"When I hear the word Progressive, I reach for my revolver". Well, not quite, but this word has been abused by every charlatan and Stalinist Tyrant across the world over the last century.
Mehdi is right on this, no Government can be seen as even remotely progressive unless it is willing to at least recognise that the gap between rich and poor in this society is a major problem.
There is also a problem with this progressive coalition with regards to constitutional reform. Whilst AV is certainly a fairer system than the one we now have, the reduction in numbers of Mps, and the effective ending of votes of confidence curtail Parliamentary freedom, and deny us all accessible representation. These measures will both put more power in the hands of the central party machines, and curtail thelikelihood of independent minded politicians bucking the party system.
This really does matter - a 55% threshold on confidence votes in 1940 would have ensured that Neville Chamberlain was safe in his job. An even stronger party machine would have precluded many of our finest politicians, right, left or centre, from ever being heard.

How progressive is this government?

Well it's only been about two weeks so we'll have to wait and see, but I'm willing to bet it's more economically progressive than a full Tory government and more liberal than a Labour government.

"Progressive", when referred to by a politician, is a weasel word, as the many thousands of other words that they 'borrow' from advertising.

If you work 60 hours a week, then you're definitely a thicko.

"Progress" has always meant different things to different people, going back to at least the C19th. For one side (and often here we're talking about liberals) it meant the advance of capitalism and the imperial march of Western civilisation. This is the concept of "progressive politics" that now favours neo-liberalism and its ugly twin neo-conservatism (or at least differs with the latter only on tactics rather than substance). That's the "progressive" politics of the likes of Tony Blair.

For ther other side, "progress" means the ongoing struggle against tyranny - tyranny often meaning precisely the things that liberals see as progressive: unrestrained economic power, imperialism, and so on. For that side - the left - being "progressive" means (e.g.) ending apartheid, wresting power from elites by winning votes for women, votes for men for that matter, resisting the marketisation of the economy and defending the democratic public realm.

Obviously these two sides to "progressivism" can overlap. And indeed, the Labour party is an example of where a political coalition (now including socialists, social democrats and neo-liberals) can exist in the space where they do overlap. But fundamentally, the conflicts are probably more important that the areas of agreement (which is certainly true after Iraq and the credit crunch).

What we're seeing now with the Conservatives, and with the Orange Book LibDems, is the way in which progressive politics - often quite socially liberal - can have an economic dark side which shows scant regard for the welfare and economic freedoms of the least well off.

What's interesting about the increasingly popular idea that there is a progressive majority in this country is that its true in both senses. Amongst the public, there's a majority in many areas for left-progressivism. The problem is that amongst the political class, the majority is for right-progressivism.