So, I've just finished my essay due in for tomorrow 7 hours time. Thought I'd post it up here as a read for anyone interested. Feel free to critique if you want, but it won't help my grade. =P
Also, please don't plagiarise. They'll know. They always know.
edit- After a quick proof read, it's a freakin' huge wall of text. Added some pictures to break it up.
Throughout its history, the Labour party has adopted the image of the 'working class' party- that is, one that represents the concerns of the lower classes- those of welfare, good working conditions, and trade unions. However, it has been forced to appeal to a much wider range of requirements in order to succeed in the British democratic system. Simply pandering to the working class denies them the votes of the middle and upper classes because their interests conflict with them (For example; a middle-class man will be concerned with lowering of taxes, while a working class man will be concerned about increasing welfare spending. These are not compatible interests as lower taxation will equal lower public spending, and visa versa.) On top of this, the gradual increase in living standards in the UK has slowly diminished the size of the working class. To remain viable as a political party in the UK, the labour party had to widen its range of appeal and adopt a more central position- a position which allowed compromises in policy to please all people as far as possible, and so gain more votes.
At the core of the labour party is socialism, and at the core of socialism is the idea of equality. The basic ideas of equality are generally agreed upon within socialist circles, these are those of equal rights and equal opportunities. The former being the belief that we should all be born equal under the law and in our access to power, the latter being the belief that we should all be entitled to the same start in life, and the same life chances (Seen today in the form of state education and other organisations.). However, what to do with the fruits of those rights and opportunities is the main source of debate within socialist circles. Some say that the resources available to a society should be re-distributed equally among its people. This is a system incompatible with the reward and incentive based economy on which most of the world relies, as it removes any proportionality of reward. So it is necessary in the context of modern economics to scale back radical re-distribution of wealth to a lower level. However, having said all that, the party still believes firmly that all who are living in the UK are equally entitled to the welfare state, under the same rules as all others entitled, no matter their contribution to it. Some regard this as fundamentally unfair to those who work hard, and this kind of injustice runs against the party line.
So, we come to the conclusion that full-scale government enforced equality is a bad idea, both economically and socially, in the pursuit of a stable and prosperous society. The state must adopt a milder method of equalising society, one that only compensates for the most excessive of inequalities. The movement believes that in cases of undeserving wealth or poverty (Such as with inheritance or those who lack wealth through no fault of their own.) there is a big motive for re-distribution of wealth. Conversely, the rich who worked for their fortunes and the poor who do nothing to help themselves are deserving of their social standing and respective wealth.
The labour party has never pursued complete equality of wealth, as this runs counter to the capitalist-based economy which has proved so fruitful and provides the best incentives for enterprise and plain hard work. This leaves them to deal with the inequalities present in society such as discrepancies in healthcare, education, and security. The party has always worked towards a high standard of state-provided education as the primary means of achieving equality of opportunity, as this method really does give everyone the same start in life (Provided everyone subscribes to state education, which is simply not the case. To compensate for this, the party has traditionally tried to raise state schooling up to a higher standard, rather than abolishing or dragging down the private sector.) in the sense of the same basic knowledge and qualification. However, despite this, there is still covert discrimination against the lower classes in many qualifications that demand higher education. This is countered by legislation endorsing positive discrimination or outlawing regular discrimination.
Collectivism is the idea that many people working together will produce more than many individuals contributing to the same bucket, and that people are fundamentally social creatures who prefer to operate in groups. Labour has employed collectivism in the past, although not to the extent of the followers of Marx. It has been manifested several times, once with the industrialisation of many large industries, mainly to prevent such large and powerful companies from exploiting their workforce, but also to ensure that the companies acted for the benefit of the country as a whole, rather than just running for profit. Labour has also always supported trade unions- an uncomfortable compromise made in order to suit the capitalist economy which causes so much inequality of wealth, and potential exploitation of workers. The solution being to ensure strong collective representation for the workforce in the form of unions. The largest symbol of collectivism in the UK has been the welfare state- where the state manages distribution of healthcare, education, pensions, housing, and insurance against unemployment or poverty- by drawing funds from the people as a whole and re-distributing the benefits to all. This is closely linked to the final ideal of old labour- that of Common Ownership. Following in the wake of failed experiments into common ownership in China and the USSR, labour adopted a different view of common ownership, seeing it as a complement to private property rather than a replacement. Hence the absence of a completely state-run economy and the allowance for free markets.
New labour sprang forth from the conflict between Labour and Thatcher during the 80's. The party was divided on how to deal with the opposition, and it split, forming an offshoot party known as the Social Democratic Party (Which continued to support traditional, left-wing labour ideals) and the New Labour party. The new labour party presented itself as the 'Third Way'. The first way being that of the conservatives, the second being traditional socialism of old Labour. It differentiated itself from both of these polarized policies by setting itself in the middle ground, where it still sits today.
The policies of New Labour- those that encourage individualism and a sense of communal responsibility- can be summed up with the word 'communitairianism'. It adopts both the positions of preserving the key benefits of old socialism, whilst allowing limited capitalism to flourish, without leaving people out in the cold should they fail on the free markets. This is in stark contrast to old Labour policy, which advocated the complete nationalisation of as many industries as possible. It also contrasts from the policies of the New Right by regulating industry and advocating minimal nationalisation. Other policies follow:
1. New labour's position on Trade unions is more moderate than that of Old labour. It believes there is still a place for them, but that their power should be limited. The rights of workers should be enforced, however, by law.
2. The welfare state is a tool to motivate, not to compensate. The private sector can be employed when necessary if it fulfils the commitment to high-quality services and efficiency, contrary to Old Labour which believed private sector involvement was never acceptable.
3. State intervention in the economy and borrowing should be minimised, however borrowing is still acceptable if used to contribute to better public services. Old labour believed involvement should be extensive to ensure protection of jobs.
4. The attitude towards time isn't a compromise, but an adoption of both other views, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."
5. The Third way was the only political stance that advocated cautious support for the EU, as long as independence was maintained. The right was highly suspicious, and the left is highly isolationist.
6. The new Right Policy is to do whatever necessary to protect national interests, the socialist policy is to remain insular and to ignore international all fairs. New Labour policy is to take a leading role in international affairs, whilst standing up for fundamental human rights and to help poorer countries.
7. As for the constitution, the Conservatives are still traditionally opposed to reform, and the socialists advocate radical reform towards equality and democracy. New labour is more moderate, preferring decentralisation and a focus on human rights.
This is just a generalisation, however. There are key policies mentioned in the 2005 election manifesto that can be taken as a representation of more contemporary New Labour policy.
For the most part, new labour has abandoned the old idea of collectivism, instead adopting a strong anti-poverty stance to deal with the problems of social inequality. This has developed into modification of the welfare state to become more targeted towards poorer, more deserving families, the disabled, and the elderly. In practice, the benefits available to all have gone down, but those available to those most in need have gone up.
New labour has again adopted a more capitalist view when it comes to the economy, favouring lower taxes, a more laissez faire approach to business. It has entrusted control of inflation to the Bank of England, whilst keeping borrowing low. However, as we can see now, that position was un-sustainable due to a lack of investment in industry. Those 10 years of economic growth were harnessed in order to improve the run-down welfare state (Inherited from the previous conservative government suffering from under-investment.).
New Labour has stuck relatively true to its traditional line with its policy on education by putting it at the centre of its image, "Education, Education, Education," said Tony Blair, with the intent to create 50% more places in higher education for school leavers. This aim has been criticized for being ignorant of the need for manual labourers, but it's mainly fallen due to a lack of funding forcing students to take on debts after university, which puts many off.
As already mentioned, labour has began with a double-pronged approach to Law and Order, "Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime." And while this is how it began, the party has gradually slid to the right, adopting a more authoritarian approach, utilising ASBOs, more severe sentences. However the impression is that it simply utilises a more authoritarian approach in the short term, whilst adopting a more traditional left-wing approach in the long-term.
Labour swept into power under an atmosphere of zealous constitutional reform- hoping to change the house of lords, implement the human rights and freedom of information acts. However as time passed the zeal waned, and the policy of reform no longer takes a central place in party policy.
In respect to Europe and the international community, labour has adopted a more open stance. It is pro-European for the most part, but remains distinctly detached on the grounds that the current EU system is not democratic enough, and trivialises the interests of its member states. As for the rest of the world, the New Labour party follows very the U.S. foreign policy very closely, as well as taking a more international stance due to its position on eradication of poverty. It has provided strong support for the U.S. in Iraq, and now during the war on terror, and have been on hand and willing to resolve international conflicts such as Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. For the most party, the UK and the US share largely common interests.
In conclusion, it could be said that the New Labour party has promised too much without the funds to deliver, but then that can be said of almost all parties. The party began on a wave of reform, most of which was favourable. Now it is focused more on improving the changes it has already made, rather than implementing new ones.
The most fundamental tenant of conservatism is a pessimistic attitude to human nature, far more so than liberalism and socialism.
Given the chance, people will be selfish, un-trustworthy, irresponsible, and incompetent. The most devoted conservatives subscribe to the view that people are born imperfect, and will never be able to achieve perfection due to their motivation being rooted in basic needs rather than rational thought. People need direction, and society needs structure. The direction should be provided by a benevolent, wise ruler or group of rulers, and the structure should be inherent within the society. State intervention is necessary to curtail human wants.
This heavy intervention by the state in control of the population is manifested in Law and Order, which features heavily in Old Conservative politics. The party values order as a whole to be fair more important that individual freedoms, and is willing to sacrifice those liberties in order to maintain it.
This need to maintain social order heavily influences many other parts of Conservative policy. The stereotype of Conservative resistance to change contains a grain of truth. Conservatism traditionally entails a resistance to change because conservatives believe that keeping things the same encourages social order, or that change brings unrest. They argue that people prefer tradition to change, as this brings them a greater sense of security. However, they are often misinterpreted of rejecting everything outright, when it really becomes a case of retaining what works and what is good rather than abandoning it irresponsibly for the sake of ideology or new ideas. A good conservative leader should listen to his people, and be cautious and calculated in the implementation of new ideas. These ideas should not sprout from conflict, but from discussion. Strongly held ideologies should be rejected, as these are inflexible and dogmatic at governing. For example, in the 1950's the Tory party was faced with several major reforms from the Labour party, and ideologically they were opposed to them, however they accepted them because they were popular and were what society wanted and needed at the time. This resistance to ideology extends further, as Tories believe that unreasonable attachment to an ideal can lead to exploitation and tyranny, citing Fascism and Communism as their examples. They believe that no-one has the right to declare how a country should be run, only to suggest. These suggests should be weighed up empirically ? respecting traditions and learning from the past, whilst acknowledging the needs of the people
This idea of slow, measured change leads to the idea of the 'Organic Society'. It changes naturally to adapt to the circumstances of the time, whilst still keeping the long-term aims of the country at heart. It encourages the idea that we are all one people, that is, regardless of social standing, we should all work together for the benefit of the nation rather than arguing with each other pointlessly. This does not, however, endorse socialism. It retains the ideals of individualism and fundamental inequality present in traditional Conservatism, whilst still imploring citizens with a sense of responsibility towards the welfare of the country. By keeping law and order, and by avoiding social conflict by adhering to the 'One Nation' philosophy, national division can be avoided. This is called 'One-Nation Toryism'.
One principle that the Tories share with many other parties is that of individualism. This encompasses several meanings; the first requiring the distinction between the public and private spheres of social life. The private sphere being that in which the state should have no interest or interference- religion, private enterprise, property, or expenditure decisions, for example. The freedom to enjoy ones property as one wishes is a fundamental right. On top of this, the freedom of usage of property provides incentive in a capitalist economy Things that are suitable for state interference are in the public sphere, such as national defence and law and order. The Conservative ideals draw an important line between these two spheres. The final implication of individualism in the context of conservatism is that it best operates in a stable, secure environment. Too much individual freedom can actually reduce security and stability (For example, if people are free to blackmail and murder, violence would run riot and disrupt security for others.).
The conservative party followed these traditional ideals right up to the 70's, when Britain was faced with a crumbling economy and social collapse. All of the parties were tasked with combating this slump. The Labour party split, as discussed earlier, over how to deal with the problem, while the Tory party was busy advocating the U.S. based laissez-fare system, championed by one Margaret Thatcher. They stood almost completely opposite to the Labour party on this problem. While labour argued for more nationalisation and socialism, the Tories argued for less.
The main policies of Thatcher's conservative government were those of Deregulation and Disengagement. Industries were privatised en-mass. Competition was forced upon previous monopolies, and their dominance was broken. This rapid deregulation resulted in a much more fluid, fast moving, and adaptable economy, to the benefit of the consumer. The disengagement policy had two parts. The first was that the state would no longer intervene to save failing businesses. If they were failing, it was their own fault, and the state should have no part to play in it (An extension of the previously mentioned individualist principals. This business occurred in the private sector, so it should stay in the private sector.). This caused failing businesses to either adapt or collapse. Should they collapse, they would free up resources for other, more successful, companies; should they adapt, they will better provide for the people, and bring Britain back in line with the contemporary economy. Obsolete business would fail, necessary business would succeed. The second part of the policy of Disengagement was a commitment to stop bailing out the economy. The government would previously raise taxes and public spending to raise economic activity, however this was blamed for merely treating the 'symptoms of economic decline', rather than the causes. The New Right believed that, although it would hit harder in the short term, letting the economy fail when it needed to would be beneficial in the long term.
Thatcher saw the trade unions as the main cause of the country's imminent collapse. They had become too powerful, she said. They perpetuated industrial inefficiency and excessive inflation. This inefficient industry artificially raised prices whilst also preventing innovation and advancement. (For example, factories resisted mechanisation, because the unions argued that jobs would be lost. As a result, they would be producing inefficiently compared to others in the market, and would slowly but surely fail. Along the way they would be forced to lower wages if jobs were impossible to sacrifice dues to the unions, and society, as a whole, would decline until eventual collapse.) Previously governments had directly controlled wages and prices, but the Tories were opposed to this way of doing things, so they took a different approach: First they reformed the unions to reduce their power by making it harder to strike with enforcement of the secret ballot; Second, they forced the unions to become democratic; Finally, they removed the legal immunity from the Unions. This was the biggest blow to their power, as it allowed businesses to sue them for damages incurred by their actions. This made striking a dangerous move, as it placed them at risk of catastrophic financial loss.
The new right rapidly dropped taxes, falling from a maximum of 83% to 60% in the space of a few years. Many were lowered, but there were still bills to be payed, so the more low-profile taxes were raised, such as V.A.T., to make up for the deficit. The aim of these tax reforms was to increase individual wealth, and therefore to increase public spending, reduce the need for government spending, and promote prosperity on the whole. This had the extra, long-term, effect of increasing tax revenue. As people had more money, more was taken as tax, even though the rates were lower. This reduction of taxes resulted in a reduction of public spending, leading to cutbacks in the welfare state. These cutbacks had the intent to reduce the dependency culture that had been propagating under previous governments. Benefits were gradually lowered, but only to a point, as no-one would be allowed to fall into absolute poverty, but it did have the effect of motivating people to work. They weren't in poverty, but they certainly weren't comfortable.
After 1992, the Tory party entered a tumultuous period in which it suffered several huge defeats ('97, '01, '05) at the hands of the labour party. These came as a major blow to the party, as it had previously viewed itself as the 'default' government- the one the people turned to for periods of stability. Since 1997,
The two conflicting ideologies were those of the New right, and those of the Older Conservatism. The New Right was stronger, but their very existence contradicted the 'One-Nation' principal of the Old Conservatives. Despite this and other differences, both factions still agree on a few fundamental principles, these are:
1. Deregulation and the 'Small State'
2. Reducing Taxation- a symptom of a state become too big and a demotivator. Tax is viewed as a necessary evil that needs to be minimised.
3. The increasing levels of crime are the result of soft punishment and uncontrolled demoralisation and loss of the 'family unit'.
4. More choice in public services.
5. Euro-scepticism. Most conservatives agree that the EU holds too much sway of UK law, and that they should not join the euro.
Cameron came out of the internal conflict holding the opinion that the conservatives should, instead of maintaining their traditional view to the right
of labour, they should instead fight them for the middle ground. This plan involved persuading the various factions of the Conservative party, including the New Right, around to his way of thinking, around to his new philosophy of, 'Modern Conservatism'.
Cameron modernised many traditional Tory principals. In an extension of the old 'One-Nation' conservatism, he has broadened the umbrella to include those of a social standing different from 'rich' and 'poor'. He extended it to cover other minorities that suffered from exclusion from mainstream society. This entails raising the accessibility of state-provided services to all minorities, including gays, women, those with disabilities, and those part of an ethnic minority. He effectively is adopting the Labour ideal of 'Social Justice' for the first time in the party?s history. As part of this, he is abandoning the traditional Tory support of private education.
Along with the other parties, Cameron has acknowledged the importance of good climate policy. So much so, in fact, that he has positioned his Tory party as 'Leading the Charge' against climate change. Also, like the other parties, he has softened his policy on Law and Order- especially around youth offenders, where custodial sentences are not preferable. Along these lines, he has also changed traditional stance on human rights, adopting one similar to the Liberals. He states that human rights should be absolute, and only set aside with great caution. This runs counter to the old view, where it was acceptable to set aside liberties for security and stability. Another area in which he has contradicted traditional views is in taxation. His view is that, although tax cuts are favourable, they should be set aside until a high quality of public service has been achieved.
To conclude: The Tory party as it stands today under Cameron has certainly diverged from its traditional values in the eyes of many critics, who say it has positioned itself at the centre ground; however, many others argue that it at the centre that the Conservative party has always stood, and that Cameron, like Disraeli before him, is simply trying to unite the country around a single set of ideals and policy. They, and Cameron himself, view him as a modern 'One-Nation' Conservative.
Also, please don't plagiarise. They'll know. They always know.
edit- After a quick proof read, it's a freakin' huge wall of text. Added some pictures to break it up.
Party Policy In The UK
Old Labour
Old Labour
At the core of the labour party is socialism, and at the core of socialism is the idea of equality. The basic ideas of equality are generally agreed upon within socialist circles, these are those of equal rights and equal opportunities. The former being the belief that we should all be born equal under the law and in our access to power, the latter being the belief that we should all be entitled to the same start in life, and the same life chances (Seen today in the form of state education and other organisations.). However, what to do with the fruits of those rights and opportunities is the main source of debate within socialist circles. Some say that the resources available to a society should be re-distributed equally among its people. This is a system incompatible with the reward and incentive based economy on which most of the world relies, as it removes any proportionality of reward. So it is necessary in the context of modern economics to scale back radical re-distribution of wealth to a lower level. However, having said all that, the party still believes firmly that all who are living in the UK are equally entitled to the welfare state, under the same rules as all others entitled, no matter their contribution to it. Some regard this as fundamentally unfair to those who work hard, and this kind of injustice runs against the party line.
So, we come to the conclusion that full-scale government enforced equality is a bad idea, both economically and socially, in the pursuit of a stable and prosperous society. The state must adopt a milder method of equalising society, one that only compensates for the most excessive of inequalities. The movement believes that in cases of undeserving wealth or poverty (Such as with inheritance or those who lack wealth through no fault of their own.) there is a big motive for re-distribution of wealth. Conversely, the rich who worked for their fortunes and the poor who do nothing to help themselves are deserving of their social standing and respective wealth.
The labour party has never pursued complete equality of wealth, as this runs counter to the capitalist-based economy which has proved so fruitful and provides the best incentives for enterprise and plain hard work. This leaves them to deal with the inequalities present in society such as discrepancies in healthcare, education, and security. The party has always worked towards a high standard of state-provided education as the primary means of achieving equality of opportunity, as this method really does give everyone the same start in life (Provided everyone subscribes to state education, which is simply not the case. To compensate for this, the party has traditionally tried to raise state schooling up to a higher standard, rather than abolishing or dragging down the private sector.) in the sense of the same basic knowledge and qualification. However, despite this, there is still covert discrimination against the lower classes in many qualifications that demand higher education. This is countered by legislation endorsing positive discrimination or outlawing regular discrimination.
Collectivism is the idea that many people working together will produce more than many individuals contributing to the same bucket, and that people are fundamentally social creatures who prefer to operate in groups. Labour has employed collectivism in the past, although not to the extent of the followers of Marx. It has been manifested several times, once with the industrialisation of many large industries, mainly to prevent such large and powerful companies from exploiting their workforce, but also to ensure that the companies acted for the benefit of the country as a whole, rather than just running for profit. Labour has also always supported trade unions- an uncomfortable compromise made in order to suit the capitalist economy which causes so much inequality of wealth, and potential exploitation of workers. The solution being to ensure strong collective representation for the workforce in the form of unions. The largest symbol of collectivism in the UK has been the welfare state- where the state manages distribution of healthcare, education, pensions, housing, and insurance against unemployment or poverty- by drawing funds from the people as a whole and re-distributing the benefits to all. This is closely linked to the final ideal of old labour- that of Common Ownership. Following in the wake of failed experiments into common ownership in China and the USSR, labour adopted a different view of common ownership, seeing it as a complement to private property rather than a replacement. Hence the absence of a completely state-run economy and the allowance for free markets.
New Labour and the 'Third Way'.
New labour sprang forth from the conflict between Labour and Thatcher during the 80's. The party was divided on how to deal with the opposition, and it split, forming an offshoot party known as the Social Democratic Party (Which continued to support traditional, left-wing labour ideals) and the New Labour party. The new labour party presented itself as the 'Third Way'. The first way being that of the conservatives, the second being traditional socialism of old Labour. It differentiated itself from both of these polarized policies by setting itself in the middle ground, where it still sits today.
1. New labour's position on Trade unions is more moderate than that of Old labour. It believes there is still a place for them, but that their power should be limited. The rights of workers should be enforced, however, by law.
2. The welfare state is a tool to motivate, not to compensate. The private sector can be employed when necessary if it fulfils the commitment to high-quality services and efficiency, contrary to Old Labour which believed private sector involvement was never acceptable.
3. State intervention in the economy and borrowing should be minimised, however borrowing is still acceptable if used to contribute to better public services. Old labour believed involvement should be extensive to ensure protection of jobs.
4. The attitude towards time isn't a compromise, but an adoption of both other views, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."
6. The new Right Policy is to do whatever necessary to protect national interests, the socialist policy is to remain insular and to ignore international all fairs. New Labour policy is to take a leading role in international affairs, whilst standing up for fundamental human rights and to help poorer countries.
7. As for the constitution, the Conservatives are still traditionally opposed to reform, and the socialists advocate radical reform towards equality and democracy. New labour is more moderate, preferring decentralisation and a focus on human rights.
This is just a generalisation, however. There are key policies mentioned in the 2005 election manifesto that can be taken as a representation of more contemporary New Labour policy.
For the most part, new labour has abandoned the old idea of collectivism, instead adopting a strong anti-poverty stance to deal with the problems of social inequality. This has developed into modification of the welfare state to become more targeted towards poorer, more deserving families, the disabled, and the elderly. In practice, the benefits available to all have gone down, but those available to those most in need have gone up.
New labour has again adopted a more capitalist view when it comes to the economy, favouring lower taxes, a more laissez faire approach to business. It has entrusted control of inflation to the Bank of England, whilst keeping borrowing low. However, as we can see now, that position was un-sustainable due to a lack of investment in industry. Those 10 years of economic growth were harnessed in order to improve the run-down welfare state (Inherited from the previous conservative government suffering from under-investment.).
New Labour has stuck relatively true to its traditional line with its policy on education by putting it at the centre of its image, "Education, Education, Education," said Tony Blair, with the intent to create 50% more places in higher education for school leavers. This aim has been criticized for being ignorant of the need for manual labourers, but it's mainly fallen due to a lack of funding forcing students to take on debts after university, which puts many off.
As already mentioned, labour has began with a double-pronged approach to Law and Order, "Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime." And while this is how it began, the party has gradually slid to the right, adopting a more authoritarian approach, utilising ASBOs, more severe sentences. However the impression is that it simply utilises a more authoritarian approach in the short term, whilst adopting a more traditional left-wing approach in the long-term.
Labour swept into power under an atmosphere of zealous constitutional reform- hoping to change the house of lords, implement the human rights and freedom of information acts. However as time passed the zeal waned, and the policy of reform no longer takes a central place in party policy.
In respect to Europe and the international community, labour has adopted a more open stance. It is pro-European for the most part, but remains distinctly detached on the grounds that the current EU system is not democratic enough, and trivialises the interests of its member states. As for the rest of the world, the New Labour party follows very the U.S. foreign policy very closely, as well as taking a more international stance due to its position on eradication of poverty. It has provided strong support for the U.S. in Iraq, and now during the war on terror, and have been on hand and willing to resolve international conflicts such as Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. For the most party, the UK and the US share largely common interests.
In conclusion, it could be said that the New Labour party has promised too much without the funds to deliver, but then that can be said of almost all parties. The party began on a wave of reform, most of which was favourable. Now it is focused more on improving the changes it has already made, rather than implementing new ones.
Old Conservatism
The most fundamental tenant of conservatism is a pessimistic attitude to human nature, far more so than liberalism and socialism.
This heavy intervention by the state in control of the population is manifested in Law and Order, which features heavily in Old Conservative politics. The party values order as a whole to be fair more important that individual freedoms, and is willing to sacrifice those liberties in order to maintain it.
This need to maintain social order heavily influences many other parts of Conservative policy. The stereotype of Conservative resistance to change contains a grain of truth. Conservatism traditionally entails a resistance to change because conservatives believe that keeping things the same encourages social order, or that change brings unrest. They argue that people prefer tradition to change, as this brings them a greater sense of security. However, they are often misinterpreted of rejecting everything outright, when it really becomes a case of retaining what works and what is good rather than abandoning it irresponsibly for the sake of ideology or new ideas. A good conservative leader should listen to his people, and be cautious and calculated in the implementation of new ideas. These ideas should not sprout from conflict, but from discussion. Strongly held ideologies should be rejected, as these are inflexible and dogmatic at governing. For example, in the 1950's the Tory party was faced with several major reforms from the Labour party, and ideologically they were opposed to them, however they accepted them because they were popular and were what society wanted and needed at the time. This resistance to ideology extends further, as Tories believe that unreasonable attachment to an ideal can lead to exploitation and tyranny, citing Fascism and Communism as their examples. They believe that no-one has the right to declare how a country should be run, only to suggest. These suggests should be weighed up empirically ? respecting traditions and learning from the past, whilst acknowledging the needs of the people
This idea of slow, measured change leads to the idea of the 'Organic Society'. It changes naturally to adapt to the circumstances of the time, whilst still keeping the long-term aims of the country at heart. It encourages the idea that we are all one people, that is, regardless of social standing, we should all work together for the benefit of the nation rather than arguing with each other pointlessly. This does not, however, endorse socialism. It retains the ideals of individualism and fundamental inequality present in traditional Conservatism, whilst still imploring citizens with a sense of responsibility towards the welfare of the country. By keeping law and order, and by avoiding social conflict by adhering to the 'One Nation' philosophy, national division can be avoided. This is called 'One-Nation Toryism'.
One principle that the Tories share with many other parties is that of individualism. This encompasses several meanings; the first requiring the distinction between the public and private spheres of social life. The private sphere being that in which the state should have no interest or interference- religion, private enterprise, property, or expenditure decisions, for example. The freedom to enjoy ones property as one wishes is a fundamental right. On top of this, the freedom of usage of property provides incentive in a capitalist economy Things that are suitable for state interference are in the public sphere, such as national defence and law and order. The Conservative ideals draw an important line between these two spheres. The final implication of individualism in the context of conservatism is that it best operates in a stable, secure environment. Too much individual freedom can actually reduce security and stability (For example, if people are free to blackmail and murder, violence would run riot and disrupt security for others.).
The New Right
The main policies of Thatcher's conservative government were those of Deregulation and Disengagement. Industries were privatised en-mass. Competition was forced upon previous monopolies, and their dominance was broken. This rapid deregulation resulted in a much more fluid, fast moving, and adaptable economy, to the benefit of the consumer. The disengagement policy had two parts. The first was that the state would no longer intervene to save failing businesses. If they were failing, it was their own fault, and the state should have no part to play in it (An extension of the previously mentioned individualist principals. This business occurred in the private sector, so it should stay in the private sector.). This caused failing businesses to either adapt or collapse. Should they collapse, they would free up resources for other, more successful, companies; should they adapt, they will better provide for the people, and bring Britain back in line with the contemporary economy. Obsolete business would fail, necessary business would succeed. The second part of the policy of Disengagement was a commitment to stop bailing out the economy. The government would previously raise taxes and public spending to raise economic activity, however this was blamed for merely treating the 'symptoms of economic decline', rather than the causes. The New Right believed that, although it would hit harder in the short term, letting the economy fail when it needed to would be beneficial in the long term.
Thatcher saw the trade unions as the main cause of the country's imminent collapse. They had become too powerful, she said. They perpetuated industrial inefficiency and excessive inflation. This inefficient industry artificially raised prices whilst also preventing innovation and advancement. (For example, factories resisted mechanisation, because the unions argued that jobs would be lost. As a result, they would be producing inefficiently compared to others in the market, and would slowly but surely fail. Along the way they would be forced to lower wages if jobs were impossible to sacrifice dues to the unions, and society, as a whole, would decline until eventual collapse.) Previously governments had directly controlled wages and prices, but the Tories were opposed to this way of doing things, so they took a different approach: First they reformed the unions to reduce their power by making it harder to strike with enforcement of the secret ballot; Second, they forced the unions to become democratic; Finally, they removed the legal immunity from the Unions. This was the biggest blow to their power, as it allowed businesses to sue them for damages incurred by their actions. This made striking a dangerous move, as it placed them at risk of catastrophic financial loss.
The new right rapidly dropped taxes, falling from a maximum of 83% to 60% in the space of a few years. Many were lowered, but there were still bills to be payed, so the more low-profile taxes were raised, such as V.A.T., to make up for the deficit. The aim of these tax reforms was to increase individual wealth, and therefore to increase public spending, reduce the need for government spending, and promote prosperity on the whole. This had the extra, long-term, effect of increasing tax revenue. As people had more money, more was taken as tax, even though the rates were lower. This reduction of taxes resulted in a reduction of public spending, leading to cutbacks in the welfare state. These cutbacks had the intent to reduce the dependency culture that had been propagating under previous governments. Benefits were gradually lowered, but only to a point, as no-one would be allowed to fall into absolute poverty, but it did have the effect of motivating people to work. They weren't in poverty, but they certainly weren't comfortable.
The Conservative Party Today
After 1992, the Tory party entered a tumultuous period in which it suffered several huge defeats ('97, '01, '05) at the hands of the labour party. These came as a major blow to the party, as it had previously viewed itself as the 'default' government- the one the people turned to for periods of stability. Since 1997,
[img width= 300]http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/02/0201_carlyle/image/johnmajor.jpg[/img]
the resign of John Major, the party has had four leaders, none of which were particularly memorable or well-known- the rate of change highlighting the turmoil in the party. The main point of conflict within the party has been on how to deal with the EU. The conflict has been so great, in fact, that the party has been incapable of forming a coherent set of policy to win an election. On top of this, many of their more successful policies have been adopted by the labour party in their movement towards the centre. This means that they have two options. They can either accept that both parties are quite similar and rely on an image of competence compared to labour, or they can adopt a different set of policies altogether.The two conflicting ideologies were those of the New right, and those of the Older Conservatism. The New Right was stronger, but their very existence contradicted the 'One-Nation' principal of the Old Conservatives. Despite this and other differences, both factions still agree on a few fundamental principles, these are:
1. Deregulation and the 'Small State'
2. Reducing Taxation- a symptom of a state become too big and a demotivator. Tax is viewed as a necessary evil that needs to be minimised.
3. The increasing levels of crime are the result of soft punishment and uncontrolled demoralisation and loss of the 'family unit'.
4. More choice in public services.
5. Euro-scepticism. Most conservatives agree that the EU holds too much sway of UK law, and that they should not join the euro.
David Cameron
Cameron came out of the internal conflict holding the opinion that the conservatives should, instead of maintaining their traditional view to the right
of labour, they should instead fight them for the middle ground. This plan involved persuading the various factions of the Conservative party, including the New Right, around to his way of thinking, around to his new philosophy of, 'Modern Conservatism'.
Cameron modernised many traditional Tory principals. In an extension of the old 'One-Nation' conservatism, he has broadened the umbrella to include those of a social standing different from 'rich' and 'poor'. He extended it to cover other minorities that suffered from exclusion from mainstream society. This entails raising the accessibility of state-provided services to all minorities, including gays, women, those with disabilities, and those part of an ethnic minority. He effectively is adopting the Labour ideal of 'Social Justice' for the first time in the party?s history. As part of this, he is abandoning the traditional Tory support of private education.
Along with the other parties, Cameron has acknowledged the importance of good climate policy. So much so, in fact, that he has positioned his Tory party as 'Leading the Charge' against climate change. Also, like the other parties, he has softened his policy on Law and Order- especially around youth offenders, where custodial sentences are not preferable. Along these lines, he has also changed traditional stance on human rights, adopting one similar to the Liberals. He states that human rights should be absolute, and only set aside with great caution. This runs counter to the old view, where it was acceptable to set aside liberties for security and stability. Another area in which he has contradicted traditional views is in taxation. His view is that, although tax cuts are favourable, they should be set aside until a high quality of public service has been achieved.
To conclude: The Tory party as it stands today under Cameron has certainly diverged from its traditional values in the eyes of many critics, who say it has positioned itself at the centre ground; however, many others argue that it at the centre that the Conservative party has always stood, and that Cameron, like Disraeli before him, is simply trying to unite the country around a single set of ideals and policy. They, and Cameron himself, view him as a modern 'One-Nation' Conservative.
