Comments on: The times, they are a changing… http://thecowfield.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-times-they-are-a-changing/ My own sanctuary... Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:01:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Luke_D http://thecowfield.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-times-they-are-a-changing/#comment-25 Luke_D Sat, 08 Mar 2008 11:58:54 +0000 http://thecowfield.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-25 Obviously things have changed, modernisation has seen to that, but there are some things which seem to be constants in the political life, I'll be honest it was the prison overcrowding bit of the whole quote which leapt out at me. Although, looking at it, whilst old age may be better provided for, it doesn't mean that it's great (frequent stories about care homes and poor treatment of older people litter the press). And just this week we had the story of how people in rural areas are living below the poverty line. Issues, it seems, still very much of the right here right now. People's basic needs are the same as they were then, humanity hasn't really changed that much. I thought it was interesting the shift the meaning of the label. And that's sort of the point, nothing about the quote seems particularly radical nowadays. However, I also think a few (just a few!) radical people in society nowadays is a good thing. It was a good thing in the 1790s and I maintain it is a good thing now. If nothing else they raise the extremes of any given issue for the more liberal-minded people to act upon. It also makes things more interesting, and ensures society doesn't all toe the mainstream politics line. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life. From my point of view, if nothing else, they make politics (which people are rapidly growing bored of) more interesting again (that does not mean people should listen to what they say though and start acting upon it!) Obviously things have changed, modernisation has seen to that, but there are some things which seem to be constants in the political life, I’ll be honest it was the prison overcrowding bit of the whole quote which leapt out at me. Although, looking at it, whilst old age may be better provided for, it doesn’t mean that it’s great (frequent stories about care homes and poor treatment of older people litter the press). And just this week we had the story of how people in rural areas are living below the poverty line. Issues, it seems, still very much of the right here right now.
People’s basic needs are the same as they were then, humanity hasn’t really changed that much.
I thought it was interesting the shift the meaning of the label. And that’s sort of the point, nothing about the quote seems particularly radical nowadays.
However, I also think a few (just a few!) radical people in society nowadays is a good thing. It was a good thing in the 1790s and I maintain it is a good thing now. If nothing else they raise the extremes of any given issue for the more liberal-minded people to act upon. It also makes things more interesting, and ensures society doesn’t all toe the mainstream politics line. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life. From my point of view, if nothing else, they make politics (which people are rapidly growing bored of) more interesting again (that does not mean people should listen to what they say though and start acting upon it!)

]]> By: tommarley http://thecowfield.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-times-they-are-a-changing/#comment-24 tommarley Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:56:36 +0000 http://thecowfield.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-24 Maybe the point is that we have most of the things that quote asks for? Free press, independent judiciary, a national health service, universal education to 18 and massive expansion of HE, a government focuassed on eradicating child poverty - all things that quote refers to. So has anything changed since 1790? I would tend to think so. "Immoderate salaries reduced" and "taxes diminished" are political viepoints. However in 1790 the notions of left and right were only in their infancy. Surely 'radicals' today would call for increased taxation? But what is radical about any of the above? Is it radical to want to ensure all young people have decent life chances and equal opportunties? Is it radical to prepare the country for a globalised future making sure our young people are adequaltely trainined/educated? Is it radical to deliver low inflation, low interest rates and economic growth? Is it radical to encourage aspirations, so people can buy their own home for example, and give them the life chances to make a better life for themselves? I think I agree, the British people don't want 'radicalism', whatever that is. Why would you want to be radical? Maybe the point is that we have most of the things that quote asks for? Free press, independent judiciary, a national health service, universal education to 18 and massive expansion of HE, a government focuassed on eradicating child poverty - all things that quote refers to. So has anything changed since 1790? I would tend to think so.

“Immoderate salaries reduced” and “taxes diminished” are political viepoints. However in 1790 the notions of left and right were only in their infancy. Surely ‘radicals’ today would call for increased taxation?

But what is radical about any of the above? Is it radical to want to ensure all young people have decent life chances and equal opportunties? Is it radical to prepare the country for a globalised future making sure our young people are adequaltely trainined/educated? Is it radical to deliver low inflation, low interest rates and economic growth? Is it radical to encourage aspirations, so people can buy their own home for example, and give them the life chances to make a better life for themselves?

I think I agree, the British people don’t want ‘radicalism’, whatever that is.

Why would you want to be radical?

]]>