I was more wondering if, in general, people had some other definition in their head where "reform" just meant "change".
Because from the definition, the BBC are entirely correct. They should be non-partisan, and thus refer to it as "Proposed voting change" or something equally neutral in nature. Otherwise they risk looking like they're in favour of something. And much though I want the AV referendum to come out "Yes", I don't think the BBC should be partisan.
I think it has positive connotations, but it's *ALSO* a word that is used by the BBC a *LOT*. A quick google for site:bbc.co.uk reform gives results like "Currency reform may unsettle North Korean leadership", "lobby group urges reform on transmission charges", "David Cameron: Public sector reform cannot be delayed", "NHS Confederation says health reform 'could shut hospitals'"
So while it may have positive connotations in general, when used by the BBC in other circumstances it's used as if it's a neutral term. I don't think one can say that 'banking reform' or 'NHS reform' are less partisan subjects than electoral reform, and I don't think the AV referendum should be made a special case.
I agree with that too. It seems very suspicious that AV would be singled out for this. Possibly people should be complaining about _other_ uses of the word "reform" too.
Quite so. In a non-political context I would consider reform to be generally a positive thing, but these days you have to look at the context pretty closely to know one way or the other - it's just another weasel word to be bandied about, like 'efficiency'. What the BBC is quite frankly borderline suspicious though and very odd indeed.
In terms of the government, it does feel more like just, "change" or even "change for change's sake".
Everything's labelled as a reform these days and there have been so many reforms over the last few years, some good, some bad, some utterly pointless, that the dictionary definition and its positive meaning has been lost in the noise. As one I. Montoya put it, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Government Reform" to me just means wasting huge amounts of cash for no noticeable change other than to appear different from the last lot, even if the net result to the man in the street is exactly the same as it ever was.
Maybe that's why they're picking on "Electoral Reform", it's a change that might actually do something!
I voted negative connotation, but I think my reasons are somewhat idiosyncratic; a grass-roots protest party in Canadian federal politics called itself the Reform Party, which turned out to be slightly to the right of Attila. They extended a vacuole and engulfed the Progressive Conservatives when the PCs ruptured, and are now the head of a minority government... which I resent, as they've taken the PCs (who were often called Red Tories given how moderate their social policies were) into a more neo-conservative niche.
-- Steve does agree that the term "reform" does kinda connote that something's wrong with things as-is, and may honestly be perceived as a non-neutral term.
A similarly loaded pair of words might be "progressive" and "regressive". In a general context, "progressive" surely is positive connotations, but when applied to taxation means just that higher earners pay a higher percentage of their income in taxation and lower earners pay a lower percentage. While some people may think this is good, others wouldn't. So the tax system (or individual taxes) can in theory be described as "progressive" or "regressive" without making clear that one is better than the other by whatever measure. However, how many politicians are going to want to be seen as supporting something that is "regressive"?
Specifically in the context of electoral reform it's what it is. the campaign to extend the franchise and to alter voting systems has always been called the Reform movement.
Therefore I think, in this context it is neutral, in the same way that boot black and black balling are not racist.
Not calling electoral reform, electoral reform is like not calling that game where you try to move a round leather object from the middle of a field to one end mainly by using those things at the end of your legs, football.
A. If it does have a positive connotation then it's important to be cautious and avoid using it to describe something that there's a single issue referendum about.
B. If it does not have any positive connotation and really is neutral then there's no reason to get in a tizz about it.
I strongly suspect those campaigning against the BBC about this (who you've not linked to) want people to think B applies but clearly their campaign implies A is true.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2011-02-09 03:54 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I was more wondering if, in general, people had some other definition in their head where "reform" just meant "change".
Because from the definition, the BBC are entirely correct. They should be non-partisan, and thus refer to it as "Proposed voting change" or something equally neutral in nature. Otherwise they risk looking like they're in favour of something. And much though I want the AV referendum to come out "Yes", I don't think the BBC should be partisan.
no subject
So while it may have positive connotations in general, when used by the BBC in other circumstances it's used as if it's a neutral term. I don't think one can say that 'banking reform' or 'NHS reform' are less partisan subjects than electoral reform, and I don't think the AV referendum should be made a special case.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Everything's labelled as a reform these days and there have been so many reforms over the last few years, some good, some bad, some utterly pointless, that the dictionary definition and its positive meaning has been lost in the noise. As one I. Montoya put it, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Government Reform" to me just means wasting huge amounts of cash for no noticeable change other than to appear different from the last lot, even if the net result to the man in the street is exactly the same as it ever was.
Maybe that's why they're picking on "Electoral Reform", it's a change that might actually do something!
no subject
Hah. A blessing in disguise, perhaps, not being tarred with a word that no longer means what it says on the tin?
no subject
no subject
-- Steve does agree that the term "reform" does kinda connote that something's wrong with things as-is, and may honestly be perceived as a non-neutral term.
no subject
When it's the Tories -- eg today's stuff about DLA reform -- I instinctively worry.
no subject
no subject
See my post here:
http://philmophlegm.livejournal.com/171247.html
no subject
no subject
Therefore I think, in this context it is neutral, in the same way that boot black and black balling are not racist.
Not calling electoral reform, electoral reform is like not calling that game where you try to move a round leather object from the middle of a field to one end mainly by using those things at the end of your legs, football.
Reform means to make again.
no subject
B. If it does not have any positive connotation and really is neutral then there's no reason to get in a tizz about it.
I strongly suspect those campaigning against the BBC about this (who you've not linked to) want people to think B applies but clearly their campaign implies A is true.