The decline of Labour as a coherent intellectual force is one of the defining features of recent British politics. No doubt the next few years will see a healthy process within Labour to seek to heal the wounds and to re-focus. I suggest that under the banner of ‘progressivism’ this process has started.
2010 saw commentators for the first time in the UK judging political propositions on the basis of whether they are ‘progressive’ or not. Ed Miliband’s own analysis is that in government Labour “…lost that sense of progressive mission.” But what on earth does progressive mean? What kind of progress are these people on about? Socialist progress? Liberal progress? Technological progress? Moral progress? Spiritual progress? Institutional progress? Economic progress?
‘Progressivism’ is a vacuous ‘big tent’ term designed to encompass (and draw to it) as many people as possible – and it is here that the danger lies.
In the battle of ideas, language is the ballgame. The moment your opponent starts using your words, thinking and conceptualising as you do, you have won. It is instructive to note that no one any more talks of ‘modernising’: whatever the dictionary says, in the UK this word is tainted with the centralised and target-driven public policy approach of the early Blair years. If socialists, woolly new labour types, and liberals all self-define as ‘progressive’ the impression given is that these three groups identify together rather than independently. The impression given is that Liberal Democrats are just a semi-autonomous branch of the Labour movement.
Liberal Democrats at all levels have been using the word ‘progressive’ a lot. A prime example is Nick Clegg’s Guardian comment piece in November, acutely and accurately adjudged by Jonathan Calder. Every time we use the word it strengthens Labour, and weakens ourselves. Liberal Democrats have our own lexicon – our own ideas of we they can be proud. We are an alternative to Labour, and it is folly to seek to play their ‘progressive’ game.
We should seek to be judged on our own terms. Are we building and safeguarding a fair, free and open society? Are we supporting people out of slavery to poverty, ignorance or conformity? Are we making power truly accountable to the people they serve? Are we making society serve all its members, whoever they are? Are we ensuring that people are safe, from pestilence, from war, from crime and free to live their lives to the full?
Let Liberal Democrats speak of justice, fairness, accountability, community, learning and liberty. Liberalism sees the government and community as forces for good: allowing and enabling people to blossom and flourish in their own way.
The coalition’s first budget should never have been sold as a ‘progressive’ budget. Nick Clegg should not talk about ‘progressive’ cuts. The budget was necessary, and as fair as the Liberal Democrats could make it in spite of our coalition partners. It may well have been ‘progressive’ too, but just don’t use the word.
Let’s make 2011 a time to capture the debate, and move it onto our own terms. Labour can call itself ‘progressive’ if it wants to, but it is for Liberal Democrats to make the case for a particular kind of progress: liberalism.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Kiki Dee: Loving and Free
Off to conference
It has been a uniformed services week for me as Lord Mayor of Liverpool
Temporary Traffic Order - Lower Pleasance
Calling them out
Constructive opposition: a phrase you will hear a lot
James Brough
Jennie
Suzanne Fletcher
Nonconformistradical
Hugh Young
31 Comments
I agree. The word “progressive” when used in this way is like the word “modernise”, it is meant to impose the notion that there is only one good way to change how things are and that is the way proposed by the self-described “progressive” or “moderniser” who is often using the term because s/he lacks arguments to support his/her position, or because s/he lacks the intelligence to be able to see there are alternatives, or because s/he lacks the liberal/democratic instinct to be able to accept there are alternatives.
Part of my outrage against New Labour’s local government changes, which I have expressed here recently, came from the way they called it “modernisation” and used that to impose these poor, and in the case of executive mayors I stand why what i say – evil – ideas on the country using this subterfuge as if they were somehow inevitable. This was done in lieu of real logical arguments for them, it meant if you stood up against them, you were denounced as some sort of dinosaur who was asking the impossible. This was all part of the way New Labour, for all their adoption of right-wing economic policies, and “me too” to the Tory cult of the businessman, underneath still had the socialist mentality which elsewhere in the world led to so much nastiness. The deaths of millions under Stalin and Mao were accepted because somehow they were excused as an inevitable part of “progress” or “modernisation”.
Tom, you are quite right to pick up on and criticise Clegg’s use of the term. It is another example of his sloppiness and general weakness as a thinker, just going along with what everyone else around him says or thinks in order to fit in with the crowd.
Yes. This. A million times this. The fact that the Tories appear to have adopted the term as well makes it almost completely meaningless.
(I would also like ‘fair’ to go into the rubbish bin as well, but I suppose that’s too much to ask for…)
I don’t think anyone who’s fond of words keeping a single meaning could possible disagree with the main thrust of this piece. However, I would disagree that we should be looking to use a multiplicity of words to describe our policies – ‘liberal’ does fine just by itself.
‘Progressive’ does have a reasonably formal definition when used to describe the effect of tax and benefits policy. Trying to end this usage I fear would be like trying to stop using the word ‘red’ to describe cars that are red. It has a specific meaning.
It’s when ‘progressive’ gets used in other areas it starts to become a much looser term, and starts to reflect the values of the movement you are a proponent of. Your case in these circumstances to me seems much stronger.
@Adam, I remember after Clegg launched his “Liberal Moment” pamphlet, which the consensus of mainstream commenters interpreted as a lurch to the right, Clegg tried rejecting defining his approach as ‘left’ or ‘right’, but simply as ‘liberal’.
Perhaps our problem is that we didn’t define the language of our movement early enough, or we don’t keep using it for a sustained period so that it sinks in with the electorate. I think this is why Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ language failed. It came too late in the day, therefore just baffled the electorate.
It does feel like we are too coy aobut saying ‘liberal’ in case it turns some of the centre-ground off. But unless we constantly and consistently remind people who we are for many years, we’ll just be that third party who sold out on the principles we don’t quite understand for a modicum of power. Most people aren’t listening most of the time. On the odd occasion when they are, they need to be reminded what we stand for, and on our own terms.
I have to agree even though I have on rare occasions been guilty of using ‘progressive’ myself.
The difficulty iss what else can one say? ‘Liberal’ would be good but the utter failure of the party in over two decades to articulate a coherent interpretation of ‘liberal’ that speaks to our times makes this problematical. Using a long list of motherhood and apple pie words suggests only that we like …. well, motherhood and apple pie. Moreover, some words the manifesto writers like – most obviously ‘fair’ – mean entirely opposite things to others and do nothing to make liberals a coherent intellectual force (to borrow from the opening sentence).
Q: What two words best define the Liberal Democrats?
A: ‘Liberal’ and ‘Democratic’.
I can remember people trying to call these vacuous and say that every party embraced them, but in office and opposition, Labour failed in the first and partly in the second, and in office and opposition only some Conservatives are committed to the first, and only a similar few committed to the second.
I agree – the Lib Dems should stop calling themselves ‘progressive’.
I just don’t mean it in the way the author does.
The word “progressive” in politics has a long and honourable history.
The Liberal Party was the “progressive” party, as opposed to the Conservative Party (and, before it , the Tory Party) which was “conservative”, long before the Labour Party came into existence.
I do agree, however, that the word “progressiver” is not an accurate description of the Orange Book cabal who are now members of the Cameroon government and supporters of its regressive policies. I’m not sure what printable adjective would accurately describe them. Perhaps LibDem Voice’s next survey could invite suggestions.
“Let Liberal Democrats speak of justice, fairness, accountability, community, learning and liberty”
As opposed to injustice, unfairness, unaccountability, selfishness, ignorance and servitude. Yes lets replace one meaningless word with six other “motherhood and apple pie” sentiments and then patronise Labour as a declining intellectual force. Perhaps it is LibDems who now need to find a bit of intellectual coherence after many years of trying to be all things to all people?
@Duncan:
I fear Clegg has taken the wrong lesson from his earlier failure and is now trying the same again with ‘New Progressive’. To be fair, he’s reasonably tightly defined that – but try getting that definition into a single sentence.
To go mildly Wittgensteinian for a moment, we may want to look at using ‘liberal’ as having a ‘family’ of meanings which all interrelate and have a clear common sense, but don’t necessarily lend themselves to a common definition. I’m thinking here of raising the lower tax band and prioritising the education of the least well-off – not necessarily strictly related, but definitely within the same sense of enabling choice.
Sorry, the “r” at the end of the word “progressive” in the first line of my third para is a typo!
A fair point, toryboysnevergrowup.
I think if you look at a local level at councils which have been controlled by Liberal Democrats for a reasonable period of time you will find that they tend to be open-minded and innovative, ready to experiment with new ideas about how to do things better. They tend to be decentralising and green. They tend to be led by people who are politically intelligent and who understand what liberalism is all about. They value the contribution made by all the members of the ruling group, and the public, but are ultimately disciplined about the way in which they operate. They keep in touch with the electorate and provide good value for money. There are a few non-Liberal Democrat councils which do some of these things (and not all Liberal Democrat councils do all of them either), but I think that list provides a reasonable definition of liberalism in action.
It’s all well and good talking about principles, but unless they are applied and result in positive policies then why bother?
We believe in evidence-based arguments just as we believe in evidence-based policy. Results consistently show they are both more effective.
So for a more coherent political stance it’s worth pointing out what we support and why we support it at the same time.
We are not in favour of supporting or opposing policies such as ‘the cuts agenda’ on an ideological basis, just as we didn’t oppose the invasion of Iraq on an ideological basis and we didn’t predict the credit crunch as an inevitable consequence of global capitalism – though we did oppose the invasion of Iraq and we did predict the credit crunch.
Understanding the links between ideas, actions and outcomes and knowing how and where to intervene is by far the most important thing.
The political lexicon will forever be subject to attempts at controlling it by people who chase popularity in their own interests and the debate over ‘progressivism ‘ and ‘fairness’ is only the latest version.
Since ‘progress’ indicates a direction of movement, and ‘fair’ connotates with good and honest, I’d be very hesitant before agreeing with anyone who advocates rejecting usage of one or other, but I’d also stubbornly oppose all who attempt to claim exclusive ownership of the terms for themselves.
Instead I’d recommend people support their case through use of examples.
Labour has been intellectually broke ever since they entirely abandoned their old ideology (old labour) and replaced with a Pr driven sugar coating of uncertain substance (New Labour). They have now apparently gone beyond New Labour.
Having got rid of Old Labour’s Socialism, and got rid of New Labour’s accommodation with Thatcherism it is questionable what they have left: Milibandism?
Personally I would suggest the answer is quite simply: NOTHING!
Thanks for all the comments.
toryboynevergrowsup: On the surface, your criticism is “fair”! Politics is about priorities though: Liberal Democrats prioritise these good things over other things which others might prioritise (e.g. strong leadership, free markets, equality of outcome, the common good). I’ve always been struck by a story Paddy Ashdown tells, that In rebuilding Bosnia, he and his team had to chose how to spend their limited funds. They chose to prioritise eduction, over everything else.
The party has not been successful in standing up for itself and saying what it is for, but as tony hill and Orangjepan suggest, this does need to be at least as much about actions as words. The key is to find a theme, a story, whcih ties together the principles with the actions. Unfortunately for us, the right decisions are rarely those which are simply explained!
Matthew Huntbach – I wasn’t suggesting that Nick Clegg is a weak thinker or sloppy, only that he and his team have tried something and it hasn’t worked. I’d rather they tried and failed than didn’t try at all.
Adam Bell – ‘liberal’ does do fine, but one does need a few words to describe what that means. The preamble to the constitution is a good starting place, but for many of us our liberalism goes back to principles before that. I like the idea of a ‘family of meanings’, as i think that reflects the reality of our politics.
Out of context words can have very little meaning. A list of buzz-words on its own will not change the word. Judiciously choen language can, however, capture the imagination. Liberalism isn’t a soft drink you can market with a slogan, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t think really carefully about how we frame the debate.
I cant agree that Progressive is a Labour word, certainly thats not how the Voters see it. There was a poll in 2009 asking people to say which Parties they saw as Progressive – Conservatives & LibDems took joint 1st place with 22% each, The Greens werent far behind on 17% & Labour trailed in 3rd with 12%.
‘Progressive’ is becoming a bit of a lazy option, a bit like ‘engage’ I think. Thanks Tom – after reading this article I will endeavour to cut down my use of the word by at least 50%!
I do however think there is a valid use (as mentioned by Duncan Stott in these comments) when it comes to economic progressiveness. Even on that however there is a lot of disagreement – e.g. the recent VAT hike which Osbourne implied was economically progressive when it clearly isn’t, and the student fees rise which is almost certainly economically progressive even though most people on the left would have you believe the opposite.
Spot on. Progressive not a useful argument. Fair is somthing people can agree is a good thing. Policies can be fair and progressive or fair and not progressive.
Progressiveness is not always good thing, we shouldn’t pretend it is.
William Summers – I don’t think ‘progressive / regressive’ has any useful sense in economic discussions. So far as I can tell people say something is ‘progressive’ if it means well-off people pay more or the less-well-off pay less, and things are regressive either if the well-off pay less or the less-well-off pay more.
If you follow those to extremes it becomes obvious that these terms only make sense if you believe in equality of outcome, as a socialist might. The policy which is optimally progressive woudl mean that the well-off give away so much that everyone has equal wealth.
Tom, do you really mean “Are we supporting people out of slavery to poverty, ignorance or conformity? “?! That wouldn’t be fair or progressive.
@paul barker: I think Labour would have come out badly in any poll in 2009!
‘Progressive’ as a Labour term grows out of the socialist temporal orientation fixing to the future at around the turn of the last century. Despite the Blairite tack to the right, Labour still does not do a good job of dealing with the past (and likes to call itself things starting with ‘new’).
Tom, a superb article and I agree with you, although for different reasons. ‘Progressive’ has worked as a synonym for ‘good’ in (left) politics because cultural value has been placed on shooting-arrow-on-a-graph type imagery. But, I’d argue that over the past century or two in Britain, at certain moments of stress this sort of imagery becomes less successful, and I think one of those moments is happening now. For Lib Dems to be able to talk to the times, ‘progressive’ just won’t be much help.
Devastating – lol. This part can indeed be read two ways. I hope it’s clear i’m refering to slavery to poverty, opposed to poverty being the goal!
Bryonny G-H – I’m interested, but don’t know hat you mean by “shooting-arrow-on-a-graph type imagery”. Can you explain?
Well said! Can we also consign ‘social justice’, ‘fair’, ‘new politics’ and ‘localism’ to the dustbin too? They are completely vacuous terms which mean whatever you read into them.
The coalition gives us the opportunity to redefine the terms of political debate – and by carrying on using sloppy and meaningless language we risk wasting it.
“‘Progressivism’ is a vacuous ‘big tent’ term designed to encompass (and draw to it) as many people as possible – and it is here that the danger lies.”
Quite right too!
However, while we’re at it can we drop that puerile term “fairness” too? It quite turns my stomach every time I here politicians and pundits harping on about whether something is “fair” enough.
Words like “just” and “equitable” would do more merely reposition the Lib-Dem brand away from that of an angry adolescent, it would frame the intellectual debate away from the ‘progressive’ label that labour have colonised so thoroughly.
‘Progressive’ is a technical term referring to the economic effects of fiscal policy. If the policy causes the wealthy to pay more as a proportion of their income than the poor, then a it is technically progressive. This is a clear and measurable meaning, and explains why, as William Summers said, the VAT rise was regressive but the tuition fee hike is in fact progressive.
Mr Paul may not agree that progressive policies are often a good idea, but he should not muddy the waters around its meaning, Instead he should say that progressive policies are not what he wants to see. Equally, those who use the term to refer to the non-economic effects of policy are guilty of distorting its meaning as well.
The word ‘progressive’ is not in fact vague- it has a specific and technical meaning.
I’d always thought of “progressive” as linked to a positive notion of social progress – and using state intervention to achieve this, so for example the fact that we don’t send children down mines anymore is progressive – it came about through legislation! Broadly it comes from 19th century religious social teaching and campaigns to get lawmakers to tackle those victorian type social issues like tenement housing and child labour. The american left have used it more than the british left, as US activists have always tried to eschew being labelled as or associated with socialist ideology.
I think the term still has some value because many of the same victorian problems are still with is – damp overcrowded housing in which familes can’t afford fuel costs, exploited children etc, and the new slums of sink estates.
As a lifelong libdem and party activist, I’m only interested in being part of a progressive political force – but with too many of the coalition policies I think we are abandoning the notion that government interventions can do much to tackle social issues, prefer market solutions and are cutting public services accordingly.
I see only one progressive policy being pushed at the moment – the pupil premium, though this (also in the tory manifesto) only works out at £360 per year for each poor pupil, it is simply not being deliverred on the scale necessary to make a ‘big step’ change in the type education that kids from poor families can access in a way that will significantly change their lifechances.
It’s really concerning that so many people in the Party are saying we should drop the term – this implies abandoning our progressive aspirations (like no-one being enslaved by poverty and ignorance as etched into our constitution)
Is ‘should we abandon progressive’ the right question? The question I and others are wrestling with this is should people like me who self-identify as “progressive” and are dismayed at the extent to which we are now aligning ourselves with the tories, not just politically (as a matter of pragmatism and democratic outcome) but ideologically also, should take the step – with a heavy heart, and not withstanding deep bonds of friendship, loyalty and ties to the libdem community and networks – abandon the Party?
I’m not an expert on Glasgow local politics, but I believe that if you back far enough into the twentieth century you will find a “Progressive” group on the corporation, sometimes running it, who were, in fact, Conservatives.
I think that makes Tom’s point. Progressive and modern are feel-good words, but only really good if you approve of the direction that is being taken.
@JamesS
Up to a point, but that point was reached under Labour as their ever-greater dependence on ‘progressive’ policy solutions began to have regressive outcomes. And as Labour continued to implement ever-more extreme ‘progressive’ solutions in their attempts to resolve the regressive outcomes of their policies so they rushed the country to the brink of calamity.
It’s like ‘revolution’ – if you seek to continue the process after a time it goes full-circle and you’re back where you were to begin with having done a lot of damage along the way.
You mention ideology, but liberal democracy is not an ideology; liberal democracy is a process and a tendency; liberal democracy stands opposed to ideology and empty dogma.
A balanced stance which acknowledges both liberal and democratic traditions repudiates simplistic ideological stances even while agreeing temporarily under certain conditions: ideological stances just don’t allow for changes in conditions, such as the credit crunch created.
Liberal democracy is not dominated by ‘economic’ or ‘social’ arguments, but understands they must be married together for best effect – in exactly the same way as words and actions must provide mutual support for them to retain their meaning.
Yes, what Oranjepan said!
JamesS – I’m talking about ditching the word from our language, not ditching our vision.
Alex – As I note above, by your definition the optimally ‘progressive’ policy would be one of equality of outcome, where no one is any more of less well off than the other. If people who believe in equality of outcome want to use the word then that’s OK, but no one else should – by your definition.
Have conservatives given progressive that negative spin it’s somewhat gotten? According to dictionary definition:
Progressive ideas and actions are those supporting social and political change that aims to make a system fairer. This says it for me and underlines the contrary way conservative minds seem to usually work.