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

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

"16p basic rate, scrapping Labour's wasted spending, use the savings to take the poorest out of income tax altogether." 20 words, ish.

I think if shadow ministers could bang on that in interviews as a response, it might help. At the moment, they're articulating vague tax cut proposals, which can be made to sound like Tory-lite.

At the moment, they're having to get two or three questions into interviews to get to that point, when fighting past "Doesn't that make you like CallMeDave?" and "Isn't this the reverse of what you stand for?" when "Help the poor" is one of the core things the Lib Dems do stand for, IMO. A consistent message of "taking the poorest out of income tax altogether" in response to allegations of right-wing tax cuts could and should cut past that - "Isn't this the reverse of what the Lib Dems stood for?" "No, Mr Bumblebee, the Lib Dems have always stood for helping the poor, and that's what these proposals do." not "No, Mr Bumblebee, we wanted to raise taxes when they were too low, but now they're too high, so we want to cut them, and give that money back from the bottom up." I hate the phrase "from the bottom up", by the way - I think I heard Nick using it on the Today programme this morning.

You can substitute other words for "poor" - disadvantaged, vulnerable, whatever. But I think the "too low/too high/just right" Goldilocks talk is just too waffly. Like this comment.

[matgb]

All true I think, and you're right, the rhetoric needs working on--I might buttonhole someone from the press team of Nick's staff if I get the chance.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

One of my ambitions in life is to be Toby Ziegler. I wish I was good enough. :-(