I was at the Not-the-first-hustings yesterday at the South Central Conference at Newbury and was impressed by both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne. I saw nothing to make me change my loyalties away from Chris, but one thing in particular Nick said (twice at least) was worth flagging up I thought.

I think the first reference was in his speech when talking about how to re-engage voters in an era when so many people say "what does government matter when the global conglomerates have all the power" he seemed to say that government should seek to control (as in rein in not own I presume) big business. Then again, when one of the questions was about how to sell Europe, he suggested that one of the benefits of Europe was the ability of governments to club together to control such global corporations.

I'm don't recall whether these were the only references to what one might call "economic" policy but they stuck in my mind because, whilst the media seem to talk about Nick being on the "economic liberal" (code for "right wing" in the economically illiterate media) part of the party, these are the sort of anti-corporate slogans that characterize Caroline Lucas or Naomi Klein more than they would Milton Friedman. Further, in reference to his past role as an EU trade negotiator, he seemed to believe that this in fact meant Euro-protectionism rather than freeing global trade.

On the other hand, Chris, who I think it is generally accepted is more grounded in economic theory, cited yesterday Hobhouse and the early twentieth century liberal reformers as his heros and today on Andrew Marr's program Lloyd-George. These guys knew all about the best mechanisms for helping the poor working classes - free trade and anti-monopoly.

I can't say whether Chris shares my view that the welfare state as conceived by these reformers was a necessary but essentially temporary measure only needed in an economic system that favoured the land-owner, capitalist and banker. But as a land value taxer, I would identify Chris with an "economic liberalism" that in a sense supersedes what many call "social liberalism". That believes that if we get the economic system more equitable, by reducing protectionism and monopolistic advantage, we create greater opportunity for the "little guy" than we can do by state led intervention in people's lives and wealth and consequently need a smaller safety net as a result.

Economic liberalism is "of the left" not the right. Its aim is to break the class and wealth based advantages enjoyed by the privileged and give the working person a greater share of the value of his or her production. Chris, I think, understands this. But Nick does not seem to be the "economic liberal" the press portrays him as, at least judging by those comments yesterday, but rather takes a protectionist and interventionist stance. A position which also has a big following in our party to be sure; this is not a value judgement, but it is a position I do not personally support (any longer).

All it goes to show really is that we cannot put any credence on the media who mischaracterize "economic liberalism" as something of the right and "social liberalism" as something of the left, and, having failed to understand either put our two candidates in those false categories. Nick might be on the "right" in the sense that he is apparently a protectionist, but it's not the sort of "right" the meedja seem to understand!