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

[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.

[matgb]

It really is media froth based around some weird definition of left/right that makes no sense to me at all.

The first stage of the policy has already been pushed heavily as the green tax switch--reducing taxes on the lowest paid (combined basic rate cut and threshold increase) by increasing taxes on environmental externalities (gotta love Pigou). Second stage is a medium term "if we find savings then" thing--for a start you can't reduce the number of MPs within a Parliament, and that's been a policy since I was at school.

I actually think it's a good move politically depending on how the press team and spokestypes manage to sell it, the tax threshold shoud be above minimum wage full time anyway, and environmental taxation just makes sense.

We'll see, I guess.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

it will just come across as a cynical move.

It is, isn't it? It is a deliberate attempt to poach/retain Tory voters.

[matgb]

Gah, meant to link to Rawnsley in reply, while his facts are wrong at the top I think he's got some strong points later:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/14/libdemconference.nickclegg?gusrc=rss&feed=global