What does progressive mean

[hibs0666]

Sturgeon keeps bandying this phrase about. WTF does it mean?

[degenerated]

It's bandied about by Labour Scottish branch office with consistent regularity as well.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Enlightened social thinking based up constitutional reforms, as opposed to revolutionary change. Progress (meaning stemming from humane principles) from within a parliamentary system. Progressive changes in history would include things such as health and safety laws, ending child labour, universal education and health care, creation of a welfare system.

[hibs0666]

Enlightened social thinking based up constitutional reforms, as opposed to revolutionary change. Progress (meaning stemming from humane principles) from within a parliamentary system. Progressive changes in history would include things such as health and safety laws, ending child labour, universal education and health care, creation of a welfare system.

Cheers for that. Being pragmatic it would appear that any party could claim to be progressive?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Cheers for that. Being pragmatic it would appear that any party could claim to be progressive?

Progressivism is traditionally associated with the centre-left; the fundamental idea being to spread power and wealth more evenly. Most of the major progressive reforms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were opposed by the Tories on the basis of being economically damaging, only to be continued when they proved popular with the public. For example, the Conservative Party fought tooth and nail against the creation of the NHS by the Attlee government, on the grounds the free market should prevail.

In recent years there were things like the minimum wage and working families tax credits, as instruments to promote social justice: opposed by the Tories but retained in office.

[VivaHiberña]

Progressivism is traditionally associated with the centre-left; the fundamental idea being to spread power and wealth more evenly. Most of the major progressive reforms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were opposed by the Tories on the basis of being economically damaging, only to be continued when they proved popular with the public. For example, the Conservative Party fought tooth and nail against the creation of the NHS by the Attlee government, on the grounds the free market should prevail.

In recent years there were things like the minimum wage and working families tax credits, as instruments to promote social justice: opposed by the Tories but retained in office.

Conversely though, progressive policies could be socially liberal ones, such as gay marriage, which was introduced in England by the Tories. I concede the wider point though; "progressive" tends to mean broadly lefty/ socially liberal. Not typically the Conservatives' strong suit.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's just the opposite of (small c) conservative. Progressive politics seeks to change things for the betterment of the disadvantaged. Conservative politics seeks to halt or reverse change to preserve the benefits of the already well off.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Conversely though, progressive policies could be socially liberal ones, such as gay marriage, which was introduced in England by the Tories. I concede the wider point though; "progressive" tends to mean broadly lefty/ socially liberal. Not typically the Conservatives' strong suit.

Absolutely, social liberalism is part of progressivism and isn't at all contradictory with economic progressivism. It was the Wilson government of the sixties that legalized homosexuality and abortion. To be fair, the Tory leadership (if not the grassroots) has moved to more progressive positions on some social issues in recent years.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's just the opposite of (small c) conservative. Progressive politics seeks to change things for the betterment of the disadvantaged. Conservative politics seeks to halt or reverse change to preserve the benefits of the already well off.
Yet as recently as the 70s and 80s the Tories went under the name of the Progressives in Edinburgh Council elections. Always found that a bit strange.

[hibs0666]

It's just the opposite of (small c) conservative. Progressive politics seeks to change things for the betterment of the disadvantaged. Conservative politics seeks to halt or reverse change to preserve the benefits of the already well off.

Could the tories not legitimately claim that the sale of council houses was progressive under these terms?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Could the tories not legitimately claim that the sale of council houses was progressive under these terms?

Progressive policies are more likely to be defined as those which provide a tangible benefit to wider society, rather than individual material benefit, though of course the two things can go hand in hand. However, a policy such as council house sales is a dubious example, as it only benefitted those who could afford to buy them and restricted access to public housing to others.

[Stranraer]

To me people who call themselves progressives are often social democrats or watered down leftists. It's used in the US all the time. Tony Blair is a self proclaimed "progressive".

[snooky]

I always think 'progressive' means "Listen up, I'm going this-a-way. Follow me if you want"

[JeMeSouviens]

Yet as recently as the 70s and 80s the Tories went under the name of the Progressives in Edinburgh Council elections. Always found that a bit strange.

Never knew that, weird.

[JeMeSouviens]

Could the tories not legitimately claim that the sale of council houses was progressive under these terms?

No, not really. Right to buy was an attempt to expand the conservative voter base by giving a section of the population a chance to buy discounted public assets at the expense of those coming up behind them who were then faced with a lack of affordable housing stock.

[SHODAN]

To me people who call themselves progressives are often social democrats or watered down leftists. It's used in the US all the time. Tony Blair is a self proclaimed "progressive".

:agree:

[ACLeith]

Tony Blair is a self proclaimed "progressive".
Got it now. "Progressive" means a compulsive liar and war criminal?

[CropleyWasGod]

Never knew that, weird.

Actually, I mis-remembered. :greengrin

The Progressives were actually an anti-Labour movement, a loose alliance of other viewpoints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressives_%28Scotland%29

[Hibernia&Alba]

To me people who call themselves progressives are often social democrats or watered down leftists. It's used in the US all the time. Tony Blair is a self proclaimed "progressive".

I can well imagine Miliband and co using it, as the world socialist has been wiped from their vocabulary.

[Stranraer]

I can well imagine Miliband and co using it, as the world socialist has been wiped from their vocabulary.

:agree: a friend of mine is a member of the party and on his card it says "social democratic" as opposed to Socialist.

[VivaHiberña]

:agree: a friend of mine is a member of the party and on his card it says "social democratic" as opposed to Socialist.

:agree: Watch Miliband whenever he's asked if him or his party are socialists. He gets all defensive then says, without fail, "we are a progressive, social democratic party; that's what it says on our party card, 'social democratic.'" It's quite sad really.

[Hibby Bairn]

No, not really. Right to buy was an attempt to expand the conservative voter base by giving a section of the population a chance to buy discounted public assets at the expense of those coming up behind them who were then faced with a lack of affordable housing stock.

And here was me thinking it was to give more people the opportunity to buy and then own their own property to give them an asset that they could probably never afford. And thereafter to be retained by that family if they chose to do so.

To allow people to aspire to a slightly better and/or wealthier future.

That sounds quite progressive to me.

[Hibernia&Alba]

And here was me thinking it was to give more people the opportunity to buy and then own their own property to give them an asset that they could probably never afford. And thereafter to be retained by that family if they chose to do so.

To allow people to aspire to a slightly better and/or wealthier future.

That sounds quite progressive to me.

We now have one million families (five million people) waiting for social housing in the UK, because it's so scarce. Social housing is for those who cannot afford to buy at a given point in time. Rather than selling it off on the cheap (shortchanging the exchequer) the Tory government could have introduced measures to help first time buyers whilst retaining the social housing stock. It was a great deal for those who could get a mortgage and buy a home at a fraction of its value, but the consequences of the policy are still with us: families forced to live in hotels and bed and breakfasts long term because there is no social housing available. The explosion of the private rented sector (often expensive and of lower quality). It has a disastrous impact upon families, particularly children, and costs the taxpayer a fortune in housing benefit. That is not a progressive policy.

[Hibby Bairn]

We now have one million families (five million people) waiting for social housing in the UK, because it's so scarce. Social housing is for those who cannot afford to buy at a given point in time. Rather than selling it off on the cheap (shortchanging the exchequer) the Tory government could have introduced measures to help first time buyers whilst retaining the social housing stock. It was a great deal for those who could get a mortgage and buy a home at a fraction of its value, but the consequences of the policy are still with us: families forced to live in hotels and bed and breakfasts long term because there is no social housing available. The explosion of the private rented sector (often expensive and of lower quality). It has a disastrous impact upon families, particularly children, and costs the taxpayer a fortune in housing benefit. That is not a progressive policy.

That may have been a consequence of the policy but it wasn't intended. It did however allow many people to own their homes. That is surely progressive.

The social housing shortage is surely down to 30 years of successive governments not investing enough despite increases in population, immigration and average life expectancy.

[Hibernia&Alba]

That may have been a consequence of the policy but it wasn't intended. It did however allow many people to own their homes. That is surely progressive.

The social housing shortage is surely down to 30 years of successive governments not investing enough despite increases in population, immigration and average life expectancy.

Not enough social housing has been built for forty years now, true, but that's because there has been an ideological opposition to it, compounded by selling off the social housing that was available. I would say a government which provides adequate housing for all on the basis of need could justifiably claim to be progressive. A policy which seeks to transfer public housing into private hands, so reducing the availability of quality affordable homes to the less affluent, isn't progressive to me. There are better ways of enabling those who want to buy to achieve it.

[RyeSloan]

Not enough social housing has been built for forty years now, true, but that's because there has been an ideological opposition to it, compounded by selling off the social housing that was available. I would say a government which provides adequate housing for all on the basis of need could justifiably claim to be progressive. A policy which seeks to transfer public housing into private hands, so reducing the availability of quality affordable homes to the less affluent, isn't progressive to me. There are better ways of enabling those who want to buy to achieve it.

This is where I diverge from the masses...why on earth should a government provide adequate housing for all? Is that really what you want from a government?

Surely they would be much better simply creating the correct environment to allow adequate housing stock to be built. There is after all pretty much only one reason why enough houses are not built or why the land they are built on is so expensive and that is down to the rules, regulations and the big daddy of them all planning (esp the beloved green belts) that successive governments have layered in top of one another for decades.

Suggesting a government should tax,spend, build, own and then rent millions of homes to its populace is, to me at least, a rather bizarre desire...can you imagine a department of housing, the budget it would need and of course the political meddling that would ensue be that local or national?

All the main parties promise more housing or help to buy or whatever but really they are just spinning more deceit. Reducing planning requirements, releasing land and brining down the cost of housing would be truly progressive, and they could do all of that without spending a bean!

[Hibernia&Alba]

This is where I diverge from the masses...why on earth should a government provide adequate housing for all? Is that really what you want from a government?

Surely they would be much better simply creating the correct environment to allow adequate housing stock to be built. There is after all pretty much only one reason why enough houses are not built or why the land they are built on is so expensive and that is down to the rules, regulations and the big daddy of them all planning (esp the beloved green belts) that successive governments have layered in top of one another for decades.

Suggesting a government should tax,spend, build, own and then rent millions of homes to its populace is, to me at least, a rather bizarre desire...can you imagine a department of housing, the budget it would need and of course the political meddling that would ensue be that local or national?

All the main parties promise more housing or help to buy or whatever but really they are just spinning more deceit. Reducing planning requirements, releasing land and brining down the cost of housing would be truly progressive, and they could do all of that without spending a bean!

Yes it is what I want from government.

Then why not ask why government should provide health for all, education for all, and a clean environment for all? I would say it's a fundamental of collectivism, which is beneficial to the individual and wider society, IMO. If one accepts the notion that we do have a mutual responsibility for each other, a decent roof over ones head is fundamental to that. This will require government action, as no private company will do it unless there's a profit. Housing is an integral part of social policy which, if left to market alone, would leave millions in slums. It was the need for slum clearances that gave birth to public housing. The withdrawal from public housing now leaves us with a million families on waiting lists.

[RyeSloan]

Yes it is what I want from government. Then why not ask why government should provide health for all, education for all, and a clean environment for all? I would say it's a fundamental of collectivism, which is beneficial to the individual and wider society, IMO. If one accepts the notion that we do have a mutual responsibility for each other, a decent roof over ones head is fundamental to that. This will require government action, as no private company will do it unless there's a profit. Housing is an integral part of social policy which, if left to market alone, would leave millions in slums. It was the need for slum clearances that gave birth to public housing. The withdrawal from public housing now leaves us with a million families on waiting lists.


Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there shouldn't be provision nor do I disagree on your mutual responsibility statement but it would be fair to say that many social housing projects turned into their own version of slums quite quickly and Glasgow is still blowing a few up now and then.

As I said I know I will be in the minority on this but I believe such things do not need to be provided directly by the state and actually leaving some profit in there would encourage the building of homes. Affordable homes and some profit for the builder of those homes is not mutually exclusive by nature it is exclusive due to the framework and environment the very body you are asking to solve the problem has created.

You will also be shocked to discover in far from wedded to the idea that the state needs to be the provider of healthcare and education as well...I'm much more minded to see the state as a facilitator rather than a provider.

Not saying your wrong or right just saying I find it odd that people want an inherently political body to be responsible for all of these things then expect them to be delivered and managed effectively, not something I see many people often saying is politicians strong points! The blatant lies and deceit over tax and spending plans from all parties in this general election is an example of that!

[Hibernia&Alba]

Fair enough, SiMar, I suppose we just see things differently. For me the state is the conduit for collective action; the instrument through which we deliver social justice. It also means the population has democratic control of hospitals, schools etc. I strongly believe there should be quality social housing available to all who cannot afford to buy their own home, and that way the rents collected stay in the public purse, as opposed to the pockets of private landlords. The huge housing shortage we have now needs serious action. A plan for building a million new homes in the private and public sectors would improve the lives of those trapped in substandard or temporary accommodation, create a demand for skilled jobs and boost the economy. Extra supply in the private sector would also bring down house prices, which would help all those struggling first time buyers, in an era of crazy prices.

[JeMeSouviens]

And here was me thinking it was to give more people the opportunity to buy and then own their own property to give them an asset that they could probably never afford. And thereafter to be retained by that family if they chose to do so.

To allow people to aspire to a slightly better and/or wealthier future.


I think that's what I said!

We are only really arguing over the motivation, you think it was a benevolent attempt to make lives better, I think it was a cynical bribe to attempt to create more Tories.

[JeMeSouviens]

That may have been a consequence of the policy but it wasn't intended. It did however allow many people to own their homes. That is surely progressive.

The social housing shortage is surely down to 30 years of successive governments not investing enough despite increases in population, immigration and average life expectancy.

One of the conditions attached to right to buy was that councils were forbidden from using their share of the proceeds to build new housing.

However, that aside, it's a general lack of joined up thinking that's most to blame. As SiMar points out, even if the public sector isn't providing adequate housing supply, public policy should ensure that the conditions for the market to provide it exist. Successive governments have preferred to see the price bubble stay (mostly) intact with consequent effects on consumer spending.

[lord bunberry]

I think that's what I said!

We are only really arguing over the motivation, you think it was a benevolent attempt to make lives better, I think it was a cynical bribe to attempt to create more Tories.

That is exactly what it is. It's the same with the privatisation of things like BT and British Gas. My uncle bought shares in the 80s and suddenly became a Tory voter.

[Hibby Bairn]

That is exactly what it is. It's the same with the privatisation of things like BT and British Gas. My uncle bought shares in the 80s and suddenly became a Tory voter.

My Grandad excercised his RTB and never veered from voting Labour all his life.

Gave him and his family security and a wee feeling of I own my home after 35 years of paying rent with little or no investment to the property. The taps in the bathroom had 1955 inscribed on them. Front door unchanged. No central heating or double glazing.

[lord bunberry]

My Grandad excercised his RTB and never veered from voting Labour all his life.

Gave him and his family security and a wee feeling of I own my home after 35 years of paying rent with little or no investment to the property. The taps in the bathroom had 1955 inscribed on them. Front door unchanged. No central heating or double glazing.

I'm sure there will be many other cases like your grandad, but I still think the policy was politically motivated rather than an attempt to be progressive.

[Bristolhibby]

Could the tories not legitimately claim that the sale of council houses was progressive under these terms?

If the Tories had have built two for every one sold, that would have been truly progressive.

They didn't, it wasn't. It took the best houses out of the social housing stock, rewarded those who could get/afford a mortgage, and directly contributed to the social housing crisis we have at the moment.

J