Thursday, 20 May 2010

Labour Tantrums Start.

Reading some of the rubbish being put around by Reading Labour councillors in the last few days is immensley amusing. It's been like watching a child when their mum has taken away their favourite teddy to wash off the vomit.

I don't define myself as progressive because it is a completely meaningless term used by vacuous people post-election to mean "Not Conservative". Labour members have to increasingly define themselves by what they are not because they no longer know what they stand for. I have no need to because I am quite clear what a Lib Dem believes in and it is been a continuous and honourable line from the reforms of the 19th Century to Nick Clegg's calls for a society based on fairness. If a label needs to be pinned on my party, I may allow the use of radical but that is a term you absolutely could not use to describe Labour in any shape or form.

The root of their problem is that Labour refuse to accept that they LOST the local elections in 2008.


Duncan said...

Look, it's perfectly simple.

If you're a progressive, it means you believe in the third way. To believe in the third way is to support a government for the many, not the few and which believes in moving forward not back. Moving forward is progress; hence progressive. See? Makes perfect sense. What do progressive parties stand for, you ask? Simple; we get a hold of voters prepared to vote for progressive parties, we stick them in select committees and find out what they want their government to do. And then we do that, some things to keep the old party happy, some things to keep our international allies happy and some random things which it occurs to our ministers to do (but that's alright because they're progressives to, so whatever they're doing it's presumably progressive).

Progressive = third way = moving forward, not back = progress. See? Simple!

Duncan said...

Oops. 'select committees' should of course read 'focus groups'.

Duncan said...

Terrorism laws are a perfect example. A balance needs to be struck between civil liberties and protection from terror. We know what side a liberal would err on, but what would a progressive do? To find out we need to poll progressive voters (defined as people who vote for or are willing to vote for (self-)designated progressive parties) or trust in the opinion of progressive ministers for progressive parties. So if the voters and the ministers feel civil liberties are more important then that's the progressive thing. If, on the other hand, they think a higher premium should be put on safety from terrorists then that's the progressive thing to do. ((Note; the progressive thing to do may therefore change depending on how recently there's been a terrorist threat or how well informed the public are about the liklihood of a threat happening. The best thing to do is to restrict civil liberties in the name of safety (because you could get voted out if an attack did happen) and then scare the progressive voters into accepting that this is the right thing to do, progressively, so it will be the progressive thing to have done)).

Was said...

Of course if you manufacture a terrorist threat it makes things a lot simpler.