26-Nov 2022 : LAB: 50% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 4%

[peterbell]

@davwell

Trust you are sending an apology to the BBC to make up for all your complaints. First 15 min (50%) of tonight's 6 0'clock news devoted to the SNP leadership election.

IMO, those of us south of the border, especially those only 50 miles or so south, should send in our complaints to the BBC.

[domjg]

Mar 27, 2023 17:17:20 GMT Rafwan said:

Mar 27, 2023 16:24:45 GMT pjw1961 said:

The interesting thing is that the Guardian article gives the link to where he is getting his 'only 13% of people are progressive' thing from, and it turns out to be a very dubious number - or at least it would be as true to say that only 15% of people are definitely conservative. The implication of the article is the other 87% are socially conservative, but not all these 'tribes' are in fact so. 

www.britainschoice.uk/

In fact if you add up the tribes who are described as 'socially liberal; liberal; and/or progressive' it equals 50% of the population, which rather undermines the whole of Goodwin's argument. 
 

The model used is based substantially on cluster analysis. Perhaps the most revealing sentence in the report is in the first paragraph of p35.

“Cluster analyses do not establish causal relationships, but rather identify meaningful associations and commonalities.”

The first part of this sentence tells us something; the second part is flimflam.

It seems to me that 'social conservative' is also a very moving target. In an American context it's easier as it tends to denote religiosity.

In a British context it's clear from polling that the country overall is far less 'socially conservative' than it was say 30 years ago with majorities saying they are in favour of racial equality and gay marriage.

The fact that the right appear to need to redefine socially conservative as opposed to unlimited immigration and need to therefore provoke the impression the 'other side' are in favour of it (which is of course not the case) and instrumentalise the niche topic of transgender issues shows desperation to my mind. In many ways Britain is not a socially conservative country at all on an international scale but can be navel gazing and self regarding which is not the same thing.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 17:33:59 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

Hi c-a-r-f-r-e-w , its been a while since I read The Progressive Dilemma, and in the context that Marquand uses, its much more linked to Social Democracy / Socialist / Marxist notions of societal change. As with all political labels it can be difficult to pin down, but if I was to have a punt at distinguishing it from traditional political liberalism, 'progressive' places greater emphasis on meaningful structural changes to society, in both the social and economic spheres with an emphasis on a more equal and just society. The focus is more on 'society' rather than 'individual'. 

Thanks Lulu. That’s a book I will put on my list! From my brief exploring so far, progress and modernity was something liberals were advocating in the 19th Century, and John Stuart Mill saw people as “progressive beings”. 

In practice the question arises as to what key policies do progressives advocate that liberals would be opposed to, and vice versa.

Another related question would be what policies do progressives advocate that Lib Dems oppose and vice versa

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 17:35:10 GMT pjw1961 said:

Mar 27, 2023 17:09:18 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

well you and Danny haven’t gotten involved yet so it could be ok! Besides it’s quite hard to have a lengthy debate on the matter if no one actually says what it is. Had some interesting chats in the past about what liberalism is on the old board that were short and sweet and quite useful. 

Ok - to me "progressive" implies change and positive change at that. Logically it has to be the opposite of conservative (small 'c'). Hence I have no objection to being called progressive, although it is not what I would call myself. Not sure it really gets more complex that that.

Yes, in the original sense of left and right, then you have radicals and reactionaries, or progressives and conservatives - people for or against change.

But then, I did happen on this:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservatism

[oldnat]

Mar 27, 2023 17:46:59 GMT steve said:

oldnat
I mean it's not my party but the 432000 Labour party membership is around six times the size of the SNP but even at its peak the SNP membership was equivalent to only about 3% of the adult population
And while that does mean that the SNP have a somewhat higher membership to voter ratio compared to Labour it's not that significant.

Back in the 1950's party membership used to be immense the Tories had nearly three million members Labour a mere one million.

Losing more than 90% of their membership down to around 170,000 doesn't seem to have hurt the Tories electability neither does losing around 20% since 2019 seem to have reduced Labour's chances.

In 2018, the Democratic party was the largest in the United States with roughly 60 million registered members. You do need to consider the size of the potential base - as well as the marital prospects and sporting opportunities! The population of GB is around 9 times that of Scotland.

[pjw1961]

Mar 27, 2023 18:14:29 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mar 27, 2023 17:33:59 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Hi c-a-r-f-r-e-w , its been a while since I read The Progressive Dilemma, and in the context that Marquand uses, its much more linked to Social Democracy / Socialist / Marxist notions of societal change. As with all political labels it can be difficult to pin down, but if I was to have a punt at distinguishing it from traditional political liberalism, 'progressive' places greater emphasis on meaningful structural changes to society, in both the social and economic spheres with an emphasis on a more equal and just society. The focus is more on 'society' rather than 'individual'. 

Thanks Lulu. That’s a book I will put on my list! From my brief exploring so far, progress and modernity was something liberals were advocating in the 19th Century, and John Stuart Mill saw people as “progressive beings”. 

In practice the question arises as to what key policies do progressives advocate that liberals would be opposed to, and vice versa.

That's fairly easy. Liberals, with their emphasis on individual liberty, have never been keen on socialist redistribution of wealth via tax to further economic equality. Yet both are forms of 'progressive' politics and would find much common ground on social equality issues.  

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 18:41:02 GMT pjw1961 said:

Mar 27, 2023 18:14:29 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Thanks Lulu. That’s a book I will put on my list! From my brief exploring so far, progress and modernity was something liberals were advocating in the 19th Century, and John Stuart Mill saw people as “progressive beings”. 

In practice the question arises as to what key policies do progressives advocate that liberals would be opposed to, and vice versa.

That's fairly easy. Liberals, with their emphasis on individual liberty, have never been keen on socialist redistribution of wealth via tax to further economic equality. Yet both are forms of 'progressive' politics and would find much common ground on social equality issues.  

Ah well, in my explorations of liberalism, BFR on the old board took me to task on that! His point was that in the 1800s there was a development of liberalism (New Radicals etc. IIRC), where liberalism was now framed as having the ultimate goal of freedom. 

And consequently anything that enhanced that freedom (as long as it wasn’t injurious to freedoms of others etc.) could be considered Liberal. Thus if a socialist policy enhanced people’s freedom it could be adopted by liberals. 

Hence why it was the Liberals who did the People’s Budget in 1909 with tax increases etc.

(I did at that point run a few leftie policies by him - like full employment - and he didn’t seem keen to answer. I was quite taken with the general idea though and it occupied me for some time).

[Mr Poppy]

Keir Starmer warned by Labour MPs that he risks ‘sleepwalking’ to defeat without bolder election plan

inews.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-warned-labour-mps-risks-sleepwalking-defeat-election-plan-2236920

One source said "If it's Sunak the management consultant vs Starmer then management consultant, Sunak is going to win because he is in fact a management consultant"

WRT to Yvette Cooper then her plan is same as Braverman (ie "Stop the Boats") but without an actual plan to do so. YG with yet another poll finding saying the same thing as all other immigration related polling. Plurality support the approach but don't think it will be effective. Of note are the x-breaks with LAB VI strongly opposing the approach. So I'm not sure what Starmer expects Cooper to do - be bolder than Braverman on how to "Stop the Boats" or adopt an Abbott style "let everyone in" approach that would be more popular with LAB VI? Perhaps best she stays in the 'vague' and just lets Braverman get on with it. 

?

[pjw1961]

Mar 27, 2023 17:46:59 GMT steve said:

oldnat
I mean it's not my party but the 432000 Labour party membership is around six times the size of the SNP but even at its peak the SNP membership was equivalent to only about 3% of the adult population
And while that does mean that the SNP have a somewhat higher membership to voter ratio compared to Labour it's not that significant.

Back in the 1950's party membership used to be immense the Tories had nearly three million members Labour a mere one million.

Losing more than 90% of their membership down to around 170,000 doesn't seem to have hurt the Tories electability neither does losing around 20% since 2019 seem to have reduced Labour's chances.

It is a bit more complex than that with Labour because the Party is part of a wider 'labour movement'. 

So when the Conservatives were claiming their peak membership of 2,805,832 in 1953 (p141, 20th Century British Political Facts, Butler and Butler, 2000), the Labour Party would have pointed to 1,005,000 individual members, 5.057,000 members of affiliated trade unions and 34,000 members of affiliated socialist societies and the Co-operative Party - total 6,096,000 (p159 of the same book). There would have been some duplication in those figures and of course being a member of an affiliated trade union was not a guarantee you supported the Labour Party!

[pjw1961]

Can someone please enlighten Trevor that there is no party advocating "letting everyone in" as their immigration policy - not even the Greens, as the policy on their website makes clear.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 18:52:57 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Keir Starmer warned by Labour MPs that he risks ‘sleepwalking’ to defeat without bolder election plan

inews.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-warned-labour-mps-risks-sleepwalking-defeat-election-plan-2236920

One source said "If it's Sunak the management consultant vs Starmer then management consultant, Sunak is going to win because he is in fact a management consultant"

well it’s more like a management consultant versus a lawyer? (Also Sunak the Management Consultant did lose to Truss the Management Accountant. Still, you never know…)

[davwel]

@ Peter Bell

Will you explain please why you want biased, unbalanced coverage from the BBC. And them not to sack those responsible for a regular flow of biased reporting such as R4`s Dymond, found guilty of not challenging an outspoken right-winger, but not being named in BBC`s apology.

I only post a small percent of the BBC`s factual errors, and if you had Sussex often misnamed Suffolk and Surrey you would have reason to grumble. As an example Radio Times lists a BBC 4 programme coming tonight from Montrose in Aberdeenshire; the compilers obviously muddled it with Angus

[graham]

Mar 27, 2023 18:53:41 GMT pjw1961 said:

Mar 27, 2023 17:46:59 GMT steve said:

oldnat
I mean it's not my party but the 432000 Labour party membership is around six times the size of the SNP but even at its peak the SNP membership was equivalent to only about 3% of the adult population
And while that does mean that the SNP have a somewhat higher membership to voter ratio compared to Labour it's not that significant.

Back in the 1950's party membership used to be immense the Tories had nearly three million members Labour a mere one million.

Losing more than 90% of their membership down to around 170,000 doesn't seem to have hurt the Tories electability neither does losing around 20% since 2019 seem to have reduced Labour's chances.

It is a bit more complex than that with Labour because the Party is part of a wider 'labour movement'. 

So when the Conservatives were claiming their peak membership of 2,805,832 in 1953 (p141, 20th Century British Political Facts, Butler and Butler, 2000), the Labour Party would have pointed to 1,005,000 individual members, 5.057,000 members of affiliated trade unions and 34,000 members of affiliated socialist societies and the Co-operative Party - total 6,096,000 (p159 of the same book). There would have been some duplication in those figures and of course being a member of an affiliated trade union was not a guarantee you supported the Labour Party!

I believe that until some point in the 1970s or 1980s individual Labour Party membership was notional . No CLP had fewer than 1,000 members - even if the real figure was - say - 250. At party conferences every CLP was deemed to have at least 1,000 members.

[leftieliberal]

Mar 27, 2023 18:14:29 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mar 27, 2023 17:33:59 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

From my brief exploring so far, progress and modernity was something liberals were advocating in the 19th Century, and John Stuart Mill saw people as “progressive beings”. 

In practice the question arises as to what key policies do progressives advocate that liberals would be opposed to, and vice versa.

Another related question would be what policies do progressives advocate that Lib Dems oppose and vice versa

If you can get your hands on a second-hand copy (it's out of print now) Conrad Russell's "An intelligent person's guide to liberalism" is well worth reading if you want to understand the different strands that have come together to form the Liberal Democrats. Conrad was Bertrand Russell's son by his third wife and the great-grandson of Lord John Russell, who was a 19th Century Prime Minister. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 26, 2023 19:24:04 GMT leftieliberal said:

Mar 26, 2023 16:39:11 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Thank you very much indeed for the link about the Husler method, Leftie!

Frederick Husler isn't well known over here in the UK; he also has a fascinating back-story: www.cursa-ur.com/husler.html

Apart from Peter Harrison, there is also Joy Mammen who taught Lesley Garrett. My late wife studied with Doreen Millman, one of Peter Harrison's students, after she had got a secure technigue from Andy Field and Doreen refined her voice and improved her diction. This is one thing you notice with Husler-trained singers, even when they are singing at full volume they don't lose their diction. 

yes it is a good back story - impressive not just because of the range of interests and the meticulousness involved, but also being self-taught.  

I also like the idea of not needing to use scales!

It must be great to have that opportunity to work with a number of notable teachers in the classical realm. (My piano teacher at school was a cellist who played with the Delmé String Quartet but I was a late starter and we decided that Classical wasn’t really for me and so I went more down the jazz road instead). 

[steve]

pjw1961

Under the regime courtesy of our stolen rights of freedom of movement it is of course more a case of the vast majority who aren't minted not being able to get out.

[Danny]

Mar 27, 2023 15:04:21 GMT alec said:

The second take doing the rounds is that Russian casualties have been systematically under-counted by western observers, who have naturally assumed that Ukrainian claims are heavily laced with propaganda. Some of the military bean counters are starting to suggest that this isn't necessarily so, and the stalling of Russia's battlefield activity and reaching back to the 1950s for spare tanks for the front line might suggest they have a point.

ISW today discuss what Putin might be thinking about the war. They argue he does not believe he cannot win, and so he will continue to fight, refusing any approaches for a negotiated peace.

I'm not sure I agree with them, one reason why Putin might be continuing a war which is going badly could indeed be he still thinks he could win. But taking more of Ukraine doesnt seem likely at the moment. Although the west has seemingly done little to properly supply Ukraine with weapons, there are reports suggesting that Russia is faring even worse, relying mostly upon stockpiled weaponry. While Ukraine was first given the west's worst spare equipment, as this has been used up the west has started sending more modern stuff. Whereas russia started off using its best, and has been taking older and older kit out of storage.

I think it much more likely Putin continuing this war is about his personal survival in office. To lose the war is quite likely to lead to his deposition from office. I think it naive to think Putin runs russia alone, any more than Boris johnson ran britain. There is a successor in waiting. So, given the war has totally not gone to plan, the question becomes how can he survive not winning? One obvious answer is you cannot do that by ceasing to fight and going home, and so of course he has not.

ISW seem to agree with you that recent Russian attacks have harmed their fighting ability rather more than Ukraine. But we already concluded Putin cannot conquer all ukraine, and again ISW believe that even if he did achieve a breakthrough somewhere, he would then be unable to advance signficantly. They toy with the idea he might be trying to stretch the territory he controls to all parts of the counties he claims to have annexed but they question whether he could even do this.

Obviously, if abandoning the war would mean his downfall, he cannot do that. So then what options remain? Hope the west might lose interest and allow Ukraine to lose - doesnt seem likely, but you never know. More promising, try to engineer a situation where the war could end but he can save face. i can see two.

First, put the blame on someone else. Prigozhin and his wagner group army have been held up as heroes fighting much better than the russian army. So if they fail, then how could the army be blamed? And after claiming they could win the war, might not be too difficult to blame them for a disastrous rout. Especially if so many Russian troops were lost supporting their chosen attacks. Of course, a rout wont happen unless the armed forces present in the field are already worn down to inadequate numbers, er perhaps by keep sending them into pointless attacks.  Putin needs to be defeated on the field  (in an acceptable way) to keep his job.

Second, he doesn't need to conquer all ukraine, one outcome for the original war would have been similar to the annexation of Crimea, just slice off another useful bit of Ukraine. Currently he holds a useful bit of Ukraine.  So all he needs to do is hold on to it.  So his problem is how to build sufficient fixed defences as to keep out the Ukrainina army.  In the past ISW has reported how russia has been doing this as fast as it possibly can.  Recently he has been trading lives for keeping the Ukrainian army locked in place, in engagements it couldn't refuse. Has he bought enough time to have turned the captured regions into a fortress?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 8:04:19 GMT Danny said:

Mar 26, 2023 19:16:55 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

The OU of course also had a model of lectures and tutorials.

The most important difference was it was intended you could continue living at home, doing your job, while getting a degrees, they had infrastructure where they did summer schools and presumably lab work as relevant. I agree some subjects are easier to do this than others, though at least in one respect we now have the technology for easy video communication for such as tutorial time.

It strikes me the stuff you describe might have been much better suited to the local polytechnic model, with small classes and specialist equipment. So maybe we should have a polytechnic and OU model and scrap the non research univerities.

Well, a week or two with the gear at a summer school is ok, but when you compare it with having access to recording studios and computer workstations throughout the academic year, backed by tech support and me dropping in regularly to see how things are going and offer support if you wanted it... Plus they had the opportunity to work with other students throughout the year and I would bring in third years to help with years below etc. (Although of course numerous lecturers just did the lectures and that was mostly that). 

Regarding non-research unis, these can sometimes pioneer new courses and teaching approaches instead. An HE college I worked at offered an early example of a media production degree (as opposed to media theory), and as for FE, which also didn’t do much research, I was able to just pretty much walk in off the street in my early twenties and develop electronic music teaching and facilities from scratch. (Of course once things start getting somewhere then institutional politics starts to play more of a role…)

[Mark]

*** ADMIN ***

Former member, Vyr has been banned for repeated spamming of the board.

All of this former members posts have been deleted. None related in ay way to what this board is about.

Proboards are generally good at weeding out the bots and those that come here purely to spam, but, the odd one does get through.

Unfortunately, one of the downsides of an active board.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 8:04:19 GMT Danny said:

Mar 26, 2023 19:16:55 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

The OU of course also had a model of lectures and tutorials.

Of course, this wouldnt help with the interesting social engineering which is claimed to have resulted from more attending university, that it teaches people to be more left wing. Or maybe what it does is teach people analytical skills and then exposed them to a wide spread of humanity. with the result most of them become left wing because its the obvious correct thing to do. This interpretation would imply the right is fundamentally wrong. Prisoner's dilemma comes to mind, that social cooperation may give the best outcome for all, but cheating can bring the individual more advantage.

Yes,, I didn’t get much left wing teaching doing science. Then there’s the question of how much is really left wing as opposed to more liberal - if you recall the students complaining a while back that they kept being fed liberal economics on degree courses, and wanted to learn other paradigms. (There is also the question of how much they do learn analytical skills, as opposed to the courses being set up more to support opining and regurgitating procedures instead. Because teaching proper analysis is not so easy). Also, they might come to support certain views politically because they happen to be in the interests of the graduate class. 

[domjg]

Mar 27, 2023 18:41:02 GMT pjw1961 said:

Mar 27, 2023 18:14:29 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Thanks Lulu. That’s a book I will put on my list! From my brief exploring so far, progress and modernity was something liberals were advocating in the 19th Century, and John Stuart Mill saw people as “progressive beings”. 

In practice the question arises as to what key policies do progressives advocate that liberals would be opposed to, and vice versa.

That's fairly easy. Liberals, with their emphasis on individual liberty, have never been keen on socialist redistribution of wealth via tax to further economic equality. Yet both are forms of 'progressive' politics and would find much common ground on social equality issues.  

'Liberal' seems, these days, to have a million different meanings to a million different people. 

[domjg]

Mar 27, 2023 20:26:01 GMT Mark said:

*** ADMIN ***

Former member, Vyr has been banned for repeated spamming of the board.

All of this former members posts have been deleted. None related in ay way to what this board is about.

Proboards are generally good at weeding out the bots and those that come here purely to spam, but, the odd one does get through.

Unfortunately, one of the downsides of an active board.

Don't think I've ever seen any posts from someone called Vyr.

[peterbell]

Mar 27, 2023 19:07:26 GMT davwel said:

@ Peter Bell

Will you explain please why you want biased, unbalanced coverage from the BBC. And them not to sack those responsible for a regular flow of biased reporting such as R4`s Dymond, found guilty of not challenging an outspoken right-winger, but not being named in BBC`s apology.

I only post a small percent of the BBC`s factual errors, and if you had Sussex often misnamed Suffolk and Surrey you would have reason to grumble. As an example Radio Times lists a BBC 4 programme coming tonight from Montrose in Aberdeenshire; the compilers obviously muddled it with Angus

@davwell

Can't explain, because that is not what I want and I doubt you can find any post where I have suggested I want biased BBC reporting.  In fact, a few days ago I posted that I would be limiting my BBC watching due to political bias.   However, being a Geordie I am not too worried about Sussex often being misnamed Suffolk and Surrey.  I assume that you know where Geordies live - I did hint at it in my original post.

What I was referring to was the 50% of the news broadcast being devoted to the SNP while you always complain about the lack of Scottish coverage.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 20:42:55 GMT domjg said:

Mar 27, 2023 18:41:02 GMT pjw1961 said:

That's fairly easy. Liberals, with their emphasis on individual liberty, have never been keen on socialist redistribution of wealth via tax to further economic equality. Yet both are forms of 'progressive' politics and would find much common ground on social equality issues.  

'Liberal' seems, these days, to have a million different meanings to a million different people. 

Indeed there is a range of meanings with most of the isms. With Socialism, with progressivism etc., and there are different versions anyway, Neoliberal, ordoliberal etc., and then things keep developing. Things have evolved a lot since classical liberalism for instance. Hence it can be useful to see what others think about it, get on a similar page etc.

[bardin1]

Mar 27, 2023 20:44:37 GMT domjg said:

Mar 27, 2023 20:26:01 GMT Mark said:

*** ADMIN ***

Former member, Vyr has been banned for repeated spamming of the board.

All of this former members posts have been deleted. None related in ay way to what this board is about.

Proboards are generally good at weeding out the bots and those that come here purely to spam, but, the odd one does get through.

Unfortunately, one of the downsides of an active board.

Don't think I've ever seen any posts from someone called Vyr.

Vyr today, gone tomorrow...

i do recall seeing one and not reading past the first few words

[mercian]

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

I assume that 'progressive' implies being in favour of progress. Therefore any policy that moves us forward in a good way is progressive - e.g. Brexit.

[bardin1]

Mar 27, 2023 20:45:02 GMT peterbell said:

Mar 27, 2023 19:07:26 GMT davwel said:

@davwell

Can't explain, because that is not what I want and I doubt you can find any post where I have suggested I want biased BBC reporting.  In fact, a few days ago I posted that I would be limiting my BBC watching due to political bias.   However, being a Geordie I am not too worried about Sussex often being misnamed Suffolk and Surrey.  I assume that you know where Geordies live - I did hint at it in my original post.

What I was referring to was the 50% of the news broadcast being devoted to the SNP while you always complain about the lack of Scottish coverage.

Peter - you have a point. There was indeed some coverage of the leadership contest and fair enough. it was pretty poor fare for the most part - very little about the real issues - what exactly were the candidates views on the path to independence could have been explained for example, and the likelihood of Forbes serving in a Humza cabinet was skimmed over beyond the usual delighted to serve statement.

I can see why, coming from Cheddar Gorge, you would be more interested in Somerset than Sussex/ Surrey distinctions

[pjw1961]

Mar 27, 2023 20:42:55 GMT domjg said:

Mar 27, 2023 18:41:02 GMT pjw1961 said:

That's fairly easy. Liberals, with their emphasis on individual liberty, have never been keen on socialist redistribution of wealth via tax to further economic equality. Yet both are forms of 'progressive' politics and would find much common ground on social equality issues.  

'Liberal' seems, these days, to have a million different meanings to a million different people. 

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ " 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 27, 2023 20:53:30 GMT mercian said:

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

I assume that 'progressive' implies being in favour of progress. Therefore any policy that moves us forward in a good way is progressive - e.g. Brexit.

That’s possibly the least triggering thing you’ve ever said Pete!

[bardin1]

Mar 27, 2023 20:53:30 GMT mercian said:

Mar 27, 2023 15:14:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

OK so I have a question. The term “Progressive” didn’t get used so much on the old board as I remember, but it crops up quite a bit here, so was wondering what are people’s definitions of it, and how does it differ from liberalism? (I have seen some comment on the comparison between the two online - e.g. the difference between using government funding to effect change vs govt. regulation, but wondered what folk on here thought).

I assume that 'progressive' implies being in favour of progress. Therefore any policy that moves us forward in a good way is progressive - e.g. Brexit.

Next stop the campaign to ensure the United Nations progresses into the League of Nations, then let's return Shetland to Norway