The Conservative Approach to State Intervention after 1979 the Labours Response Since 1997

Roosevelt created the New Deal. Roosevelt, former Progressive, want to radically reform Industrial Capitalism. The New Deal was Roosevelt economic policy to help fix the economy and fix the problems of Industrial Capitalism. Like the Progressives, the New Deal wanted Government to have more control over the economy .The New Deal adopted a “deficit spending” type of economy; this wanted the government to have more control over America’s money. To help stabilize the economy the New Deal created the monetary reform. This end the gold standard created and gave the government more control over the economy. The Mellon Plan created during the Roaring twenties was destroyed, giving the government more money. The New Deal was also able to created more jobs for people in America. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration help to employ more people. Also the legalizing of unions help to improve work conditions for the workers. Even though The New Deal was effective at helping workers by creating more jobs and stabilized the monetary system, Industrial Capitalism still had

Benefits for the unemployed were amongst those worst affected. The idea behind this economic change was to make unemployment less attractive, thus forcing the unemployed to take lower wage jobs. The Conservatives hoped that this would drastically lower the unemployment rate. And finally, Thatcher reduced and in some cases withdrew subsidies to many industries, compelling the closure of many concerns and the more efficient operation of the rest in the face of international competition.

Whilst in power the Conservative government made many mistakes, a key example of a Conservative mistake would be the 1957 Suez crisis in Egypt, when its leader (Nasser) wanted to nationalise the Suez Canal, an important trade route from Northern Africa and Middle East for France and Great Britain, which would force

This essay will examine how the development of the Welfare State and the NHS changed the lives of the people of Britain since its introduction in 1948. To enable me to do so, I will analyse and evaluate the key relevant aspects that happened during that period.

Following the welfare reforms that were introduced by the New Labour Government in 1997, the coalition Government has developed, extended and continued welfare-to-work programmes (Deacon and Patrick, 2012). The Government’s ‘rehabilitation revolution’ saw policies designed to reduce reoffending, and as a consequence resettlement initiatives emerged with welfare-to-work programmes (Ministry of Justice, 2010). Since the implementation of the ‘Work Programme’ in 2011, welfare provision has seen a high influx of ex-offenders and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) participants referred to programmes (Gov.UK, 2016). The main provider in Wales has delivered learning and development provision to approximately 24,000 ex-offenders (Working Links, 2013). The ultimate aim of the provider is to ensure participants secure sustainable employment. Accordingly, front-line staff have undergone specialist training to deal with ‘risk’ and mentor clients with complex and multiple needs. However, there is a dearth of research focusing on this contemporary phenomena. Considering the pivotal role employment schemes play in rehabilitating offenders, it is of paramount importance to determine whether or not the Governments confidence in employability schemes is justified.

The idea behind the plan was to put more money in the pockets of people and businesses so they would purchase more things, increase innovation, reduce unemployment, and lower inflation.

Source 4 states that Britain ‘experienced a progressive phase’ which embodies the age of austerity which the Marshall plan (1948) began, where Britain received $200 million US Dollars, this marks one of the greatest achievement of Bevin as he convinced US of the necessity of such a plan for shoring up Europe against the threat of communism in USSR. It spurred significant economic recovery. Stafford Cripps was to adopt a policy of austerity which the basic aim was to use rationing and tight economic controls to prevent ‘inflation’. Such measures, it was hoped would keep employment high and allow the government to continue its welfare programme.

This was a controversial plan that fed a need to relieve the war debts in the United States. This was also integral in forming a difference between the United States and Great Britain, since unlike the Bank of England it’s focus was on funding internal improvements for the government

A significant failure experienced by the Whitlam government was economic issues. Economic issues were causing major dispute and controversial opinions from the public. By the end of the Whitlam governments term inflation had reached 15% and wage inflation was 30%. Large portions of money funding by the Labor governments were now being spent on numerous welfare programs established by the Whitlam government and were adding hugely to Australia’s debts. When the Whitlam government entered office in 1972, unemployment rates sat at 2%, by the end of this term in 1975 this increased to 5%. From a surplus of 1.5% of GDP in 1973, the balance of Australia’s transactions with the world crashed to a deficit of 3.2% by the end of 1974. Additionally, following a significant downfall in 1974, the Commonwealth budget was in serious deficit. As the Whitlam government pressed on with its big spending reforms despite pleas of restraint from the Treasury, Commonwealth spending surged 46% in 1974-1975, dwarfing the 20% rise the year before. The economic problem in the Whitlam government was one that required serious attention and reconstruction. The economic scheme that the Whitlam government had in play was very unpractical unrewarding and caused many issues. The popularity and trust in the Whitlam government began to rapidly decline after the 1974 election as the government

The idea behind the welfare state was to relieve poverty, reduce inequality, and achieve greater

As despised as the idea of using Capitalist values in a Communist nation, certain problems incurred the leaders to go even farther away from the policy of the New Economic Policy: the hyper-inflation and the "Scissors Crisis". During the beginning of the new policy, the economy was almost about to collapse and the prices especially those contributing to agriculture, were absurdly high, causing the government to change their money policy to one of a Gold standard, or a chervonets. The new policies on money gave a small reprieve to the ever growing inflation problem, though it also caused difficulties in wage payments at factories,

The new Conservative Government differed significantly from the Conservative Governments that had been in power throughout the ‘Butskellism’ era. Butskellism is an acronym derived from the cross party consensus on state welfare and housing that had dominated since the 1950s (Alcock, May & Wright, 2012). The Conservatives New Right ideology was one that advocated privatisation, managerialism and competitive markets. The ideology supported the sale and privatisation of National commodities such as British Steel, British Telecom, and other utilities such as water, gas, and electric (Bochel, 2012). Housing did not escape the Conservative Governments goal of complete privatisation; according to Legislation.gov.uk (2015), in August 1980, chapter 51 of the Housing Act 1980 incorporated the right to buy scheme. As supported by Baldock et al (2012), the right to buy refers to a housing policy that supported the compulsory sale of council

The Glass-Stbagall Banking Reform Act, which forbade banks to invest customers' money into the stock market. President Roosevelt also tried to better the economy by causing inflation. Inflation would cause an increase in prices and businesses would make more profit and the economy would boom.

Monetary policy is the mechanism of a country’s monetary authority (usually the central bank) taking up measures to regulate the supply of money and the rates of interest. It involves controlling money in the economy to promote economic

They would argue that direct interest rate changes could be used to control aggregate demand. Whereas, Monetarism does not believe that government should intervene by managing the level of aggregate demand, they rather prefer the use of monetary policy to achieve a long-run view of price stability.