Actually, we always knew that we were progressives even if no one else recognises the fact. Here's Danny Dorling at the Progressive Economic Forum:
In a progressive economy, house prices would reflect how much it costs to build a home, including the costs of the material that each home is built from, but not the hyper-inflated land value. The costs of renting will relate to the cost to the landlord of maintaining the fabric of a home and the landlord’s actual time and effort, and not to the power imbalance that comes with sharp inequalities of wealth.
If house prices are based upon construction cost, as they would be in a place without artificial restrictions upon who may build where, then rents would be reasonable and they would reflect only those construction and maintenance costs, there just wouldn't be any scarcity value there, would there?
Which is, of course, why we've been shouting all these years that we must blow up the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and successors, the very set of rules and laws which create that scarcity value.
You know, exactly the policy that the Progressive Economic Forum isn't going to recommend any time in the next century or so. Which is where the difference in the type of progressive becomes important. We propose things that work, achieve the stated goal. They're using progressive to mean sugar, spice, things nice while we're prepared to discuss the disposition of those puppy dog tails.
Obviously, you pays your money and you makes your choice - and don't forget that they are arguing over how they get to spend your money - but progressivism that works does seem like the reasonable choice here, doesn't it?