child left behind' did piss me off a bit, but having read the underlying ideas behind the rhetoric and knowing that it's aimed not at a BA politics type like me but at journalists and actual real, sane, normal people, I can get over that.

Decent left wing tax & reform agenda

So now we have a decent left wing tax policy reducing taxes for those earning the least combined with the traditional radically left wing political reform agenda. Now all we need is a commitment to level the playing field for those wanting to set up or convert to co-operatives, and this l'il liberal socialist will be very happy.

For the majority of non politics geeks that hang around this place, I'm at party conference in Bournemouth, I'm exhausted, and now I need to sleep. That's assuming Jennie's snoring doesn't keep me awake all night. Wish me luck...

Comments

[dmatthewman.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I'm sometimes a little blurry on the distinction between 'left' and 'right', and while I voted for the amendment, I also think the unamended motion is a thoroughly good and Liberal thing. But with that in mind:

Speech after speech opposing the amendment included an acknowledgment that we were going to cut funding to (at the very least) the NHS and education in order to fund these tax cuts. Reducing funding to the NHS and education may indeed (as Vince and several others said) be prudent in a recession, but using those cuts to fund lower taxes, even to the poorly-paid, could reasonably be looked at as a shift to the right.

No one opposing the amendment answered the point made (twice) that the very poorest members of our society don't pay tax, and wouldn't be helped at all by tax cuts even to the lowest-paid taxpayers. Even the lowest-paid taxpayers are relatively well off to someone in that situation, who's still being hit by rising fuel bills and rising food prices, and who will also need to choose between heating and eating. It may well be that we do have plans to help people in that situation just as much as those we're helping with the lower taxes. But Vince, Tim, Chris and Simon all failed to mention it, which is a pity.

I mean, I'm sure our position isn't really 'if you're low-paid but doing an honest day's work, we'll help you, but if you're a student, elderly, ill or can't find work that's just tough'. But that's what it sounded like, and that's why it looked like a shift to the right to some people.

Well, you did ask. ;-)

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

From what I can tell, the media are saying:

cutting public services and tax cuts = right-wing
large state services, with tax and spend = left-wing

Which to a rough, simplistic approximation is probably how Britain sort of split for much of the second half of the 20th century. But they're basing this on the usual assumption that you cut public services and give the money to the rich, whereas this is giving it to the poor. Additionally, for at least some of the savings, they're not talking about cutting public services, but scrapping some things like ID cards.

To be left-wing in the media view, this would probably need to be "We'll use the money we save to put more money into tax credits for the poor", I think. However, that would somewhat muddy the message about the 16p rate and similar, which are also intended to help middle income families. This would, obviously, undercut the policy's power to hold off Tory votes.

It would help in communication if they could identify a particular tax they'd want to cut, in my view. The short sound-bite then becomes: "16p basic rate, scrapping Labour's wasted spending, cutting <foo> with the savings." That's short enough to get into a TV news clip.

[paulatpingu.livejournal.com]

It's a 'shift to the right' because that's a simple, convenient term that can be used by the media to sum up the Lib Dems new taxation policy to the uneducated masses.

It also doesn't help that it's a weighted comment that is generally followed by the hack pointing out that not even the Tories are stupid enough to want to cut taxes this time around - making the Lib Dems out to be typically out of touch.

The problem is, for most people, it will just come across as a cynical move. Obviously it's the party's job to persuade these people otherwise (me included, I've not read the details yet). At least they've got another couple of years to point out exactly what they mean.

Also, in response to your headline:

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

When was liberalism anything other than left wing?

When it was classical liberalism.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

I agree totally with your comments on Make It Happen - I think everyone who's annoyed with it got annoyed at the form, and only pretended to themselves it was to do with the content. It's actually a very good attempt at co-opting the right's rhetoric to sell left/liberal ideas (Clegg's main skill, I think).
Having said that, I would like the party to move further leftward - there are definitely things in there that make me uneasy - but overall I don't find it worrying.
Also, whenever people talk too much about policy documents, manifestos etc, I remember being in the car with two council candidates last May:
"Well, we're against that according to the manifesto"
"Are we? I haven't read it. What does it say?"
"Oh, it's just *stupid*. If I actually had to pay attention to it I'd join the bloody Greens..."