the Conservatives. However the relevance of this tradition right and left battle between Labour and the Conservatives has declined in recent years for many reason raising question about the similarity of the two parties and seeing as they are the biggest two parties in UK politics it reduces the choice of major parties to vote for, for the electorate. Traditionally, the left and right divide has been portrayed as a battle between Socialism and Conservatism. Socialism has been traditionally been viewed as the ideology of the Labour party and Conservatism has traditionally been seen as the ideology of the Conservative. These two parties have developed policies on the basis of a vision of how they believed society should be organised.
The neo liberals also believe that there should be minimal state but in an economic sense, and this is in order to allow capitalism to flourish without excessive restraints and laws imposed on business, and this is to encourage competition in the market to improve efficiency and profit. So in terms of their view on a strong, but minimal role of the state they differ on the reasons for support but it implies they are internally coherent. However, the New Right could be said to be internally divided in the sense that there is conflict between the ideas of society. Neo-liberals
The ALP supports a market capitalist economy under a liberal democratic government. Although being Capitalist, the Labor Party still display socialist sentiments in using Government to eliminate exploitation, injustice and other anti-social features of a market economy. Therefore, it is cannot be justified as a socialist party 5. What evidence is there to suggest that the ALP moved towards the centre of the political spectrum while in Federal office during 1983 – 1996? During the 1983-1996 at the ALP, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were leaders.
It is often thought that in times of utmost need, nationalization is portrayed as the government acting as ‘owner of last resort’. Immediately after World War Two, it is fair to say that Attlee’s Government become shareholders of many firms, mainly across three industries; transport, utilities and intermediate industries (e.g. coal and steel). Some reasons behind the nationalization within these industries can be seen as economic, but to take into full perspective, one must look at the ideological and political interests involved as well. This tripartite method helps show that while normative economic reasons played a crucial role in the push towards nationalism, they only did so in parallel with ideological and political reasons.
When Keynes rejected the scale of reparations placed on Germany and resigned from his post at the Treasury, he lead the way for what many leading politicians were to understand later on. Keynes supported the approach of Lloyd George that for economic and political reasons, Europe needed a successful Germany, which would be seriously difficult to achieve whilst the excessive reparations were placed on them. Furthermore, his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), was successful in influencing the view of Britain that a weak Germany would only make the recovery of Europe after the war, a lot more difficult. On the other hand, from taking this view, politicians were criticised for being 'too lenient' towards Germany. Even Lloyd George, who took a much tougher political approach towards the reparations, received criticism.
The production of federal agencies to control every aspect of the political and economic life of citizens and individual states was seen as an aggressive step to control the state and citizen under the might of the Federal Government. The public was very concerned of the socialistic steps taken by the Federal Government to regulate business and state government (Document B). Besides regulation, the government was given power to negotiate the issues between the labor and management in businesses. This first step towards a nationalized economy is expressed shows that the Federal government had overstepped its constitutional boundaries (Document F and G). The public were very weary of these actions by the Roosevelt Administration as the advancing of socialism in America.
Neoliberalism is a slippery contemporary term used to describe free market capitalism whose proponents believe first and foremost in an individual’s or a corporation’s rights to make profits. It is an outgrowth of the term liberalism, which is confusing because we associate liberalism with the promotion of enlightened individual rights and social wellness. Conversely, neoliberals are aggressive traders who feel government should not interfere with trade. This attitude is generally regarded to be prevalent among the Latin and South American governments. In the fairly recent past, different labels used to be enough to designate right wing thinking.
Roosevelt’s republican party split, Taft’s separation from the ideas of Roosevelt, and Wilson’s democratic perspective bring light to the idea that although these men shared the progressive opinion, their ideas differed in many ways. Theodore Roosevelt was the brain behind the progressive party that would eventually lead to the split of the Republican party. Roosevelt called for the “Square Deal” between business, consumers, and labor and supported the “Strenuous Life”. Unlike the others, Roosevelt wished to destroy bad trusts and regulate the good ones rather than break them all up. Roosevelt was the first president to introduce progressive ways of thinking and although each president’s ideas were similar in ways such as trust busting and conservation measures, his ideas were the framework for the U.S. William Howard Taft was the presidential candidate hand picked by Roosevelt.
By this he meant that he was a new strand of the Labour party, which merged strands of neo-liberal policy and socialist policy, to which he called it ‘the third way’. The aims of the third way were to end the cycles of boom and bust, to restore a sense of responsibility to both monetary ad fiscal policy, to be able to afford increased expenditure on public services, to reduce the levels of poverty, to improve the competitiveness of British industry and finally to create conditions for the UK to join the single currency. Tony Blair wished to achieve this with a number of policies, one including the monetary policy committee of The Bank of England. This transferred control of interest rates from the government to the new monetary policy committee at The Bank of England. The purpose was to control
This essay will seek to examine these policies and their varying successes or failures. Economic policies in Fascist Italy can be divided into distinct periods. In Mussolini’s early years, from 1922-1925, the economy was run using traditional liberal ‘laissez-faire guidelines.’ Under the guidance of the then Minister of Finance, Albert de Stefani, taxes were lowered and government expenditure cut. These policies found favour amongst the industrialists, bankers and big landowners who had been instrumental in the Fascist rise to power and thus served the ‘dual purpose of placating the big-business interests and balancing the state’s budget.’ Although the economy enjoyed modest growth, its inherent structural weaknesses were not addressed and in 1925 de Stefani was sacked amidst rising inflation and a falling Lira. The economic policies he had implemented had served their purpose in helping to garner further support for Mussolini and the fascists.