Tantrika said:

Metoo said:

That is exactly my point - the Manitoba verison of progressivism...

---

It's not progressivism
it's progressive conservatism, like the name states

---

Quote:

The Progressive Party of Manitoba, Canada, was a political party that developed from the United Farmers of Manitoba (UFM), an agrarian movement that became politically active following World War I. A successor to the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association, the UFM represented the interests of farmers frustrated with traditional political parties.

Unlike the United Farmers, the Progressive Party of Manitoba never made any serious effort to cooperate with the labour politicians. The Winnipeg General Strike was unpopular among farmers, and the Progressive Party of Manitoba was not generally regarded as friendly to labour.

A number of "farmer candidates" ran in Manitoba's provincial election of 1920. They were not an organized group, and had no pretensions of forming government; nevertheless, twelve of these candidates were elected—eight as supporters of the UFM, and four as independents. Had the UFM run a united campaign, it probably would have won the election.

---

Quote:

The Winnipeg general strike of 1919 was one of the most famous and influential strikes in Canadian history. For six weeks, May 15 to June 26, more than 30,000 strikers brought economic activity to a standstill in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which at the time was Canada's third largest city. In the short term, the strike ended in arrests, bloodshed and defeat, but in the long run it contributed to the development of a stronger labour movement and the tradition of social democratic politics in Canada.

---

Tantrika said:

feldman114 said:

Omg that’s genius!!
It sounds like a liberal party branded themselves as conservatives, in order to sell conservative voters on liberal ideas.


This can work in the US for sure. Give Bernie an M16, a WWJD bracelet and a southern accent FTW!

---

It's actually the furthest right major party we have at the provincial level
and they are frequently criticized for favouring businesses and cutting social safety nets

but Canada's right is to the left of the US left
because the DNC sure ain't progressive or liberal lol

---

Well shiiiiit, that’s some false advertising, yo.

But it says a lot about Canada when the furthest right party openly supports decreasing the wealth gap. Wish I could move...I hear there’s like a Florida worth of ethnic Ukrainians in Canada too. How does one become a lumberjack? Im tired of paying $1400 for rent

feldman114 said:

Tantrika said:

feldman114 said:

Omg that’s genius!!
It sounds like a liberal party branded themselves as conservatives, in order to sell conservative voters on liberal ideas.


This can work in the US for sure. Give Bernie an M16, a WWJD bracelet and a southern accent FTW!

---

It's actually the furthest right major party we have at the provincial level
and they are frequently criticized for favouring businesses and cutting social safety nets

but Canada's right is to the left of the US left
because the DNC sure ain't progressive or liberal lol

---

Well shiiiiit, that’s some false advertising, yo.

But it says a lot about Canada when the furthest right party openly supports decreasing the wealth gap. Wish I could move...I hear there’s like a Florida worth of ethnic Ukrainians in Canada too. How does one become a lumberjack? Im tired of paying $1400 for rent

---

Metoo said:

Tantrika said:

Metoo said:

That is exactly my point - the Manitoba verison of progressivism...

---

It's not progressivism
it's progressive conservatism, like the name states

---

And what exactly makes it "not progressivism"?

---

Tantrika said:

Initially had a long explanation...

---

Metoo said:

Tantrika said:

Initially had a long explanation...

---

Thanks for the historical perspective but still no wiser as to why you thought they are "not progressivism". The dictionary definition of progressive is "favouring social reform" and, based on their manifesto, they certainly have some ideas in this space. Moreover, they identify as "progressive" through their name. I do not get why a party which fits in the definition of "progressive" and identifies as such does not qualify.

---

Metoo said:

Tantrika said:

Initially had a long explanation...

---

Thanks for the historical perspective but still no wiser as to why you thought they are "not progressivism". The dictionary definition of progressive is "favouring social reform" and, based on their manifesto, they certainly have some ideas in this space. Moreover, they identify as "progressive" through their name. I do not get why a party which fits in the definition of "progressive" and identifies as such does not qualify.

---

there is more to the political philosophy of progressivism than a three word definition for the word progressive

part of the historical perspective was explanation as to how the party system in Canada changes names through mergers
and how since there have been an absence of Conservative-leaning parties in most provinces
the party in various provinces has not be able to merge and choose a name that they feel better identifies their existing values

the national party merged with Canadian Alliance and dropped the Progressive nomenclature
and in the province of Alberta the Progressive Conservatives merged with the Wild Rose party to become the United Conservative Party
British Columbia has a Conservative party, because when they had the Progressive Conservative name in the years after 1942
the party dissolved after an alliance with the Liberals, and was refounded as the Conservative Party

you would have to ask Pallister if he identifies himself as progressive because you identify him as progressive tho

feldman114 said:

By that logic, Trump is a progressive 🤷🏻‍♂️
His social reforms were putting kids in cages, cutting corporate taxes, and building a border wall - a sharp contrast to previous norms.

---

Metoo said:

feldman114 said:

“Progressivism in the 21st century is significantly different from the historical progressivism of the 19th-20th centuries. According to Princeton economics professor Thomas C. Leonard, "At a glance, there is not much here for 21st-century progressives to claim kinship with. Today’s progressives emphasize racial equality and minority rights, decry U.S. imperialism, shun biological ideas in social science, and have little use for piety or proselytizing." However, both historical progressivism and the modern movement shares the notion that the free markets lead to economic inequalities that must be ameliorated.[64] Many modern progressives have used the term "new progressivism" to make this distinction.“

Couldn’t find a Miriam Webster definition, but...I mean, it kinda does, dude.

Or, fine, w.e., call it “new progressives” if you wanna be a weirdo about it

---

Not sure which dictionary you are quoting from but even in your post I could not find a claim that "progressive means supporting workers over billionaires". It is perfectly ok to say that many modern supporters of workers identify as progressives but that is NOT what the term means. It may change in the future but at present progressive - in the sense we are discussing it - means "favouring social reform".

I use "progressive" to generally cover the left because, at present, they are the ones favouring social reform vs conservatives generally preferring status quo.

---

twighead said:

UK definitions are going to be completely irrelevant to this discussion, their "labour" party - by nomenclature in the US would be a communist party.

---

twighead said:

It's a bunch of political opponents talking shit about their UK political rivals.

There are almost no synonymous words when talking about politics/parties/ideologies between the US and the UK

---