flamingjimmy Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Rush ftw! screw the Quo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 If "progressive" becomes a dirty word It certainly seems to be the latest NuLabour "buzz word" but what does it actually amount to? Call me cynical but I'd say nothing more than a media friendly sound bite. "We're progressive, that lot aren't. So vote for us". "Yes, but what's progressive about you?" "Erm... well, progress and all that". "Progress to what?" "Well, going forward, meeting the challenge, locking in the recovery, change and...erm... more change". "So, the same old empty rhetoric then?" People need to distinguish ephemeral buzz words from political substance. Unfortunately, with today's politicians, they've probably never encountered anything substantial about any of them. So, what is progressive about the parties that claim to be "progressive"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 7, 2010 Author Share Posted May 7, 2010 It certainly seems to be the latest NuLabour "buzz word" but what does it actually amount to? Call me cynical but I'd say nothing more than a media friendly sound bite. "We're progressive, that lot aren't. So vote for us". "Yes, but what's progressive about you?" "Erm... well, progress and all that". "Progress to what?" "Well, going forward, meeting the challenge, locking in the recovery, change and...erm... more change". "So, the same old empty rhetoric then?" People need to distinguish ephemeral buzz words from political substance. Unfortunately, with today's politicians, they've probably never encountered anything substantial about any of them. So, what is progressive about the parties that claim to be "progressive"? I mentioned some examples of what I would consider progressive legislation in an earlier post. I agree the term "progressive" is vague, like "change", but I'm talking about the real world effects of legislation, which we can identify throughout history, that embodies progress as far as individual liberty and labour rights, for example. The point I was trying to make is that even if a so-called "conservative" (small c) government gets in, do most of us still expect some kind of progressive reform to continue in order to reduce the burdens of injustice inherent in a given system? If so, what, then, makes them conservative? When would progress (in the form of legislative reform) ever cease to be an essential part of our political ecology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanG Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Status quo are pants give me sasha & digweed anyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Could it not be argued that a society that has a lot of governmental interference isn't a progressive society, and any government that looks to lessen this is a progressive government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Whose manifesto? Tory plans include "opt outs" for Inspections: http://www.hazards.org/deadlybusiness/escapingscrutiny.htm Sorry this wasn't intended to be a partisan thread. Not that Labour were much better reducing inspections by 25% http://www.hazards.org/commissionimpossible/hse.htm Either way, I doubt the HSE will be abolished. Opt outs on Inspections pretty much make HSE toothless and will practically abolish them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Could it not be argued that a society that has a lot of governmental interference isn't a progressive society, and any government that looks to lessen this is a progressive government? That is anarcho-communist talk. It might be a utopian dream and ultimately something worth striving for, but whilst we have multi-national corporations constructed to behave without morals as psychopaths in the pursuit of profit and externalising losses and costs, we need states and international regulations to contain their excesses. Also until we have worker's councils or some other local structures set up to provide health care, social support and infrastructural needs, we will need a state of some form, to protect us from primitive barbarism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 That is anarcho-communist talk. sod communism ive been listening to a lot of conflict during this election and i mean conflict as in the band lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 7, 2010 Author Share Posted May 7, 2010 Could it not be argued that a society that has a lot of governmental interference isn't a progressive society, and any government that looks to lessen this is a progressive government? Excellent point. Is there not a balance between positive liberty (i.e. government intervention that frees individuals from excessive coercion) and negative liberty (simply being free from handcuffs) that a government must make in order to attain the greatest liberty for the greatest number of individuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 7, 2010 Author Share Posted May 7, 2010 Tory plans include "opt outs" for Inspections: http://www.hazards.org/deadlybusiness/escapingscrutiny.htm Not that Labour were much better reducing inspections by 25% http://www.hazards.org/commissionimpossible/hse.htm Opt outs on Inspections pretty much make HSE toothless and will practically abolish them. I need to read more. Very revealing, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.