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. ;-)

[matgb]

(there is no accepted definition of 'left' and 'right' thus I'm deliberately being slightly disingenuous, but the definitions I'm using are perfectly acceptable, just not as common--it's certainly closer to the traditional meaning than the general usage is)

we were going to cut funding to (at the very least) the NHS and education in order to fund these tax cuts

My understanding (again, based on discussion/writings elsewhere, it helps having a friend on FPC) is that the money cut from the NHS budget is money currently wasted on management consultancies and perpetual reorganisations and attached glossy brochures &c.

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

That's a shame, as there are a couple fairly simple answers to at least part of that. Correct in that this doesn't directly assist those not working at all (students and pensioners), but it does help those currently not working and effectively prevented from starting work due to marginal withdrawal rates from benefit cuts and taxation.

If you remove people at the bottom from tax then part time jobs, etc are easier as they don't need to worry about bureacracy, but yes, additional help would be needed for the poorest, but that help currently isn't there in Govt policy either, thus a specific tax discussion might skip it--shame they did though.

that's what it sounded like, and that's why it looked like a shift to the right to some people.

That does make sense, and it is indeed why I asked, as on a pure tax-take analysis, this is a properly left wing position, helping people on the bottom rung (like me and SB) significantly.

Even if a lot of the savings are notional and not implementable first parliament anyway...

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

the money cut from the NHS budget is money currently wasted on management consultancies and perpetual reorganisations and attached glossy brochures.

Well, yes, this is always where political parties say savings will be made. How feasible this is is another matter. The Government has just finished one huge efficiency programme and just started another huge value for money one. There is not an infinite amount of fat that can be forever sliced away, at some point you are into the meat. I don't see any way this tax cut can be achieve without some cut in services.

This is also, returning to your original point, a classic right-wing small government policy which is another reason it could be seen as a move to the right.

[matgb]

a classic right-wing small government policy

Except small government has always been a liberal position, but that position got partially hijacked by Thatcher's tories who never really managed to implement it effectively despite all the rhetoric.

My main objective with any cuts is to reduce doubling up--someone on minimum wage pays a lot of tax that has to be processed by someone, then claims back a bunch of tax credits that has to be processed by someone else. Why not simply not take the tax in the first place?

Like I said, semantics to a large part and ultimately there can be savings (ID cards, number of MPs in the Commons daft doubling up) etc without the efficiency stuff, it's a matter of whether you actually want to do something.

Classic example of things like Govt IT projects, the new Number10 website costing £100K for something I'd have got done for no more than £2K and still been happy with the project, Welsh Office site costing £500 p/m to host for something that I could get hosted for £50/year, etc.

Effectively, just because right wing Govts have done something in the past doesn't make it a right wing policy...

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Why not simply not take the tax in the first place?

I agree entirely, tax credits are a ridiculous idea and we just need a genuine progressive income tax. This is one of the things that has always attracted me to the Lib Dems. Having discarded the 50% rate and now promising tax cuts it seems they are moving away from this.

I've just read Make It Happen and I find myself in agreement with it. By it's nature it is very vague though. Perhaps they will be able to cut some big unpopular programmes like ID and Trident, introduce some new green taxes and have some money left over for tax cuts without effecting services. I doubt it.

[akicif.livejournal.com]

Except small government has always been a liberal position, but that position got partially hijacked by Thatcher's tories who never really managed to implement it effectively despite all the rhetoric

Their idea of shrinking government was more to do with centralisation, and drawing power back into London....

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

The bits I've heard from Vince, in particular, are less about cutting things like glossy magazines but more about cutting out unnecessary layers of quangos, so that you don't have the Health secretary instructing civil servants who instruct a random advisory board who issue recommendations to strategic health authorities who consult with PCTs and stakeholders who then come to a pro-active decision that balances the rights and responsibilities of oh God I think I want to kill myself. Obviously, there's a need for that sort of thing in terms of licensing new drugs and such, but the health issues in a given area would potentially be much more accountable and responsive to local needs and demographics. Many more care decisions would supposedly be made at a much more local level (PCTs, GPs, hospitals etc.), rather than from a centralized target.

This I like, and this I think is a good thing. If people can actually speak to the guy who makes the decisions, there's much more local participation. I hope it would also shave money off the budget, some of which could go on more front-line services, some of which could go elsewhere. (The key word in that sentence was "hope"; I am not so naive as to believe it's a cake-walk.)

This might, as a by-product, also cut the amount of crap publicity.