New Labour as Thatcherism with a Human Face - Essay Example

New Labour as Thatcherism with a Human Face Introduction Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair stand together as among the most known of British Prime Ministers in recent years. Both established this position not only from their time in the office but also in their efforts to establish their own brand of philosophical perspectives of their political party, social policies and ultimately, the nation's politics (Hills, 1998). This ultimately Blair, at the height of his popularity was considered to have brought the country back to the forefront of international politics. However, some view that many of his stands, referred to as "New Labour", were just remarketing Thatcherism. The implication is that though there distinctions between the two political perspectives where merely due to variances in setting rather than actual variances in policy. Background Coined for Margaret Thatcher, recognized as one of the most dominant political figures of the 20th century, Thatcherism refers to the policies and principles of her three terms as Britain's Prime Minister throughout the 1980's. Thatcher believed that citizens should show greater responsibility for themselves, staking a philosophical stand against collectivism (Howard, 2004). Thatcherism is heavily influenced by free market economic policies from the United States. Comparable to Reaganomics, coined in turn for US President Ronald Reagan, it sought to decrease government control of trade, opposition to trade unions, privatization and the decreasing the size of Welfare State. In line with its monetarist theories, spending was controlled with the objective of curbing inflation. In this scenario, society benefits through the development of industries and commerce that are attracted and benefited by economic freedoms and governments control of price volatility (Needham and Nou, 2005). The term New Labour is used to refer to the evolution of UK Labour Party in the late 1990's which coincided with the beginning of Tony Blair's three terms as Prime Minister. Moving towards a centrist position divergent form its leftist history, the Labour Party sought to re-create itself as social democrats. This change in direction has also coined for the movement to be called as the "Third Way", denoting its role as an alternative to more extreme perspectives on public policy (Brown, 2004). The move was said partly elicit greater support from the middle class and to support more liberal market policies, afford greater access to welfare and government services and to increase leverage for workers' rights and compensation equity initiatives not by prescribed or direct political intervention but through free market frameworks (Webber, 2009). Evaluation and Analysis There are key differences that have to be recognized by the two sets of policies. To achieve her political objectives, Hill points out that Thatcher essentially had to centralize power. In contrast, New Labour policies revived local governance and accountability including the restoration of the Greater London Authority. Both sought to address bureaucratic issues that were deemed as a deterrent to the effectiveness of governance (Talshir, 2005). Both sets of policies migrated away from the traditional politics of both of their respective parties to adapt approaches most associated more commonly with other political parties (Needham and Nou, 2005). Thatcher adapted liberal policies in contrast with her conservative background and Blair adapted free market policies that diverged from the socialist roots of the Labour party. The most often referred to contrast of the two policies has been in their policies on welfare (Hill, 2001). The Thatcher administration reduced welfare allocations and place more stringent criteria to its access. On the other hand, the Blair administration increased welfare funding and expanded services and coverage (Howard, 2004). Comparing the two policies their main similarities lies in their espousing free market principles: both Thatcher and Blair emphasized the need for market driven economies that encourage productivity and efficiency. Areas that they had contrasting policies, such as in their perspectives regarding welfare states, had similar consequences (Hills, 1998). Thatcher's reduction of the welfare state emphasized the need to diminish the dependence on welfare state programs and reserved services to the most socially disadvantaged to reduce cost. In the case of New Labour policies on the same issue, though there was an increase in the funding of welfare programs, this never reached funding levels or the liberalism of access pre-Thatcher reforms (Brown, 2004). Furthermore, current policies have placed greater limitations on duration of services and criteria for coverage. They had also a common objective of social empowerment though they had contrasting strategies on how this was to be achieved (Talshir, 2005). For Thatcher, this was to be accomplished by encouraging self-responsibility and diminishing reliance on the state. For Blair, this was to be accomplished by supporting local governance and accountability. Overall, both perspectives ultimately emphasized the need for market and social efficiency and more importantly, took a reformist role when they came into office (Needham and Nou, 2005). Considering New Labour as a more humanistic Thatcherism is essentially a difficult to substantiate definitively. The challenge stems from the debate regarding the application of the terminology as well the variances in policies and settings of both political perspectives. There is still on-going debate on what construes Thatcherism and New Labour policies respectively: as both terminologies are associated with specific personalities and groups whose core beliefs is not interchangeable with the actual policies implemented (Webber, 2009). Another, if not overwhelming, factor that makes the argument for New Labour as a facsimile of Thatcherism difficult to readily accept is due to the impact of globalization. The choice of membership to a number of trade unions and organizations is often not out of volition but in compliance with the country's membership to various international organizations or bilateral agreements. In effect policies are not solely determined by respective governments but are highly influenced by external policies (Brown, 2004). Conclusion Without a doubt, New Labour takes a lot from the experience from Thatcherism as any government would from a long-lived and pervasive policy system however this does not necessarily mean that they are to be considered as identical (Hill, 2001). According to Cerny and Evans (2004), "New Labour, caught in the globalisation trap, has sought to reassert control of the game by both manipulating and learning the lessons of Thatcherism. However, whether they can be successful while also maintaining Labour's traditional emphases on social justice and redistributive community values is more problematic" (p. 63). Thus, if the term, its tenants and its settings are not identical, it would be difficult to unequivocally say that New Labour is a reproduction, regardless of qualification provided, of Thatcherism. References Brown, Michael (2004). New Labour may be the child of Thatcherism, but it is not its clone. The Independent, January 1. Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/new-labour-may-be-the-child-of-thatcherism-but-it-is-not-its-clone-578201.html Cerny, Philip G. and Evans, Mark (2004). GLOBALISATION AND PUBLIC POLICY UNDER NEW LABOUR, Policy Studies, 25 (1): 51-66 Hill, Dilys M. (2001). Policy and Politics. Parliam Aff 55: pp. 432-438 Hills, John (1998). Thatcherism, New Labour and the Welfare State. London: London School of Economics - Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion Howard, Alistair (2004). Economic Governance under New Labour: Negotiated Rule-Making, a New Corporatism, or Consultation Fatigue, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Chicago: American Political Science Association. Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p61802_index.html Needham, Catherine and Nou, Jennifer (2005). Is Efficiency Compatible with Democracy New Labour and New Democrat Models of Good Governance, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington: American Political Science Association. Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41684_index.html Talshir, Gayi (2005). Rethinking the "Social": New Labour's Model of Citizenship: Beyond the Welfare State, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association Washington: American Political Science Association. Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p42522_index.html Webber, David (2009). Policy Photopsia: The Lens of Globalisation and the Blurring of New Labour's Moral Vision in the Field of International Development. New York: ISA Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p311495_index.html Do Pressure Groups Benefit the Powerful at the Expense of the Rest of Society Introduction In every political system, the representation and consideration of the public's opinion is often considered as indicative of the social progressiveness. However it is not difficult to realize as well that considering each and individual opinion is not only difficult but will be unlikely end in resolution. One of the means by which social and political systems addresses these difficulties is by creating groups that share a common belief or call for specific action. In the UK, this function is taken by pressure groups, lobbyist in more popular terminology that actively campaign for government to act on an issue in a particular way. Though there are undoubtedly benefits from such groups in society, there are also arguments that they can lead to amplify incongruities in social representation Role of Pressure Groups Pressure groups can be organized to create inlfeuce, evoke a response, bring about an action or state or be a means to communicate an opinion or critique of a prevailing issue or concern. In general, pressure groups concentrate on one issue or a related set of issue but they can also evolve as multi-issue groups either within or by collaboration with other causes or groups. In terms of mode of action, pressure groups can either for the maintenance of particular state of affairs or to modify or originate new standards, views or policies ("Pressure Groups", 2009). Membership to pressure groups has risen in recent years in Britain, rising in favor versus membership to political parties. One of the reasons seen behind this trend is that pressure groups have specific focus and one person can be member of other pressure groups. In comparison, there is more range in the concerns of political parties and membership to one generally precludes membership to another at any given time. The former limits areas of ideological conflict while the latter affords flexibility in membership (Berrington, 2003). Participation and organization of social groups is also considered as a means of taking up social responsibility ("Pressure Groups", 2009). Grant (2000) also believes that the suggestion that pressure groups are less "political" in nature, increases their appeal since this distances them perceptions of bureaucracy or politicking. In this scenario, the political action is indirect and maybe directed to political offices or to society in general (Bounds & Formentinie, 2007). At the same time, pressure groups are not limited to elections and are generally considered as going-concerns in terms of lobbying and negotiating for their objectives particularly in local politics. The most common mode of action is communicating a particular stand to concerned politicians or other government institutions. Another, if not controversial method, is by providing support, such as financial, promise of votes or otherwise, candidates for election. A more progressive function of pressure groups is facilitating the development and implementation of legislation by arbitrating the conditions that will support the pressure groups' own (Needham & Nou, 2005). Analysis and Evaluation The influence of pressure groups is dependent on its membership, resources and social equity and not necessarily due to political competency. Their activities can range from creating public awareness to participation in policy development. In the context of the UK, pressure groups participate in the political process not by directly joining the electoral process but by endeavoring to influence government legislations or policies in such a way as to support their cause. The fluidity of pressure groups has also been seen as a source of volatility and encourages the development of factions. This in part is inherent to the nature of organization of pressure groups but can also develop from the politics that occurs between groups as they pursue similar or contradicting concerns (Cini, 2006). One of the criticisms against pressure groups is that the ability to organize and affect an influence politically entails resources and social inclusion. Thus, this does not actually empower vulnerable segments in society but only further increases the social representation of those who already have such a capability. This has been a common critique for industry pressure groups (Berrington, 2003). The concern is that due to their access to resources and scale, they are able to unfairly influence which should in fact be delimiters or guidelines for them. Another critique of pressure groups is that they can increase conflict. Often, as pressure groups represent particular groups, there is a tendency to avoid having to bear the greatest responsibility of addressing the issue or worse, to channel such burden to a particular group as a competitive measure. Since there are less restrictions an regulations to the organization or pressure groups, there are also allegations that some pressure groups were specifically organized for the interest of a few. There is no denying that pressure groups can become instruments of legitimizing the interests and motivations of a few however defining this as a criteria has its innate problems (Bounds & Formentinie, 2007). There is no effective means of evaluating the motivations of a pressure group that will not be questioned for bias (Grant, 2000). There will also be no effective way of regulating whether pressure groups can being true to their cause or if their cause is to the benefit not their own interest. At the same time, pursuing individual interests need not be exclusive with public good. Conclusion In conclusion, pressure groups likely benefit already powerful segments of society since they also are the parties that have the means and the motivation to sustain pressure groups. However, the claim that the benefit that is derived is at the expense of the rest of society is not as conclusive. Essentially, the conditions presented by the question, "Do pressure groups benefit the powerful at the expense of the rest of society" are not conditional or dependent on each other. It is possible that society can also be benefitted by the action of pressure groups particularly in situation where collective consensus or resolution is not possible. Furthermore, there is no denying that the cause of many pressure groups have had a positive impact not only in politics and but also social participation in general. References Berrington, Hugh (2003). Pressure Groups. BBC News May 8. Retrieved on July 29, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2443603.stm Bounds, Andrew and Formentinie, Marine (2007). EU Lobbyists Face Tougher Regulation, Financial Times, August 16. Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c51c1ec-4c20-11dc-b67f-0000779fd2ac.html Cini, Michelle (2006). European Union Politics. London: OUP Oxford Grant, Wyn (2000). Pressure Groups and British Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan Needham, Catherine and Nou, Jennifer (2005). Is Efficiency Compatible with Democracy New Labour and New Democrat Models of Good Governance, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington: American Political Science Association. Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41684_index.html Pressure Groups (2009). Retrieved on July 29, 2009 from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/pressure_groups.htm Read More