This social change helped fortify Labour power and influence upon British politics. Another Social Change that was made, that is seen as a success for Labour, was the abolition of the Death Penalty 1967. Roy Jenkins refused to authorise the beating of prisoners and brought in ‘majority’ verdicts for English juries rather than demanding unanimity. Although this helped convict many dangerous criminals, hanging being abolished did not significantly reduce the number of murders or violent crimes. Failures Labour during these time frames had a few disappointments; most significantly the internal divisions that had
Cameron in turn, should expect to enjoy less power as he had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, in order to achieve a majority. This would mean that the likes of the Prime Minister would in many situations have to be compromised. Another essential factor which would influence the degree of Prime Ministerial power is the unity of the ruling party or coalition. In Blair’s situation, he enjoyed an exceptionally united group, therefore being able to enjoy several years of complete domination. When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity.
“Welfare policy successfully weathered an economic hurricane in the mid 1970’s and an ideological blizzard in the 1980’s” (Le Grand, 1990, p350) The above quote was in reference to the robustness of the British Welfare state according to Julian Le Grand (in Barr et al, 1990, p350). During the 1970’s Britain faced one of its worst economic crisis; in which he says that the welfare state in Britain had survived even though there was little money to do so. During the 1980’s there were welfare reforms imposed by Margaret Thatcher and her conservative government which was seen as the end of the welfare state by the selling of many Government run industries as part of a way to extend the private market space (Frogget, 2002, p80). The question is though, has the welfare state really survived this hectic period in history? If so, did it do this by learning from the mistakes
Why is Labour Productivity in the UK so low? There are a huge variety of reasons why, in comparison to other countries, our labour productivity is so low: One incredible important reason is that the government drive for full employment has been taking hold. As we can see here; our employment is faring well in comparison with other countries. However, a real problem is the government implementing policy that favours short term social benefit (like for example, mass employment, creation of needless projects simply to provide jobs), rather than long term economic benefit. There is a failure to realise that long term better economic welfare also means general higher standards of living, as people have enough money to buy everything they need and some of what they want, competition is rife so drives quality up and prices down, and the government are able to take in more taxes from firms who are much healthier financially.
(cite) According to David Whitten a Professor at Auburn University, the unemployment rate in 1893 exceeded ten percent. Then, on October 29, 1929, America experienced an economic meltdown, it was dubbed “Black Tuesday.” This was do to the crash of the U.S. stock market. The Dow opened that day at 299.6, but crashed 68.9 points to close at 230.7, losing 23 percent of its value. (cite) “Black Tuesday” would give
The middle class was nearly non-existent. This occurs often in the world, but the Great Depression was the worst economic downfall in the history of the U.S. It spread and affected all of the industrialized world. The depression began with Black Tuesday, and lasted for nearly a decade. According to Paul Alexander Gusmorino, the main cause of the drastic downfall was the combination of unequal distribution of wealth and the extensive stock market speculation that took place in the later years of that decade.
Total losses for the four days: $30 billion, 10 times federal budget and more than the U.S. had spent in World War I ($32B estimated). The crash wiped out 40 percent of the paper value of common stock. Although this was a cataclysmic blow, most scholars do not believe that the stock market crash, alone, was sufficient to have caused the Great Depression. And the next possible cause is bank failure.In 1929, there were 25,568 banks in the United States; by 1933, there were only 14,771. Personal and corporate savings dropped from $15.3 billion in 1929 to $2.3 billion in 1933.
Wages rose how ever there were too few goods on which to spend money. Also the creation of collective farms essentially destroyed kulaks as a class and this disruption led to a famine. I think that over all the first five year plan was not a success in strengthening the soviet economy because a lot of the targets set were not achieved for example the production of coal were 35.4; oil was 11.7 and steel 4 million tonnes. The actual target of these was double the amount produced. I think it was successful in the sense it increased urbanisation, several gains were obtained in heavy industry and wages rose.
There are two views of unemployment known as the classical and Keynesian view. Unemployment rates (which are the percentage of the working population unemployed) vary significantly from country to country with some as low as Belarus’ at 1.0% (2009 est. )(CIA World Factbook) and some as high as Zimbabwe’s at 97% (2009 est. )(CIA World Factbook). The UK’s current level of unemployment is at 2.62 million (BBC News Business, 16th Nov 2011) which has remained high since the global downturn at the end of 2008.
However, the 2009 stimulus bill rescinded these historic reforms with an unprecedented $264 billion increase to carte blanche welfare spending – 32% of the total $816 billion stimulus bill – with the explanation of pre-empting and therefore avoiding widespread unemployment and poverty. If we look at the historical results of the TANF, we see that the old AFDC welfare rolls declined by 60% across the country, as former recipients moved into real jobs and enjoyed an increase in their income[1]. As a result, child poverty levels fell as did federal spending on the AFDC/TANF. It also effectively decreased some suffering and improved self-confidence in those who were able to become contributing members of society. With the new stimulus bill being signed into law, we are once again providing an open line of taxpayer money for welfare dependency, now with fewer questions being asked.