IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/pstrev/v12y2014i1p51-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Speaking at Cross Purposes? The Rhetorical Problems of ‘Progressive’ Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Robinson
  • Joe Twyman

Abstract

type="main"> On 22 January 2009 David Cameron launched the ‘Progressive Conservatism Project’ at Demos, a think tank previously associated with the centre-left. He made clear that he considered this a new departure both for the Conservative Party and for the country. His words were widely interpreted as an attempt to distance the party from Thatcherism and to move towards values more usually associated with the Lib–Lab ‘progressive tradition’ in British politics. This paper questions the efficacy of this rhetorical strategy in reorienting voters' impressions of the Conservative Party. It uses a 2012 YouGov/University of Nottingham survey to show that the word ‘progressive’ is not well understood by the British public. A plurality of survey respondents felt unable to define the word, and those who did tended to use politically neutral terms such as forward movement, improvement and change. Very few defined it in terms of liberalism, left politics or social justice. Moreover, while many respondents did view Conservative politicians as ‘progressive’, they included Margaret Thatcher within this. The idea of ‘progressive conservatism’ might have seemed attractive to voters in that it signified optimism and change. However, for the majority, it is unlikely to have indicated a shift to the left.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Robinson & Joe Twyman, 2014. "Speaking at Cross Purposes? The Rhetorical Problems of ‘Progressive’ Politics," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 12(1), pages 51-67, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:pstrev:v:12:y:2014:i:1:p:51-67
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1478-9302.12039
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:pstrev:v:12:y:2014:i:1:p:51-67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1478-9299 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.