Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Should there be a House of Lords?
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1384 Views: 259 Comments: 0
Clearly, in such a populated country such as Great Britain, a Second Chamber of Parliament also known as the House of Lords is necessary. Although the House of Lords cannot execute much power, compared to the House of Commons, it is a vital part of British Government. The House of Lords plays an important part in revising, potentially delaying legislation and as well as keeping a check on Government by scrutinising its activities. It complements the work of the Commons, whose members are elected to represent their constituents. Members of the Lords are not elected and are unpaid. Most peers...
very well and it would not make sense to remove its presence from Government. The House of Lords works to revise legislation ensuring it is coherent. It also works by keeping a check on Government by scrutinising its activities. Many people do not realise that the House of Lords is influential in Government. For example, it can delay legislation for a maximum of one year. It is also made up of many committees that make sure that Government is working efficiently. Although there are some problems with the House of Lords including being undemocratic, overall it works very well.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

In the United States, true equality...In the United States, true equality has never existed. From the Declaration of Independence to modern times, the U.S. legal system has failed in any attempt at equality. The ideology of "all [men] are equal but some [men] are more equal than others" has been present throughout the history of the U.S. Orwell. Inequality has always existed in the United States legal system and continues to exist today; however, the inequality presently in the system is not as blatant as what it once was, but the system has come to depend on inequality. Since the very beginning of a legal system in the United States, there has been inequality. The Declaration of Independence declared that ""¦all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"¦"Jefferson. The reality of the Declaration of Independence was that all free, white, landowning men are created equal. Slavery continued in the U.S. for nearly ninety years after the Declaration, and black Americans still feel the sting of inequality. Women were also left out of ""¦all men are created equal"¦." The implied meaning of the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence is what the U.S. legal system has strived for and failed to grasp fully. After the establishment of independence in the United States, the development of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ensued. The Bill of Rights was to establish the basic rights of every citizen of the United States, but failed to do so. The rights of white, male citizens were the only rights that were ensured by the Bill of Rights. The rights of blacks and the underprivileged were not even considered. The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury"¦, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" "Constitution", Amendment V. These rights were often denied to those that were second class citizens or those people that were not even considered to be people, such as slaves. The rights ensured by the first ten amendments have been denied to some part of the population at any given time in American history. The denying of the basic rights established by the Bill of Rights is not limited to the any one amendment. Even today there are cases that cite the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, as a basis for defense. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is probably the most challenged in today's society. With the "Information Age" upon us, the right to free speech has been seeking out its limits and future potential. Because of the extent of free speech and peoples use of it to speak out against the government, there is inequality currently in the system. People who use their voices against the system are often caused a great deal of legal troubles while those that use their voices to support the system are free to do so at will. To return to America's early history of inequality, one must look at the black codes. The black codes are defined as "laws [that] were designed to replace the social controls of that had been removed by the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution [1865], and were thus intended to assure continuance of white supremacy" "black codes". The Grandfather Clause and Jim Crow Laws were all part of the black codes of the South. "[The Grandfather Clause]"¦provided that those who had enjoyed the right to vote prior to 1866 or 1867, or their lineal descendants, would be exempt from educational, property, or tax requirements for voting"¦[T]hese clauses worked effectively to exclude blacks from the vote but assured the franchise to many impoverished and illiterate whites" "Grandfather Clause". Jim Crow Laws were "any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the U.S. South between the end 1877 of the formal Reconstruction period and the beginning of a strong civil-rights movement 1950s" "Jim Crow Laws". Thus, Jim Crow Laws were a large part of black codes. Jim Crow Laws included the statute set by Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896, of "separate, but equal" USSC, "Plessy". With the topic of Plessy v. Ferguson being brought into the situation, one must look at segregation in America as a means of the system reaffirming inequality. "In the Southern states of the United States"¦legal segregation in public facilities was current from the late 19th century into the 1950s" "racial segregation". Legal segregation in America established the fact that there was inherent inequality in the system. Because of this, "the Civil Rights Movement was initiated by Southern blacks in the 1950s and "60s to break the prevailing pattern of racial segregation" "racial segregation". As a result of this movement, Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in the 1955 ruling of Brown v. Board of Education USSC, "Brown". This did not put an end to legal segregation, but it laid a foundation for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act was "comprehensive U.S. legislation intended to end discrimination based on race, colour, religion, or national origin" "Civil Rights Act". Though the intent of the Civil Rights Act was good, it was not as effective as it should have been. It failed to end inequality in the system. Inequality has evolved to fit the newly reformed system. Not just racial inequality adapted to the system, but also inequality towards the indigent and towards women. After all, inequality is not limited to cases of race. Women have been second class citizens since the foundation of America. It wasn't until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 that women gained the right to vote "Constitution", Amendment XIX. This was fifteen years after the 15th Amendment provided that the right to vote would not be denied on the basis of race or colour Amendment XV. Yet, it wasn't until the 24th Amendment in 1964 that poll taxes where prohibited and voting became more accessible to the indigent Amendment XXIV. Even though these steps were taken to eliminate inequality in most forms, inequality still occurs in the system. The modern legal system in the U.S. has come to not only accept and hide inequality, but also to depend on inequality to function. Perhaps David Cole said it best, "Absent race and class disparities, the privileged among us could not enjoy as much constitutional protection of our liberties as we do"¦" 5. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright can be used to illustrate this point. Cole summarizes the case: Clarence Earl Gideon, a penniless Florida man, down on his luck and charged with breaking and entering a poolroom, claims that although he can't afford a layer, he has a constitutional right to have a lawyer appointed by the state to defend him. When the Florida trial court denies his request, [Gideon] represents himself, and is convicted. From prison, [Gideon] sends a hand-written note to the Supreme Court asking it to hear his case. "¦Abe Fortas [is appointed] to argue Gideon's case, and then [the Court] rules that the Sixth Amendment guarantees indigent defendants the assistance of a lawyer in all serious criminal trials. On retrial, with a lawyer paid for by the states, Gideon is acquitted. 63 The Gideon v. Wainwright may not appear to support the previous statement: "Absent race and class disparities, the privileged among us could not enjoy as much constitutional protection of our liberties as we do"¦" Cole 5. The outcome of Gideon requires government to provide a lawyer to a defendant, "[b]ut as long as the state provides a warm body with a law degree and a bar admission, little else matters" 64. Even though the state provides indigent defense counsel, most are "underpaid, overworked, and given insufficient resources to conduct an adequate investigation and defense" 84. Cole states that in 1990, "[t]he national average per capita spending on local and state indigent defense was $5.37" 84. Cole also points out other facts about the ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright: One of the most remarkable facts about the constitutional right declared in Gideon v. Wainwright is that it was not a constitutional right for the first 184 years of our Constitution. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right"¦to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.' But for most of our history, this right applied only to the approximately 10 percent of criminal trials that take place in federal court, and even there is meant only that defendants who had the money to do so could hire and attorney to defend them. 65 What this establishes is the inequalities of defense in the legal system. Those defendants that cannot provide their own council are at a disadvantage since the council they are appointed is often inadequate. The legal system has come to rely on the disparities of defendants as means of producing convictions, and thus as a reason for perpetuating inequality in the system. The inequalities of the justice system can also be shown in the evolution of laws in more resent times. When laws begin to affect large numbers of white middle- and upper-class people, the laws begin to change. An example would involve the spread of marijuana use. Strict laws of the early and middle part of this century prohibiting the use of marijuana were imposed because the majority of users were lower-class minorities. But during the 1960s and 1970s, the use of marijuana spread though the youth of white middle- and upper-class America Cole 152. This spurred changes in the judicial system to ease the laws affecting marijuana use. Cole summarizes the situation: "When the effects of a criminal law reach the sons and daughters of the white majority, our response is not to get tough, but rather to get lenient" 153. The American legal system has never been truly equal because it was founded on inequality and has always depended on inequality. The system could easily be changed to eliminate those inequalities, but that will not likely happen. "Challenges to measures that disadvantage blacks, other minorities, or women face an inordinate burden to prove purposeful action, and the tendency to ignore the appearance of discrimination or stereotyping"¦; and moral skepticism that doubts that white men discriminate anymore and questions the credibility and motives of challengers who claim otherwise" have lead to support of inequality Kairys, par. 22. So long as there is a majority dependent on the disparities of a minority, the system will maintain its current sanctity. In doing so, the system will remain dependent on inequality and provide means for future inequalities. The American legal system will always adapt to allow for inequalities.   

In the United States, true equality has never existed. From the Declaration of Independence to modern times, the U.S. legal system has failed in any attempt at equality. The ideology of "all [men] are equal but some [men] are more equal than others" has been present throughout the history of...

Words: 1836 View(s): 417 Comment(s): 0
Throughout the 1990s, China was identified...Throughout the 1990s, China was identified as a major world military power as well as a US rival. Many feared that China's large and growing population and prosperous economy would aid it in becoming a challenger to the status quo, not unlike Germany in the first half of the 20th century. A late modernizer like Germany, China's identity is infused with ideas of victimization and the desire to take its "rightful place" in the world. America has continually viewed China with a dual image: a looming threat or a lucrative partner. In the eyes of America, a fat, happy China with stakes in proven international frameworks could be a cooperative and profitable ally; at the same time, a prosperous China, with an expanded and modernized army as well as a highly educated and media-savvy populace, could rise as a challenge to American dominance in both Asia and the rest of the world. Conversely, China, "where the leadership and citizenry alike see themselves as having only recently wrested control of their national destiny from the depredations of foreigners after more than a century of humiliation," sees influences and demands by outsiders as another attempt to keep China down Lampton 7. Thus, "America's demands for market access, a lower trade deficit, and limits on weapons exports are often viewed as "¦ as effort to retard China's rise" Lampton 9. America sees China as a valid competitor, yet China proudly bears the cross of the injured party. Thus duality of perception leads to misunderstanding and argument over issues such as trade and the environment since Beijing often wants the preferred treatment of a developing country while Washington insists that "China be judged by a higher standard" Lampton 9. Over the past fourteen years, one force has driven US-China relations above all others. That force is globalization, something which can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. Some say that globalization is a trend toward integration that has been present since early human society and cannot be controlled by any state, group, or individual. Trade among different societies has been present for thousands of years. Others state that globalization is a system perpetuated by several strong countries, corporations, and individuals. But as Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw put in their book The Commanding Heights, globalization is not a thing but a process and "A move to a more connected world in which barriers and borders of many kinds "¦ are coming down, felled both by technological change, especially technologies that bring down the costs of transportation and communication, and by ideas and policies that bring down the barriers to the movement of people, goods and information." This new interconnectedness promotes flows not of only technology but also ideas, news, information, entertainment, and people. Thus, globalization has affected a multitude of US-China issues, including trade, intellectual property rights, transnational organized crime, human rights, military opposition and cooperation, nuclear proliferation, media fluidity, and the War on Terrorism. From the period of 1972-1989, US-China relations were orchestrated between individual heads of State, bypassing the constraints and opinions of both congress and the public. By the time of the Tiananmen Square disaster, the public eye was turned toward China and new period of US-China relations had begun. With Russia no longer a cohesive force, the institutional machinery of foreign policy toward China had grown and gotten more complicated. The relationship evolved into a new rapport, which had to address a myriad issues ranging from human rights to the rule of law. This shift also reflected on US-China economic relations. Some specific frictions of the of the 1990s include intellectual property rights IPR, textiles, market access, human rights, and China's protracted negotiations with Washington over terms of accession into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT/the World Trade Organization WTO. Over the past two decades, the issue of theft of intellectual property rights, such as software, compact disk, and logo piracy, has become a symbol for the inequity of the trade relationship between the United States and China, as well as "a metaphor for a wide range of Chinese behavior" Lampton 120. The IPR issue also reflects several current conditions in China: a lack of institutional and legal development to even begin to deal with the legal implications of IPR, an absence of public understanding of and support for the issue, local corruption which hinders prosecution of offenders, and transnational organized crime which disperses the pirated products throughout the world, making the problem extra-national. In terms of human rights, in the early 1990s, emboldened by their recent victory of the Cold War, "Americans viewed China as a weakened regime that could be pushed into more humane treatment of its citizens" Lampton 31. In contrast, encouraged by their country's swift economic rise, China's leaders believed that they were on the right track. They did not believe themselves to be beholden to Washington. Thus on the stumbling block of linking the renewal of China's MFN status, it was Clinton and the Americans who took the fall. China is now America's fourth largest trading partner and China's reliance on American markets and American investment led the Clinton administration to miscalculate the leverage that Washington has over China's internal policies. Achieving changes concerning human and labor rights, things that are on the margin of key issues such as economics and security, has proved to be exceedingly challenging. Part of the push towards addressing these more amorphous periphery issues is the changing nature of who regulated US-China relations. As mentioned earlier, unlike the decades of the cold war, the 1990s were filled with growing congressional involvement in making China policy. One of the major reasons for this change is the shift in US-China relations from a security-centered policy, where the president had more authority, to an economic-centered policy where there is substantially more congressional input. For example, throughout the 1990s, the legal context of the annual extension of most-favored-nation MFN, now called normal tariff relations or NTR status for China opened up "debate for politicians and interest groups to demonstrate their commitment to American values and to promote their concerns" Lampton 117. In 1992, arguing that the republican president in office was too soft on countries that perpetuated inhumane atrocities, "the central China policy commitment that Bill Clinton made in the election campaign was that he would find a way to link Chinese access to the American market with the improved treatment of its citizens" Lampton 33. From the very beginning, the MFN/human rights linkage was opposed by the American business community, who felt like they had not been adequately consulted prior to the decision, as well as Chinese intellectuals and even some human rights groups, who believed that impoverishing Chinese peasants through trade sanction would in no way promote people's rights. Chinese leaders had confidence in the president's inconstancy and in his need for Chinese help on "critical international issues such as the North Korea nuclear proliferation problem" Lampton 41. And they were right. Almost exactly a year after he announced the linkage policy, Bill Clinton pronounced it dead. As a direct byproduct of the free flow of information caused by globalization, the leadership of the PRC must now account to its people to a much greater degree than it had to twenty years ago. The free flow of information is often the culprit responsible for this change, for "there is no way you can govern a well informed, large managerial/professional class without taking their views into account" Nye 49. This flow of information is a main component of globalization and brings with it great political risk, thus "the Chinese government has traditionally discouraged the flow of information among individuals" Nye 48. Yet, the Chinese cannot ignore the vast economic benefits of the Internet, and are trying to reap the benefits while mitigating the costs through a process of control and censorship that includes the blocking of web sites as well as "forbidding Chinese web sites to use news from web sites outside the country" Nye 48. This suppression of information has warped American perception of the PRC and has consequently fueled misunderstandings. Not only has the Chinese leadership often been silent during crucial conflicts, but the mistreatment of foreign journalists sent to cover events in the PRC such as "bugging of apartments, harassment of informants [and], withdrawal of credentials" has affected the resulting coverage Lampton 268. In this way, the PRC disadvantages itself, for "it would receive more knowledgeable and favorable coverage if it lowered the barriers to media entry and increased the access of reporters" Lampton 270. It is apparent that the US and China view the proper role of mass media in a very different light and the "American press is faulted for not helping to improve the atmosphere of US-China relations "“ something that American journalists deeply believe is not their role" Lampton 273. During times of high political pressure foreign journalists are the most in need of information and Chinese are least likely to talk, needing to first understand the party's official position on the crisis and fearing the severe consequences resulting from a statement expressed not according to party lines. Thus journalists, often starved for any information at all, often listen to dissidents, who are more than eager to talk but who are neither always informed or unbiased. It is this process that aids in America's distorted view of the PRC and limits China's own ability to explain its position to the outside world. Also, the "anti-China bias that many Chinese perceive in the America press feeds their image of China as a victim and their deeply held sense that the West always tries to humiliate China" Lampton 271. The fact remains that "Chinese officials do not value, indeed fear, a free flow of information, having been brought up in a system in which access to information was a privilege not a right" Lampton 269. In the context of globalization, the strength of China's military has also become a major issue in US-China relations. The pace of political, economic, and cultural change in the People's Republic of China PRC has been astounding considering that the country only opened the doors to transformation in 1978, shortly after Mao Zedong's death. Since then, the PRC has modernized much faster than any westerner could have predicted, and as a result "China's interests have rubbed up against those of the United States more frequently and dramatically than was anticipated two decades ago" Lampton 3. This miraculous renovation is due in part to the fact that economic development became a major priority at every level of leadership in China. Beijing desired American cooperation in its development, while Washington was interested in a "constructive involvement of the PRC in the international community" Lampton 68. Thus, by the end of the 1980s, "China was becoming an active member of the international community and multilateral organizations, thereby addressing both American desires for integration of the PRC and Chinese aspirations for recognition and international dignity" Lampton 68. Yet, this very arrangement engendered many of the issues that dominated US-China relations throughout the 1990s. China's rapid economic growth has raised questions in American minds about how this economic prosperity will be translated into military strength and how that strength will be exercised in the future. It is no secret that China's army targets its growth towards possible conflicts with Taiwan and the United States, and in 2002 China spent about $65 billion on defense, "giving it the second-largest military budget in the world of after the Unites States and the largest in Asia" Leob 1. This sum still looks paltry compared to the $390 billion that the Unites States is prepared to spend in 2003, especially since China is at least four times as populace as the United States. Though Beijing favors a peaceful solution of its differences with Taiwan, which it regards as "a renegade province of China," it has not renounced "the use of force as a possible means of bringing about reunification" Loeb 1. And though the United States still maintains a "one China" policy, President Bush has abandoned the strategy of six other presidents by moving away from a policy of "strategic ambiguity" on the topic of Taiwan and explicitly stating that the United States would defend Taiwan in the even of a Chinese attack. Recently though, even with President Bush's often threatening and aggressive stance toward China and the world, the PRC seems to have made the decision to engage America in a way never seen before. Based on China's recent moves "to establish additional rules to control the export of missile technology and dual-use biological and chemical agents, long-standing irritants in relations with Washington," the Washington Post has stated that "the curious mixture of insecurity and arrogance with which China's government used to view the world has been replaced with a sense of possibility" Pomfret 1. China seems to have used its tumultuous experiences in the 1990s to shed its victim mentality and is now ready to see itself fully as a world leader. Chinese scholars and foreign policy officials are beginning to realize that not everything that the Unites States does near China's borders is designed to hurt Beijing. In fact, "China's interests are now more like those of a developed rather than a developing country" Pomfret 2. In the future, it would be wise for the Bush administration to move towards a friendly relationship with the PRC, especially if it desires China's aid in America's multitude of wars. If change is to happen in China, it will happen slowly, but it does happen, as can be witnessed by the past decade. These changes, spurned on by the tide of globalization, have affected everything from agriculture to media to military in China, as well as how we deal with the PRC vis-à-vis all these issues. In the coming years, both America and China will restructure themselves in order to ride the tide of globalization and optimize their relationship toward each other.   

Throughout the 1990s, China was identified as a major world military power as well as a US rival. Many feared that China's large and growing population and prosperous economy would aid it in becoming a challenger to the status quo, not unlike Germany in the first half of the 20th...

Words: 2364 View(s): 269 Comment(s): 0
To answer this question we... To answer this question we will first look at Old Labour focusing on policies pursued by the Labour government. Then we will look at the process of transformation emphasizing on the modern times of the Labour Party starting in the 1970s, going through the Margaret Thatcher years and ending with Tony Blair years where the party has managed to keep Government for the last three elections. In this essay we attempt to answer overall questions like how new is New Labour? Or how does New Labour compare to Old Labour. We look at how New Labour differs from Old Labour, the continuities and differences between New Labour and its conservative predecessor, Thatcherism. We will also mention details like what happened during the Michael Foot Period 1979 "“ 1983 when he took the "Old Labour" to the left, which was critical for the change of Labour Ideology. And how the Margaret Thatcher period of 1980s. had influenced the Labour party. And finally mention details of the process of modernisation, the Neil Kinnock 1994 Petter Mandelson and Tony Blair helping writing and making constitutional a new Clause IV in 1995, the "New Labour". Also mentioning the influence that England had in the European politico-socio-economical environment with the advent of the Third Way. To understand New Labour we first have to look back at the Old Labour. Originated in the late 19th Century the party was to represent the interests and needs of the large working-class population". A quotation from former deputy leader Herbert Morrison states that "Socialism is what a Labour government does." Pre 1979 the Old Labour stood for post-war consensus. It believed in Kynesianism, mixed economy, full employment and growth, Capitalism Tamed, equality and social justice as well as approach to the welfare state, and development of capitalism. This meant state controlled social security available to all people, greater state control regulating prices and wages rather than just implementing economic policy in an attempt to prevent recession. The Labour Party also nationalised many key areas of the economy including public utilities, airlines, public transport and the steel industry. Up until the mid eighties, the British economy was a mixed economy, it was based on interplay between nationalized and private industry. The changes occurred during the year 1979 to 1983. The Labour party was undermining of its own principles and policies. During the 1970s the world-wide economic downturn cause the Labour Government to take on loans and so it was forced to adopt a more liberal economic program moving away from the policy base one, which caused the party to loose popular support and create internal conflicts. Led by Michael Foot, the Labour party was becoming more socialistic, led to the creation in early 1981 of a breakaway party by right wingers, the Social Democratic Party. The Labour party divided into right wing and left wing, gave the left wing activist basis to strongly criticize the parties' conservative activities. According to the left wing, the party conservative activities compromised its principles. By the end of 1983 the party members were still at odds, the "Labour Party" 1983 manifesto was described as "the longest suicide note in history". This along with Thatcher's growing popularity sunk the "Labour Party" even deeper during the 1983 elections. After the lost of 1983, Michael Foot resigned as the leader and was replaced by Neil Kinnock who managed to move the party to the centre. The process of transforming the Labour party began in earnest under Neil Kinnock after the 1987 electoral defeat and he continued reforming the party. The Labour Party formally ceased to be right wing or left wing in early 1989 and started a complete party Policy Review. The idea of modernisation underpins the whole New Labour project. The values and policies were needed to be put into practice have to be modernised. As Blair argued "Our values do not change, Our commitment to a different visions of society stands intact. But the ways of achieving that vision must change." By the time of 1992 elections, the Labour Party reforms, etc. made it a strong candidate for government once again. The party seemed to be ahead of the conservatives, but the results were a big surprise in history, the party lost one more time to the conservatives by 8%. The reasons of these lost were presented as a non-appealing budget that suggested increases in taxes, and a large control over the media exercised by the conservatives. After Kinnock resigned, Smith manages to change the party rules from "trade unions" opinion to "one member, one vote". In 1994 the "Labour" party came with an alternative name "New Labour" referred to the younger conservative members of the party. The party utilized this term in its 1996 manifesto called New Labour, New Life. It was this time the New Labour presented prominent advocates of the right-wing shift in European social democracy during the 1990s known as the "Third Way". Blaire attempted to justify the third was by arguing it sought to combine a dynamic economy with social justice. It also confirms that both these elements are inter related. A poor country cannot afford social justice. Likewise for the markets to prosper their needs to be a degree of social justice. Equality and opportunity became the main area of area of focus for state intervention. New Labour values also emphasizes the concept of 'stakeholder society' where each citizen should recognise that he/she possess responsibilities that link directly to rights he/she holds. This concept in a sense embraces the notion of the "Third Way" where the economic policy seeks a balance of a fair capitalism from the Thatcherism era but with measures that will minimize its negative impact on society. One of such measures was the National Minimum Wage Act. Tony Blair abandoned the Reform of Clause IV, the model of socialism communism, was a crucial symbolic change. He made constitutional the revision of Clause IV that had been in place since 1918, which originally emphasizes the 'common ownership of the means of production', also called nationalisation. The Clause IV of 1918 read then; "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service." In 1995 Blair replaced Clause IV with a new statement of aims and values. The change to Clause IV was approved mainly to remove the damaging concept of nationalization. The way Clause IV reads now still emphasizes the potential of the people as a community and the willingness to place wealth and opportunity in the hands of many not few. Bu it also emphasizes that the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, giving room to privatization and other concepts that shadow the nationalization concept. Below is a key phrase of the new Clause IV; "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each one of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." From this change it can be argued that New Labour is a development of traditional socialist thought. It has adopted ideas from both Thatcherite Conservatism and Liberalism. This also means that the policies pursued by the Labour Government have been remarkably similar in many respects to their Conservative predecessors. We will focus on some political and ideological issues to explain the New Labour. It is argued that "Thatcherism may be seen as the contradictory articulation of neo-liberalism and neo- conservatism presented in a populist manner, constrained by the exigencies of a competitive party system, a liberal democracy and pre-existing institutions, organizations and political forces". Blair has some similarities to Thatcher. Blair and New Labour have been accused of wholeheartedly embracing the political consensus established by Thatcherism. According to Hay1997 the British had a single vision policy that was the consequence of New Labour's acceptance neo-liberalism politics and economic paradigm that is the sole vision animating contemporary British politics. However Tony Blair argued in 1998 on the third Way that we the New Labour are not old Labour in any way but we took some of Old Labour rules, and also accepted certain change role by Margaret Thatcher. New Labour has moved on the Conservative economic ground. Fresh and imaginative thinking ministers are seen to attempt to carry out what they promise. Labour is Confident and its stress on community inclusion and interests marks it out as different to the conservatives. New Labour cannot be branded as Thatcherism Mark II. It is a much more complicated political phenomenon. Its policy towards Europe is more positive. However, its of note that Blaire does not demonstrate any political sympathies towards European forms of Social Democracy. New Labour undoubtedly accepts key elements to both the Thatcherite economic and social agenda. In this it is more inclusive and less diverse, giving the appearance of a genuine desire to tackle problems of inequality and poverty through a policy of equal opportunities for all. Labour's envisages a "authoritarian" community based on a form of populism and government moralism. New Labour has in many ways departed from Thatcherism, but continues to adopt some policies and strategies. It is a very post Thatcherite govornement. As time goes on and the Labour party win more terms of office it is likely they will assert their own sense of identity further. It is in these matters of detail, style and emphasis that New Labour differs from its Conservative predecessors. The best summary of this New Labour is it attempts to combine Thatcher's market oriented policy of the dynamic element with social responsibility which was the Labour heritage. The "new Labour" or "Labour Government" gave the Bank of England freedom to set interest rates, etc. This and other privatisation endeavors created great opposition on the left wing members as well as the trade unions. Even then, and after the 2001 re-election, the party kept bringing changes, for instance increasing public spending in the health service, and in specialization of education. Tony Blair close foreign policy with the United States created strong resistance, in particular after the decision of acting as allies to the United States during the invasion to Iraq. Labour still won the 2005 election but with lesser majority. It is expected that Tony Blair will retire before its term expires in 2009, leaving a new leader in place before elections. In conclusion, the Labour Party is one of the three main political parties in the United Kingdom, it is a center-left political party, and it is currently the party of government. It is a Democratic Socialist party and a member of the socialist international. Whereas "Old Labour" is sometimes used to describe the older, more left-wing members of the party, or those with strong Trade Union connections. The Labour party itself has shown strong shifts from left Old Labour to right New Labour and to center like the Third Way. Heavy political environments are capable of causing opinion shifts that can force parties and party leaders to give up, or to become survivors ignoring party policies and principles. Still the Labour party has succeeded in creating a voice in the government for the middle England population, showing citizens the need to assume rights and obligations, and this is the main reason why Labour is still in government. Labour has also managed to learn good economic lessons from the Thatcherism era, and has kept a balanced perspective of the political, economical and social environment.   

To answer this question we will first look at Old Labour focusing on policies pursued by the Labour government. Then we will look at the process of transformation emphasizing on the modern times of the Labour Party starting in the 1970s, going through the Margaret Thatcher years and ending...

Words: 2017 View(s): 255 Comment(s): 0