Who are the real "progressives"?

[Mister M]

I see where you're going but I'm not so sure.

I'm not aware of strong pressure from Labour on gay marriage, but more importantly the requirement to charge people with 14 days and the end of arbitrary stop and search were reversals of laws that Labour enacted.

 

Because of the Conservatives, homosexuals are now finally equal under the law and dark skinned people can go about their business without being accosted by the police without cause demanding that they turn out their pockets and submit to a search, or thrown in a cell for months without being told why.

Compared to how I would have predicted 21set century legislation to go it's like I've stepped through a mirror.

 

How did this happen?

 

If Labour are no longer the party of social progress, what are they for?

 

On the issue of Same Sex Marriage legislation, I think your statement oversimplifies it to the point of meaninglessness....Like the debate 'who is the most progressive?'

 

It's worth bearing in mind that many MPs of all parties voted against the Same Sex Marriage legislation - Many Tories did, some Labour MPs did, even a few Liberal Democrats did.

Here's the list of MPs from all parties who either voted for or against the legislation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694

 

I think, historically, it's fair to say that the Cameron government were following on from the previous Government's legislation in this area. And the Brown & Blair governments, in turn, were following from legislation in this area from John Major's government....and so on.

Ultimately, and not to take anything away from those campaigning politicians, it's campaigners on the ground who ensured that the door that 'progressive' politicians pushed against in this area was a lot easier.

 

On a broader point sometimes what was once considered or sold as progressive, is with the benefit of hindsight seen as regressive.

Ultimately it doesn't matter as politicians have to deal issues as they arise in a way that they see fit....Whether they are progressive or regressive is probably secondary.

So whether Labour/ Tories or whoever are party of social progress doesn't really matter...Only to those who want to use it as a stick to beat others with....Which to be honest feels like the point of this thread.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Mister M

[tinfoilhat]

On the issue of Same Sex Marriage legislation, I think your statement oversimplifies it to the point of meaninglessness....Like the debate 'who is the most progressive?'

 

It's worth bearing in mind that many MPs of all parties voted against the Same Sex Marriage legislation - Many Tories did, some Labour MPs did, even a few Liberal Democrats did.

Here's the list of MPs from all parties who either voted for or against the legislation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694

 

I think, historically, it's fair to say that the Cameron government were following on from the previous Government's legislation in this area. And the Brown & Blair governments, in turn, were following from legislation in this area from John Major's government....and so on.

Ultimately, and not to take anything away from those campaigning politicians, it's campaigners on the ground who ensured that the door that 'progressive' politicians pushed against in this area was a lot easier.

 

On a broader point sometimes what was once considered or sold as progressive, is with the benefit of hindsight seen as regressive.

Ultimately it doesn't matter as politicians have to deal issues as they arise in a way that they see fit....Whether they are progressive or regressive is probably secondary.

So whether Labour/ Tories or whoever are party of social progress doesn't really matter...Only to those who want to use it as a stick to beat others with....Which to be honest feels like the point of this thread.

 

Actually, you've raised a very good point. I don't think there are any progressive politicians any more, just those who are prepared to jump on a bandwagon to attract votes or get further up the greasy pole. New ideas aren't coming from politicians from any side, apart from, incredibly - trump and he's not a "proper" politician.

[tzijlstra]

Can I just make extremely clear here: It was the LibDems that forced equal marriage rights through. The tories getting/taking credit for that makes me feel sick to the stomach.

[Robin-H]

Can I just make extremely clear here: It was the LibDems that forced equal marriage rights through. The tories getting/taking credit for that makes me feel sick to the stomach.

 

Really? According to who?

 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/05/03/conservative-equality-manifesto-promises-to-consider-full-gay-marriage/

[Mister M]

Really? According to who?

 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/05/03/conservative-equality-manifesto-promises-to-consider-full-gay-marriage/

 

 

"It echoes a vague commitment given by shadow chancellor George Osborne to gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell but comes after a string of damaging accusations of homophobia by a number of Conservative candidates."

 

Maybe it's wrong of me but I zoned in on that sentence from the article

[Robin-H]

"It echoes a vague commitment given by shadow chancellor George Osborne to gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell but comes after a string of damaging accusations of homophobia by a number of Conservative candidates."

 

Maybe it's wrong of me but I zone in on that sentence from the article

 

Nobody is saying that the gay rights legislation didn't annoy some back bench Conservatives and it is true that the Conservative party in the past were definitely the least progressive in this regard, however it is demonstrably wrong to suggest that is was only because the Conservatives were in government with the Lib Dems that we now finally have legalised gay marriage.

 

As the article I provided shows reclassifying civil partnerships as marriage was part of their 'equality manifesto' before they got elected. It has nothing to do with the Lib Dems.

[tzijlstra]

Nobody is saying that the gay rights legislation didn't annoy some back bench Conservatives and it is true that the Conservative party in the past were definitely the least progressive in this regard, however it is demonstrably wrong to suggest that is was only because the Conservatives were in government with the Lib Dems that we now finally have legalised gay marriage.

 

As the article I provided shows reclassifying civil partnerships as marriage was part of their 'equality manifesto' before they got elected. It has nothing to do with the Lib Dems.

 

A) that government (Cameron 1) only existed because the LibDems propped them up.

 

B) there are lots of things in manifestos, that doesn't mean they make it to the Houses. The LibDems laid out a very clear course to Cameron and it included making gay marriage legal. Without that it remains to be seen whether it would have got there in the end.

[Cyclone]

So you think that traditional Labour are less authoritarian than the modern Conservatives?

I didn't say that. I didn't comment on traditional labour at all.

When they were last in power I was too young to be interested in politics and to take note of what kind of legislation they passed.

That I find dubious. They were still part of a party (if not the dominate movement within it) which tried to gain the power to lock people away for 90 days without charge. They also introduced the "incitement to racial/religious hatred" laws which (whilst no doubt in some way serving the laudable goal of reducing hatred) constituted a serious blow against freedom of speech.

Perhaps you have counter-examples?

That was new labour, we haven't had a traditional labour government since 1979.

 

To my mind, the real test of the Conservative government on liberty will be the new press regulation regime. In 10 years will the press still be effective in exposing government corruption and malfeasance? I'm not sure.

 

The raft of laws that appear to be designed to silence the press, punish whistle blowers, remove the rights to only be surveilled after a warrant is granted, all those things suggest a government that doesn't give two hoots about notions of liberty.

[Robin-H]

A) that government (Cameron 1) only existed because the LibDems propped them up.

 

B) there are lots of things in manifestos, that doesn't mean they make it to the Houses. The LibDems laid out a very clear course to Cameron and it included making gay marriage legal. Without that it remains to be seen whether it would have got there in the end.

 

Those points do not address the points that I made.

 

The 'equalities manifesto' was launched by the Conservatives when they were not in government, but campaigning for the 2010 election (it was launched by Theresa May). It has nothing at all to do with the Lib Dems.

 

It therefore follows that the Lib Dems did not lay out a 'very clear course' for Cameron regarding gay marriage. It was already on the agenda to reclassify civil partnerships as marriages before they were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

 

The bill would have passed easily even if every Lib Dem had voted against it.

[Cyclone]

Hey, I remember another conservative manifesto pledge. No cuts to the NHS. They're not good at keeping promises are they.