Social democrats tend to place a strong emphasis on employment and stress that it should be created by any means available. It’s identified in Labour Party policy that the focus is not on economic management to achieve this but rather education and training. However, as corporate tax was reduced yet other tax levels remained unaltered, this is possibly a decoy away from the extent to which new labour is ‘business friendly’.
The labour Party’s continuation of the NHS and pledge of increased expenditure into health implies a flicker of traditional social democracy. That is of course until you consider the introduction of foundation hospitals when you realise how absent-minded you are being for thinking ‘traditional socialism’ of a Blair Government (stupid girl, honestly!). It’s would also be acceptable to add that modern liberalism is betrayed to an extent under health care as the availability of private health care means that individuals do not have equal rights.
Welfare policy of New Labour is corresponding to that of old labour through collectivism, a key aspect of British democratic socialism stating that all individuals should contribute tax to help those who need relief of problems such as unemployment and poverty. It is clear that a New Right government would never introduce strong support for single parents who wish to work and creating minimum levels of income and it is apparent that Labour has adopted social democratic values for this area of public service. However, the liberalist principle of caring for people from ‘cradle to tomb’ seems have escaped the Labour Party with the state pension’s importance declining in favour of private pensions scheme as not all will benefit.
Private business (Transport, Taxation) and Economic control (Economic control and industry) was the focus for the Labour Party’s 2001 economic policy.
Transport policy arguably comes under private business as the developments of privatisation and PPP indicate this. One aspect of this plan was to give the public an attractive alternative to the car. That in itself is fairly social democratic as it is aiming to enhance freedom by creating wider opportunity but whether or not the labour party has endeavoured to enforce this through this ideology is another matter. For example, if Labour were following socialist principles then the railways would’ve been re-nationalised and it could be disputed fairly tediously that as the system doesn’t run as efficiently as anticipated that it therefore curtails the freedom of individuals. Public expenditure has also been used for private transport for the roads and again from a socialist and a liberal perspective, public money should be used for public services, as until all individuals have the opportunity to use roads as a mode of transport then it should be invested in services that all could use. To encourage usage of public transport despite government opposition, Ken Livingston’s bid to improve congestion and pollution on London’s road seems to be successful, perhaps compensating for his defeat over PPP. Public Private Partnership government initiative aims to transform the London underground but is clearly not a socialist or in fact any solution to solve the funding gap in the London underground.
Under liberalism, taxation curtails freedom as it prevents individuals spending their income as desired yet if large sections of the population experience extreme social and economic deprivation then it is necessary for state intervention. Rawls’ theory of distributive justice attempts to supply the answer as social inequality can be justified as long as those benefiting most from capitalism do not make profits as a result of those in lower income capacity. For 2001, labour committed to reduce taxation levels for individuals but not at top levels and also for low-income levels, taxation was set at 10%. This is an attempt to gain socialist support as it does tie-in with their universal principles (both traditionally and social democracy) of equality of opportunity and of distributive justice. The Party even made a hazy perpetration to reducing the burden of taxation altogether, a cynic might say they wanted liberalist support. The party also reduced taxes on business and attempting to not look new right, especially for small companies.
As a result of the acceptance of conservative spending plans in 1997 for the first two years of Labour government, Gordon Brown is now typically associated with ‘economic prudence’ maintaining control of inflation and only borrowing money for long term investment and is appreciated by business as the best chancellor this country has seen. With PFI, the market impact on the cost of most public services that used to be state run is significant. Through pluralism, social democracy accepts the need for a mixed economy in order to facilitate services for public consumption in the best form available. However, if the majority of public services seem to be privatised and without regard to the circumstances of that enterprise. For modern liberalists, privatisation would be supported as long as it would enhance individual opportunity and freedom, but if the market impact that PFI has had on public services is anything to go by, then it fulfils neither of these criterion.
Constitutional and foreign policy of the labour party in 2001 was compiled of the Constitution; Europe; Foreign/defence policy and Law and order.
The relevancies of constitutional policies are limited yet devolution to local government is fairly significant as is the House of Lords reform. This is an area of agreement between socialism and liberalism as they support decentralisation and reform of the second chamber. The reform of the electoral system has not yet happened as promised but this is not a universally supported aspect of constitutional change from either side.
The Labour Party had promised a referendum on joining the Euro currency also resulting in closer integration with the EU and aiming for a common European defence and foreign policy. Europe is an area of Labour Party policy that isn’t reasoned from a socialist perspective. Socialists believe that the UK's world role should be minimised and as a result, defence expenditure should be low. However, particularly in continental Europe, social democracy is stronger in these areas and therefore may serve the maintenance of socialism better. The liberal democrat party, who are famously pro-Europe, believe that Europe would provide more effective local governments and better protection of citizens’ rights within Europe. Labour may be gauging liberalist support by appearing to be pro-Europe although the extent to which it is true remains to be seen especially in the light of recent events.
At such a crucial time, its important to see that in times of crisis, whether labour’s ‘third way’ ideology or pragmatism over rules for their foreign/defence policy. At the moment, their policy is similar to the Liberal Democrats party with a strong support for NATO and EU common policy on defence and foreign affairs. Perhaps if the Labour Party had taken a stronger stance on infringement on democracy and human rights as they had implemented that very act in 1998, then the position the country is on war with Iraq would be very different and as a result, so would the support. Like constitutional policy, this is the other area which socialism and liberalism shares a common ground. From the Labour Party manifesto in 2001, the action taken so far in reaction to the possibility of war should be very different which gives support to the argument that Labour has no ideology just simplicity in policy. However, their willingness to intervene in international conflicts is abundantly clear.
Law and order in labour party policy is clear; they are tough on this issue and continue to oppose drug legalisation. The police force is also to be enlarged. From a socialist and liberal view, The increase in speed of legal processes may not identify the cause of the crime in the first place as if the criminals are dealt with then so should the conditions that cause their crime. Although the size of the police force is increased, a liberal concern that measures to combat crime and disorder should not damage civil liberties. It is not clear whether Labour Party policy states that there will be a balance reached between the rights of individuals and those of the community.
In conclusion, it has become abundantly clear that Tony Blair is fairly contemptuous of ideology; it might be useful to inform Mr Blair that socialist or liberal policy can only be achieved by following the principles of that philosophy. For example, Roy Hattersley’s article on Labour It’s no longer my party states that’…pursuing “social justice” is a vacuous platitude unless it is given practical meaning by the poor given “an equal start as well as an open road”.’ The Labour government is openly criticised for the widening gap between rich and poor. Hattersley also argues that Blair now has found his destiny is to create a meritocracy so the standards of those in low-income capacity is raised but this merely offers shifting patterns of inequality that neither doctrine supports.
It seems that fro every party policy made in 2001, slightly adapted from the cautious 1997 manifesto had an aspect of either doctrine but was contradictory in its endeavour to achieve this. It may be a harsh comparison to make, but during the third Reich the nationalist socialist party managed to have an aspect of their manifesto for every citizen in Germany. The Labour Party seems to have made a promise-to-promise nothing indefinitely. That is of course until that policy is a success or a failure. This government is proceeding with due care and attention to ensure that when the figures for policy successes are published they deceptively come out on top. It’s only a matter of time before this cycle of government ends: it happened to Thatcher and with party resistance with the anti-war movement, its questionable as to how long the cabinet will obey.
I thought it would be suitable to use clause IV as support for my conclusion instead of mentioning it in the body of the essay. In 1995, Clause IV was revised from the Labour party’s 1918 constitution from a commitment to public ownership of industry to a broader statement of aims concerning social justice, equality of opportunity and reduced unemployment. The Labour Party clearly have the end result yet with no means in which to achieve it.