Who are the real "progressives"?

I've been thinking about this a lot recently.

I hear so often from people who identify as liberals or progressive or social democrats that people who disagree with them are evil. That they should be silenced. People who identify as "right" or merely fail to comply with somebody's definition of "left" are labelled racists or fascists or nazis without any meaningful foundation.

I recall John Stewarts "Rally to restore sanity" in the US, which I thought was wonderful, and the hilarious placards people were carrying around.

In the US oppression of opinion goes both ways. Is it the same here and am I biased, or is my perception of oppression by the self-identified "progressives" more accurate?

In government Labour raised detention without trial to 28 days, and tried extremely hard to increase it to 90 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006#Extending_the_period_of_detention_without_charge

The Conservatives have put it back to 14 days where it is very likely to stay.

Let's not forget that on one occasion Labour used similar laws to have the police eject an old man (a member of their own party) from their conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Wolfgang#2005_Labour_conference_incident

When was the last time somebody in authority, who identifies as right/conservative told you that you couldn't say something, or worse argued that you should go to prison for saying it?

Take a step back. Who, on the political scene, actually defends our liberty now? Who seeks to enrich and empower the least amongst us?

I thought that I'd changed over the last 20 years and that's why I was voting differently. Did I, or did the "left" lose its way and me with it?

Every once in a while you have to question your own political assumptions:

The left are the ones looking out for the poor?

Redistribution is the way to help the poor?

The gap between rich and poor is what need to be fixed?

More tax-money spent on this problem will help?

The left defend our liberties and entitlements against the right?

Is any of this true any more?

If not, then when did this happen and why is nobody doing anything to put it right?

I think politically, as a society, we're lost at the moment.

Both labour (new) and the conservatives are authoritarian and little interested in the freedom of citizens.

Both labour (new) and the conservatives are authoritarian and little interested in the freedom of citizens.

So you think that traditional Labour are less authoritarian than the modern Conservatives?

That I find dubious. They were still part of a party (if not the dominate movement within it) which tried to gain the power to lock people away for 90 days without charge. They also introduced the "incitement to racial/religious hatred" laws which (whilst no doubt in some way serving the laudable goal of reducing hatred) constituted a serious blow against freedom of speech.

Perhaps you have counter-examples?

To my mind, the real test of the Conservative government on liberty will be the new press regulation regime. In 10 years will the press still be effective in exposing government corruption and malfeasance? I'm not sure.

So you think that traditional Labour are less authoritarian than the modern Conservatives?

Probably, I don't really know I'm unfortunate enough to've only really been politically aware during the time of New Labour. However social liberalism (the cause most identified with progressives) has pretty much triumphed over the last century or so. You're seeing the latest (and hopefully one of the last) fightback against it from the older generations right now with things like the election of Trump, and Brexit (too an extent, obviously more to both those votes but I think this aspect was significant, especially when you look at age breakdowns), but its too late to undo all the marvelous things that 'progressives' have done.

So yeah, the progressives won the culture wars for the most part, we accept other races now for the most part, women have been significantly empowered and have control over their own reproductive cycles, we've stopped (again only for the most part) persecuting everyone who isn't a monogamous heterosexual.

All the above things have been opposed by the kind of people who use 'progressive' as a dirty word but the world is much better because of what the progressives did in those areas.

You talk about liberty but if the forces that fight against 'progressives' had had more victories in the past then there'd be far less liberty today. Just because the conservative party hasn't done anything like support Apartheid recently doesn't mean it's not still in them, they just know the tide has turned and they have to play a different game now.

Probably, I don't really know I'm unfortunate enough to've only really been politically aware during the time of New Labour. However social liberalism (the cause most identified with progressives) has pretty much triumphed over the last century or so. You're seeing the latest (and hopefully one of the last) fightback against it from the older generations right now with things like the election of Trump, and Brexit (too an extent, obviously more to both those votes but I think this aspect was significant, especially when you look at age breakdowns), but its too late to undo all the marvelous things that 'progressives' have done.

 

So yeah, the progressives won the culture wars for the most part, we accept other races now for the most part, women have been significantly empowered and have control over their own reproductive cycles, we've stopped (again only for the most part) persecuting everyone who isn't a monogamous heterosexual.

 

All the above things have been opposed by the kind of people who use 'progressive' as a dirty word but the world is much better because of what the progressives did in those areas.

 

You talk about liberty but if the forces that fight against 'progressives' had had more victories in the past then there'd be far less liberty today. Just because the conservative party hasn't done anything like support Apartheid recently doesn't mean it's not still in them, they just know the tide has turned and they have to play a different game now.

Sure. Although at the same time, socialism has been shown to be an abject failure, so it's kind of a draw between left/right overall.

Anyway that was then. I wouldn't have had this problem 30 years ago.

Why did it take a Conservative PM to institute gay marriage, and prevent people being imprisoned for months without charge.

Not to mention end the practise of stopping a searching people without cause based on profiling.

Sure. That was then. I wouldn't have had this problem 30 years ago.

Why did it take a Conservative PM to institute gay marriage, and prevent people being imprisoned for months without charge.

I can't fully explain that it's complicated, however to take one of your examples I would imagine that if the conservatives had dominated politics to the extent that they would have liked over the last half century we probably wouldn't have gay marriage. The short answer is that they are under pressure from society and the oppposition, can you imagine the outrage if Cameron or others in his party had made significant steps to block gay marriage and put up the fight? In 2013? No methinks they didn't really have much choice, the tide had already turned too much... thanks to progressives.

I can't fully explain that it's complicated, however I am fairly certain that if the conservatives had dominated politics to the extent that they would have liked over the last half century we probably wouldn't have those things. The short answer is that they are under pressure from society and the oppposition, and have had to thankfully change their public image.

I see where you're going but I'm not so sure.

I'm not aware of strong pressure from Labour on gay marriage, but more importantly the requirement to charge people with 14 days and the end of arbitrary stop and search were reversals of laws that Labour enacted.

Because of the Conservatives, homosexuals are now finally equal under the law and dark skinned people can go about their business without being accosted by the police without cause demanding that they turn out their pockets and submit to a search, or thrown in a cell for months without being told why.

Compared to how I would have predicted 21set century legislation to go it's like I've stepped through a mirror.

How did this happen?

If Labour are no longer the party of social progress, what are they for?

I can't fully explain that it's complicated, however to take one of your examples I would imagine that if the conservatives had dominated politics to the extent that they would have liked over the last half century we probably wouldn't have gay marriage. The short answer is that they are under pressure from society and the oppposition, can you imagine the outrage if Cameron or others in his party had made significant steps to block gay marriage and put up the fight? In 2013? No methinks they didn't really have much choice, the tide had already turned too much... thanks to progressives.

So, am I to assume that labour would have brought in gay marriage had they won in 2010 - 13 years in power wasn't long enough?

I think there are progressives in each party now and extremists in each party too. But the biggest problem is the uk electorate. Because for decades now, with the odd blip, we've never had it so good. No wars or threat of invasion, free health care, education - we the vast majority can have it all, so when we hit a blip we still want it all. Nobody goes to a ballot box and expects a choice of high taxes, full employment and a welfare state but we don't go and vote for low taxes and no welfare state. For the past 20 years both sides have been faffing round the edges thinking we can have both and now realise we can't so we're seeing more polarisation between the two since the early 80s. And like the early 80s we might see another party spring up. Oh and the spectre of a new breed of terrorism hasn't helped either.

"Progressive" and "Left" are not always the same. "Regressive" and "Right" are not always the same. Although left-wing and right-wing is a gross oversimplification where one can have a government or set of policies which may be more or less progressive on social issues than they are on economic issues (to a point, given the two do have a natural link).

For instance it was the TGWU that had members siding with the nationalised Bristol Omnibus Company management to keep the bar on non-white workers being employed as bus drivers, whilst existing concerns were played upon by some igniting the fears further, perhaps in similar ways to how UKIP gain support from a traditionally "left" base, albeit one which would not necessarily consider themselves to be "left"

There can be a point to which a political party is progressive, however once that point is moved past, the party is regressive.

Take the ANC vs. Shack Dwellers Movement who were great supporters of Mandela and the ANC during apartheid (here ANC = progressive) who now find themselves struggling under the party they drove forward, that the ANC is not a party for the black poor, the equality they got was the equality of a black person to oppress another. Or the Markikana miners who under the ANC experienced treatment comparable to the 1960s. So for them now, the ANC = regressive

I see where you're going but I'm not so sure.

I'm not aware of strong pressure from Labour on gay marriage, but more importantly the requirement to charge people with 14 days and the end of arbitrary stop and search were reversals of laws that Labour enacted.

 

Because of the Conservatives, homosexuals are now finally equal under the law and dark skinned people can go about their business without being accosted by the police without cause demanding that they turn out their pockets and submit to a search, or thrown in a cell for months without being told why.

Compared to how I would have predicted 21set century legislation to go it's like I've stepped through a mirror.

 

How did this happen?

 

If Labour are no longer the party of social progress, what are they for?

On the issue of Same Sex Marriage legislation, I think your statement oversimplifies it to the point of meaninglessness....Like the debate 'who is the most progressive?'

It's worth bearing in mind that many MPs of all parties voted against the Same Sex Marriage legislation - Many Tories did, some Labour MPs did, even a few Liberal Democrats did.

Here's the list of MPs from all parties who either voted for or against the legislation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694

I think, historically, it's fair to say that the Cameron government were following on from the previous Government's legislation in this area. And the Brown & Blair governments, in turn, were following from legislation in this area from John Major's government....and so on.

Ultimately, and not to take anything away from those campaigning politicians, it's campaigners on the ground who ensured that the door that 'progressive' politicians pushed against in this area was a lot easier.

On a broader point sometimes what was once considered or sold as progressive, is with the benefit of hindsight seen as regressive.

Ultimately it doesn't matter as politicians have to deal issues as they arise in a way that they see fit....Whether they are progressive or regressive is probably secondary.

So whether Labour/ Tories or whoever are party of social progress doesn't really matter...Only to those who want to use it as a stick to beat others with....Which to be honest feels like the point of this thread.

On the issue of Same Sex Marriage legislation, I think your statement oversimplifies it to the point of meaninglessness....Like the debate 'who is the most progressive?'

 

It's worth bearing in mind that many MPs of all parties voted against the Same Sex Marriage legislation - Many Tories did, some Labour MPs did, even a few Liberal Democrats did.

Here's the list of MPs from all parties who either voted for or against the legislation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694

 

I think, historically, it's fair to say that the Cameron government were following on from the previous Government's legislation in this area. And the Brown & Blair governments, in turn, were following from legislation in this area from John Major's government....and so on.

Ultimately, and not to take anything away from those campaigning politicians, it's campaigners on the ground who ensured that the door that 'progressive' politicians pushed against in this area was a lot easier.

 

On a broader point sometimes what was once considered or sold as progressive, is with the benefit of hindsight seen as regressive.

Ultimately it doesn't matter as politicians have to deal issues as they arise in a way that they see fit....Whether they are progressive or regressive is probably secondary.

So whether Labour/ Tories or whoever are party of social progress doesn't really matter...Only to those who want to use it as a stick to beat others with....Which to be honest feels like the point of this thread.

Actually, you've raised a very good point. I don't think there are any progressive politicians any more, just those who are prepared to jump on a bandwagon to attract votes or get further up the greasy pole. New ideas aren't coming from politicians from any side, apart from, incredibly - trump and he's not a "proper" politician.