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

Also, in response to your headline:

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

When was liberalism anything other than left wing?

When it was classical liberalism.

Re: Also, in response to your headline:

[matgb]

But classical liberalism was always opposed to the protectionist Toryism, people like Ricardo, Smith and Mill were seen as dangerous extremists by a lot of the traditional ruling classes.

By any sane definition, the classical liberals were the radical left wingers of their age. Which is why the left/right terminology is effectively useless (and why I'm being deliberately provocative, not something I've done for ages).

Re: Also, in response to your headline:

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Classical liberalism was always opposed to the protectionist Toryism

Yeah, but that has no bearing on the current debate. Left/right is always going to be imprecise but I don't agree that it is useless. I have no problem with calling classical liberalism right wing. I am a liberal but I am not a libertarian so it is understandable that I react uneasily to attempts by the party I vote for to capture the libertarian wing of the Tory Party.

Re: Also, in response to your headline:

[matgb]

Well, it does in some respects but I'm specifically annoyed with some of the Liberal activists who object to any attempt to use rhetoric that actually works and/or use of labels such as 'liberal socialist' to their idols like JS Mill (who was a socialist but in no way a marxist, let alone a Marxist).

But the thing is some of the Libertarians in the tories are headbanging loons, but others, like for example Alan Duncan, are fairly liberal, and the modern Conservative and Unionist party could, if it wanted and Cameron wasn't a twonk, claim a greater part of the party of Gladstone than the Lib Dems--the old Liberals split 5 times, 4 of those splits ended up in the Conservatives, Churchill being the most prominent.

But meh, it's not their activists or members I'm interested in, it's their soft supporters, especially in cities like Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford where the Tory party hasn't got a cat in hells chance of getting anywhere.

Re: Also, in response to your headline:

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Ah, since I fall on the Social Democrat rather than Liberal side of the party I guess none of this applies to me. (Gladstone, my arse :p) It does leave me without any one to vote for...

especially in cities like Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford where the Tory party hasn't got a cat in hells chance of getting anywhere.

Last time I looked they made up half of Bradford Council and it was the Lib Dems who were nowhere?

Re: Also, in response to your headline:

[matgb]

Odds are I'm getting cities mixed up, I know we've got Cllrs, the Lord Mayor and a target seat there but haven't looked at the numbers. Sheffield is definitely true though, and there are areas all over the place where the Tories are dead, which ones matters little (replace Hull and Liverpool into the above if you want).

But the thing is with any party that under FPTP it needs to be a broad church--jaws drop at times when I describe myself as a Liberal Socialist, which confuses the politically illiterate. Current policy is taking the party in a more avowedly liberal direction, whether that's left or right is, as we're essentially proving, pure semantics.

Without the SDP merger, we'd be nothing, and there are a large number of members who are still avowedly social democrats (the authors of reinventing the state being some, one of whom is also conference chair).

But...

The 5th split I mentioned was a bunch of the old Radical wing who went to join Labour instead. A bunch of them came back with the SDP (obviously, not the same people)...

Anyway, another half hour of interruptions for the comment, so apologies for unedited ramble.

Re: Also, in response to your headline:

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

On the (rather poor) Political Compass type things, I usually end up pretty much central on the economic scale, and most of the way out towards liberal on the other scale. The last time I did one, they had Simon Hughes plotted on it in about the same place I was.

I believe in things like trying to give everyone opportunities (like helping the poor go to the university of their choice), progressive taxation and the like. I also tend to favour small amounts of Law but a relatively large State - where, in my mind, Law is the regulation of everything to hell and back and invading people's private lives, but the State should be providing public services and safety nets for people.

But at heart I try to be pragmatic. Sure, a small law approach might embrace completely free markets, but I want some regulation. And while I have a lot of sympathy for socialism (in the "helping out other people who aren't me" sense, rather than necessarily nationalized industries and such), I find it hard to endorse for Britain on a grand scale, because there are situations where it doesn't work out well, and other things can be better.

I don't know what that makes me. Confused?