Labour Party Irresponsibility

Giving into the demands of upset citizens, different political parties began to campaign with planks in their platforms dedicated to legally destroying immigration. The Austrian Freedom Party, for instance, campaigned to increase the amount of laws that prevent immigration and to make it more difficult for non-Austrians to live and work amongst the Austrian people (Doc 6). By creating a platform to change a country’s laws, it is clear Europeans were so upset with immigration that they wanted to make fundamental changes in their governments’ policies. People were unhappy with how their society was transforming and they wanted to put official rules in place that would allow Europe to return to its former state. Enoch Powell, a member of the Conservative Party, brought this common desire to light by explaining that people did not want to live in a country filled with immigrants, so action needed to be taken in order to curb the high immigration levels (Doc 2). The fact that many Europeans wanted politicians to take a stand against immigration shows how upset people were with the rising numbers of immigration, which became roughly 500,000 immigrants per year. By involving the government, European citizens were able to project their anti-immigration sentiment into the rest of the continent. Involving politicians and political parties shows how adament some Europeans were about keeping foreigners out of

In 2010, when Ahmad wrote his article, immigration was on the rise in the UK. Many immigrants were being accepted into the country which created a record high. Although this situation may seem to be a good thing, it can be deceiving. Due to the increase in immigration, the government had pledged to cut migration by an exponential amount. “The British, who ruled my country for decades and taught me the English that I speak, have always had the power to keep me out of their country” (Ahmad 38). At this

In the views of the politicians, the economy was not one of a ‘Golden Age’. As the British Cabinet Paper wrote, ‘It is clear that ever since the end of the war we have tried to do too much…we have only rarely been free from danger of economic crisis’. This illustrates the fact that although the economy was not falling apart, it was not stable and not prosperous. There was also a lack of a plan to deal with the economy; the government merely adjusted the system as it went along, which sometimes resulted in high rises of inflation or sudden consumer booms that did not correlate with its ability to pay for them – causing a deficit.

The UK government has constructed policies to restrict immigration. One example is the policy introduced in 2012 by Theresa May. She has announced that from April 2016, Non-EU migrants who have spent more than five years working in the country is required to earn 35,000 pound per year or they will face expulsion. Some argues that this will damage the UK economy. Below, I will introduce the problems and discuss the effect of this contraction towards the labour market and how it will help or hinder the UK economy.

Freedom that we would keep safe entrusting every single generation with it. Just as King had done many years before on his speech, President Obama shoots us back into the present. He lists off our country’s feats, starting each achievement of society by “together, we” to stress that it was a collaborative effort of many minds, giving the audience a sense of pride and awareness of the greatness that comes out of unity.

On July 26th 1945 for the first time in British history the Labour party won the general election by a landslide. They had a margin over conservatives with 180 seats, Labour ended up with 393 seats in the House of Commons and a total share of 47.8 per cent of the vote and the Conservatives obtained 213 seats, a result that few had expected. Winston Churchill had been a popular war time leader but after the war the people of Britain wanted change and this is what Labour’s programme of public ownership and social reform offered. The newly set up welfare state provided social protection that the pre-war period had lacked. The people were not concerned with other countries reparations; they were solely interested in their own futures. They wanted

It was just several years ago that a political divorce of that kind occured - between the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and the then Chancellor - Nigel Lawson. As a result, not only the Conservative government was weakened, but so was the British economy - as a

Is it possible therefore that the Conservative discourse of rebalancing actually contradicts the mutually beneficial relationship between austerity and financialisation that appears to have been at the heart of the coalition and Conservative governments’ economic policy agenda? This chapter argues not. The extent to which the public discourse on rebalancing actually propels economic policy-making in practice can of course be questioned (as with the discourse around austerity). Yet the chapter’s principal objection to the possibility that rebalancing contradicts austerity and financialisation by endorsing the notion of a finance-induced decline is that rebalancing discourse actually stops well short of endorsing the view that the UK economy (and the way it is governed), or any of its component sectors, is fundamentally flawed. The industrial and regional policy agenda to which it appears to have given rise offers little threat to the key elements of the pre-crisis growth model. Indeed, parts of this agenda constitute integral elements of the elite politics of austerity, insofar as austerity heralds an adjustment to the aspects of the pre-crisis growth model deemed most problematic, rather than its wholesale replacement. The chapter begins by documenting examples of coalition and Conservative rhetoric on rebalancing, and exploring its relationship with austerity. It then focuses consecutively on the most important dimensions of economic rebalancing, as espoused by policy elites in the post-crisis period; firstly, industrial policy, and secondly, devolution to

Over the last few years the British government has made a lot of cuts to the things we desperately need such as education, housing, health and public services. When will the madness end? The biggest mistake the government are making is cutting from the minor things we do not need that could be easily taken away with few setbacks like the monarchy.

For decades immigration has been a long-standing and often controversial economic issue surrounding governments. However more recently it has become the central theme engulfing debate on public policy. As a direct consequence, many academics, believe immigration to be the primary fuel for the rising support of populist movements, which have disrupted the fiscal landscape in many of the world's western economies (Betz, 1994). Many notable economists and political scientists, such as Inglehart and Norris (2016) believe that these "anti-immigration sentiments" have had large resulting global economic impacts, such as the EU Brexit referendum and the resulting political and global financial market uncertainty that followed. This is further evidenced

One popular criticism of the EU is that the free movement of people has led to “benefit tourism”, whereby immigrants from other EU member states come to Britain “with the sole purpose of accessing a more generous benefit system”, according to Iain Duncan Smith (2011). The supposed cost of this was £2.5bn per year (Little, 2011), which, understandably, caused resentment towards the EU from British taxpayers; after all, their hard-earned income was being taken and given to foreigners who, in their eyes, could not be bothered to work. What the public was not made aware of, however, was that this massive figure was completely unrealistic because it was the

The idea of Brexit had been forecast since January 2013 “when Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron committed to holding a referendum on EU membership” (Dhingra 2016). It is still unclear as to what Britain wishes to accomplish by exiting the European Union. Brexit was voted on June 13 and following the results Prime Minister David Cameron resigned; so, new Prime Minister Theresa May hasn’t had a whole lot of time in office to fix a currently breaking U.K. economy. Speculation on why the people of Great Britain would ever have even considered leaving the European Union include recent influxes in immigration from war torn Middle Eastern countries. This fear that the U.K. people seem to have of immigrants is not unanimous to Britain. In fact, other countries are voicing their fears of immigration and its implications to culture and economic impacts. Donald Trump, the republican candidate for presidency in the U.S. seems to make immigration concerns a corner stone of his campaign. Donald Trump’s recent successes, winning over the republican elites support and nomination, seems to be solely attributed to his views on immigration as it obviously has nothing to do with his lack of charisma, attitude, or

The intensity of the emotional investment into the referendum should not deceive us, the choice offered obfuscated the true questions: how to fight “agreements” like TTIP which present a real threat to popular sovereignty, how to confront ecological catastrophes and economic imbalances which breed new poverty and migrations, etc. The choice of Brexit means a serious setback for these true struggles – suffice it to bear in mind what an important argument for Brexit was the “refugee threat.” The Brexit referendum is the ultimate proof that ideology (in the good

Within this past month, you have vehemently advocated for the new tax plan, which intends to “drastically cut taxes, while broadening the base”. You promised to eliminate unwanted loopholes, tax breaks, and special favors. You assured voters that there would be a new tax system, where less time and energy would be wasted on gaming the system to reduce taxes, and for a tax system that would become fairer. However, this plan is not fulfilling your promises, because it will cut too many taxes without raising enough revenue to support the government. This will result in hurting the middle class, while creating a devastating deficit. Thirty-seven out of thirty-eight economists agreed that your bill will create a deficit that substantially increases the national debt in a short period of time. Do you even know what’s in the projected 5.9 trillion

Great Britain’s location has shaped the country and immigration in many ways. Stated in the UCL News, immigrants that have arrived since 2000 have had a positive economic impact. According to UCL immigrants have contributed more than 64 percent more in taxes than what they many have received back.5 UCL also has reported that immigrants are more likely to be more skilled than native workers. Many have thought that with the inflow of skilled immigrants that this would impact the unemployment rates in Great Britain but it has done the opposite it has created an increase supply for labor and a higher demand for labor. Great Britain has one of the largest economics estimated to be around 1.29 trillion. Immigrant workers play a very important role to the many sectors of the economy, like clothes