New Labours Traditional Family Values in Policy

unused crunchs Traditional Family Values in PolicyIn Comparison to the Thatcher Government, in what ways does upstart labour distort to found back tralatitious family de limitine finished form _or_ system of organization and formula? epitomeThe objective of this utterance is to measure and comp atomic number 18 the way in youthfulnessful wear out is trying to land back tralatitious family determine by dint of form _or_ system of authorities and statute constabulary with the ways in which the Thatcher regime activity had tried to do so. As ordain be explained and analysed there ar some sympatheticities and thusly some profound differences between the objectives and the methods of vernal push and the Thatcher establishments. As will be analysed in great depth both(prenominal) the Thatcher governing and refreshing Labour giving medication came to actor with wide-ranging visions of how they wished to transform the politics, the economy, and the soc iety of Britain. The Thatcher organisations attempts to bring back conventional family set with indemnity and via commandment will be evaluated first, in order to examine the finis to which its objectives succeeded or if those objectives failed. Arguably, the Thatcher government had a massive impact upon the genial, sparing, and the insurance policy-making build up up or infrastructure of Britain, even if non always in the ways that it had mean, or had hoped for. The Thatcher government alike discovered that the consequences of their policy decisions could be contradictory, quite a than complimentary to the primary objectives of the enactment that they passed.The latter parts of the dissertation will concentrate upon the transition of the Labour caller extraneous from its handed-down frugal and fond policies into smart Labour and how, that transition affected its policies and objectives. New Labour was a reinvention of the Labour company designed to regain post later on 18 years in the political wilderness. Traditionally, the Labour companionship had regarded the advance of companionable consumeership of the means of production (the infamous clause four of its constitution) and the provision of generous benefits by the eudaemonia differentiate for those in need as sacrosanct policy areas. Labour governments had used forward-looking taxation and lofty populace sector borro makeg to pay for richly kind policy expenditure if that was required. Those were the policies importantly used to maintain or bring back traditional family determine by all preliminary Labour governments. New Labour, as will be demonstrated, turned away from the concepts of change magnitude levels of social ownership, and set limits for the use of progressive taxation and increasing unrestricted sector borrowing, whilst promising to reform the welfare state. The cabal of these measures was intended to focus help on to those race that needed help the oft or less. It also arguably, contacts cause to debate whether New Labour is driven by its ideologic principles or if it is driven by the more selfish desire to restrain and subsequently retain governmental way. After all, as any self-respectful politician will tell anybody willing to hear them, it is no gamey-priced having a vision of transforming society if there is no political office or power to do anything about enacting that vision.Certainly before triumphant the ordinary election of 1997 New Labour exclamatory its intention to bring back traditional family set done policy and where it was con spotred to be required through order. As a companionship New Labour move itself to improving globe services, fighting crime, and a host of former(a)(a)wise measures to begin Britain a interrupt lease to live in. Also to be discussed is New Labours policies and legislation upon human dependables and equality for all, that in legion(predicate) respects goe s beyond bringing back traditional family set. Whilst politicians are mainly in agreement over the need for traditional family set, they differ as to the opera hat policies and if needs be the best legislation to relate, advertize, or cheer traditional family values. Differences over the best ways to extend to traditional family values are kneadd by differing ideological cominges, as sanitary as incompatible understandings of human nature. Governments do not only rely on policy and legislation to achieve or at least aim to achieve their objectives. Governments try to influence the human race through official statements, press and television articles, as substantially as presenting its objectives to the public as frequently as possible. The public of course does not have to be persuaded by the influence, policy, and legislation of any government. Indeed the public shag affect the policy and legislation that governments adopt by voting those governments in and out of o ffice at every general election. The media has a great deal of influence in its own right when it comes to the moral attitudes and acceptable standards of demeanor that the British public thrust. either are issues and influences upon the restoration or promotion of traditional family values will be evaluated.IntroductionBefore evaluating and analysing the ways in which New Labour and the Thatcher governments aimed to bring back bring traditional family values, it would be best to define what is meant by traditional family values. Usually traditional family values are considered to be the promotion of long lasting marri matures, bringing up children to be well behaved and police force abiding, and educating everybody to respect law and order. Traditional family values are also linked with a religious or moral upbringing, but it can also encompass deal world responsible for providing for their own financial and social welfare through working hard and saving, as well as winning responsibility for their own actions. Traditional family values were linked in public perceptions to Victorian times, the volume of quite a little whitethorn now be materially bankrupt off yet their common sense of morality, and the willingness to accept traditional family values has declined noticeably (Coxall, Robbins, Leach, 2003, p.42). In the British scene the religious influences upon traditional family values had been predominately Christian in their origins. The dominant family values in Britain have been altered by disparate situationors since the 1960s. The belief in Christian values has declined due to the processes of secularisation and escapedisation, ever-changing social attitudes arguably helped by changes in fashion and media coverage. Family values are also different due to the immigration of people into Britain with different religious faiths such as Islam, and Hinduism (Modood, 2005, p.192). Different religious beliefs mean that although non-Christians often have a firm sense of morality and an understanding of how to behave, those moral values are similar yet not necessarily the same as traditional family values as they are perceived (Forman Baldwin, 1999, pp. 10-11).British governments, assuming that they have a sufficient Parliamentary bulk are generally able to deport out policy objectives and pass legislation as they feel necessary, or, to take place to the pledges they do in their fellowship manifestos during the previous general election campaigns. The power and the authority held by British governments to carry out their policies is great, and the vast majority of the population accepts the legislation passed through Parliament. However, it is under the assumption that the government can be choosed out at the next general election if the majority of voters are unhappy with its performance, or achievements. Much harder to define or evaluate can be the influence that governments have upon peoples beliefs and behaviour. Parties win general elections sometimes because they are the least unpopular party, rather than because they are the most popular. Voters can be as pragmatic or as cynical as the politicians that they vote for or against, they vote for the party that makes them bump off, as much as the party that wants to influence or potentially change their beliefs and behaviour (Coxall, Robbins, Leach, 2003, pp 4 5).Now attention is turned to the tidings of how differing ideological, or political beliefs have influenced the Thatcher and New Labour governments into making policy and legislation that affects social policy in Britain. The classical liberal approach to traditional family values was that governments should not intervene in social matters scantily as they should keep sparing interventions down to an absolute minimum. The classical liberal approach regarded the role of governments as being strictly limited to providing legislation when required, and limited developmental, law and order, and national defence facilities or services. The moral, religious, and social values may have been Christian yet that was just by historical chance. Classical liberal thinkers such as John Locke argued that the government should subscribe diversity and allow its people to act in anyway they valued that did not contravene national laws (Lacey, 2006, p.7). For classical liberals, governments should have gone no move on than regulating workplace safety and regulating the Poor rectitude administration. The teaching of traditional family values was down to churches (or other religious institutions), schools, and separate family groups themselves (Eatwell Wright, 2003 p. 36). The ideas of classical liberalism would re-emerge from the 1960s in the guise of neo-liberalism and would have the most influence in Britain upon the government that was led by Margaret Thatcher between may 1979 and her removal from office in November 1990. The Major government that held office from 1990 through to 1997 was regarded as being less dogmatic and more pragmatic than its speedy precursor was, though conversely placing a great emphasis on individual morality and standards of behaviour (Eatwell Wright, 2003, p. 287).Another strand of liberal political ideology emerged at the beginning of the 20th century that favoured a higher(prenominal) level of government intervention in social and economic matters. This brisk liberalism was responsible for the first moves towards establishing the welfare state in Britain. The new Liberals regarded beggary as being the largest single threat to traditional family values, as well as being socially divisive. Poverty often led families into the fear workhouses that separated parents from their children, and then parents from each other. Poverty in other run-in could stop people from caring for each other, it stopped relatives being cared for, and prevented people looking after(prenominal) themselves. The workhouse was, accordi ng to the new liberal ideological perspective, the biggest surf of families, something that grinding poverty did not always achieve (Moran, 2005, p. 28). The introduction of Labour Exchanges, national insurance, which paid small amounts of un practice benefit, and limited old age pensions may have done little to bend poverty, yet it heralded greater levels of government intervention in social and economic affairs, especially after Labours landslide election victory in 1945. All those new Liberal reforms were intended to preserve family units, as unemployment, underemployment, and old age were all factors that made people poor, and put them in the workhouse, or drove them towards committing crimes to make money. Had the British economy been lovesomeer during the inter-period then the limited welfare state of the Liberals might have been extended earlier. There were limited extensions such as the development of council houses and some free health care for the poorest families (Eatw ell Wright, 2003 p.38).The Liberal party itself appeared to be in a virtually terminal decline after the First World War with its former supporters either switching their votes to the bourgeoiss or the Labour party. Conversely it would be variations of liberal ideology that have arguably had the most political, social, and economic influence upon post-war Britain and the values that British government aimed to promote through policy and legislation. New Liberalism had a pronounced influence upon the welfare state and Keynesian economic policies pursued from 1945 through to the late 1970s, curiously under the auspices of the Beveridge Report and the wish to avoid mass unemployment on the scale of the 1930s. New Liberalism also influenced the decision of British governments to accept changing social attitudes by changing policy and passing legislation to signalize the slackening hold of traditional family values. The use of Keynesian economic science was diminish during the Call aghan government as it was forced into accepting a loan from the internationalistic Monetary Fund, and had to reduce public spending before that loan was made available. Of course, it was the revival of neo-liberal ideology that strongly influenced the Thatcher government and meant that the New Labour government had to take power in tooth rootly different social and economic circum positions than the Labour governments of the 1970s had faced (Coxall, Robbins, Leach, 2003, p. 54).In contrast, the materialistic ideological perspective often placed a greater emphasis upon the promotion and the respecting of traditional family values, either to protect property or to maintain social stability. blimpish politicians in Britain regarded themselves as being the party that maintained law and order better than any other political party, to protect social stability, and strengthen national unity (Eatwell Wright, 2003, p. 51). The buttoned-up party was the party that normally claimed to be the guardian of traditional family values. The Conservative party had strong link with the Church of England. Indeed, sometimes people referred to the Church of England as being the Conservative party at prayer. As such the Conservative party took a negative view about human nature that helps to explain its tougher stance on law and order issues (Jones et al, 2004, p. 155). Unlike the classical Liberals, the Conservatives were prepared and tarry prepared to actively change government policy, and enact legislation if that was needed to protect traditional family values. Previous Conservative governments in Britain have passed both restrictive and liberalising legislation when they have considered such actions to be justified by present circumstances. Conservatives have been repressive, regressive, or liberal in character at different times (Eatwell Wright, 2003, p. 54). There was a strong paternalistic ginmill in the British Conservative party, which has sometimes dominated th e party, and at other times has had very little influence over the partys policies when in government. The paternalistic streak has not always gone well with other ideological influences within the party that have been opposed to interact in society or the economy. For guinea pig, compare the ideological beliefs of Harold MacMillan, or Anthony heaven with Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher did not like the paternalistic One Nation Tories, and instead try to transform British society (Moran, 2005, p. 28).The Labour party was created specifically to further the interests of the working classes, as such the only traditional family values it wished to protect, promote, or bring back were those that it believed would benefit the working classes. The Labour party was attached to the social ownership of the means of production, and the introduction of extensive welfare, and social guarantor provision. Not only would these measures improve social equality, they would reduce poverty, and make B ritish society better by making it fairer for all. The Labour party was also a political party that was moderate and gradualist in its approach to achieving social, economic, and political reforms. The decline of the Liberal party allowed Labour to become the second main political party in Britain and even form a government in 1924. The first Labour government was only a nonage administration, and was therefore unable to achieve much (Wilson, 2005, p. 252). The second Labour government elected in 1929 had a parliamentary majority, yet its time in office was blighted by the onset of the Great Depression. The party was shared out by Ramsey Mac Donalds decision to cut unemployment benefits, and the introduction of other austerity measures that made the affects of unemployment worse for many of the people that Labour was supposititious to help (Wilson, 2005, p. 285). Labour got its big chance to profoundly alter British social and economic policies as a result of the wartime feeling t hat something should be done to make Britain a fairer and less poverty stricken place to live in. Labour fully backed the proposals of the Beveridge Report and introduced a nationwide welfare state and reaped its sensational electoral benefits in 1945 (Lacey, 2006, p. 260).The Labour party managed to achieve its social and economic aims during the Atlee governments of 1945 through to 1951. Its objectives were achieved with the introduction of a all-round(prenominal) welfare state, the National Health Service (NHS), and appendd educational opportunities. To stop the possibility of mass unemployment on the scale of the 1930s, industries were nationalised and Keynesian demand side economic policies were pursued. From the Labour partys perspective Britains traditional family values should have been protected or even promoted by declining levels of poverty, better health care provision, and higher levels of educational achievement. The welfare state and the NHS seemed to be safe as t he Conservatives sure the vast majority of Labours reforms (Fisher, Denver, Benyon, 2003, p. 11). In fact, the Conservative Party enjoyed considerable success in the fifties as the British electorate trusted them to leave the welfare state and public services untouched, whilst successfully managing Keynesian economics to make people financially better off (Sandbrook, 2005 p. 51).Until the late 1960s it seemed that British governments had managed to achieve strong economic growth, an effective welfare system, and a high degree of social harmony. The period also introduced legislation that liberalised British society, for instance the profoundisation of homosexuality, abortion, and the abolishment of the death penalty. Legislation was also passed that made it easier to total divorced. However, there were to be social, economic, and political developments that loosened the post-war political consensus. The loosening of that post-war consensus began with deteriorating economic gro wth and social changes, developments that would last lead to the emergence of Margaret Thatcher as a politician that was decided to radically alter the political, social, and economic fabric of Britain (Forman Baldwin, 1999, p. 11). It was not just Britains relatively poor economic performance that Margaret Thatcher wished to take on she wanted to tackle the political, social, and economic decline of Britain. Margaret Thatcher wished to reverse what she considered to be the harmful social and economic consequences of decline fostered by the liberalisation of moral values caused by the legislation of the 1960s and the changes in social attitudes that occurred during the same period (Coxall, Robbins, Leach, 2003, p. 42).On the other hand, New Labour wished to regain power by gaining the votes of people that had previously voted for the Thatcher and Major governments, whilst retaining the support of their loyal Labour supporters. Traditional Labour party supporters had not suppor ted the party because it claimed to protect or restore traditional family values instead they believed that a Labour government would make them better off, and British society fairer. However, traditional Labour voters had been reduced in meter by the reduction in the size of heavy industries and the Thatcher governments economic policies such as the sell off of council housing and privatisation (Fisher, Denver, Benyon, 2003 p. 12). The combination of changing social and economic trends, the privatisation policies of the Thatcher government, as well as party in-fighting had condemned the Labour party to four consecutive general election defeats. The Labour Party had standed to win the 1992 general election, although the Major government managed to get re-elected by scrapping the poll tax (Jones, 1999 p.1). New Labour might not have emerged at all if John Smith had not died trail to Tony Blair becoming the party leader, and going on to reorganise the Labour Party, reshaping its p olicies, and its pic in order to gain power (Seldon Kavanagh, 2005 p. 5).Whilst New Labour emphasised that it would no longer pursue traditional Labour party economic policies, it would stress that it was keen to make British society fairer than it had been during the Thatcher and the Major governments. New Labour stressed that it stood for fairer social values, for instance actively trying to supercharge the acceptance of cultural diversity, or promoting gay and lesbian rights (Coxall, Robbins, Leach, 2003, p. 397). New Labour shifted its economic policies to the right first, then moved its social policies in a similar direction (Moran, 2005, p. 28). Tony Blair and New Labour stressed that once in power it would help to bring back traditional family values by being tough on crime by tackling its social and economic causes (Seldon Kavanagh, 2005, p. 6). New Labour has also pledged to reform welfare provision, the NHS, and the education system to improve performance and reduce s ocial exclusion. New Labour wanted to restore what it considered to be traditional family values through policy and legislation, yet with the emphasis being different from the emphasis of the Thatcher government in rhetoric if not in substance (Jones, 1999, p. 2).All governments have to be aware of the public scrutiny that they may have to endure, through Parliament, through media coverage and speculation, as well as been observed by the general public. The government of the day can have its policy and legislation objectives overturned and jeopardised by adverse publicity or media revelations. The media is very useful for the government to sell its policies and pieces of legislation to the electorate yet no government can expect favourable media coverage all of the time and sensible governments will try to manage media coverage to get the best results. The Thatcher and New Labour governments took media charge techniques seriously for their periods in office although that has not gu aranteed that they will succeed in making all their policy and legislation succeed, whether or not it was meant to restore traditional family values (Jones, 1999, p. 52).Chapter One The Thatcher government and returning back to traditional family valuesThis chapter will deal with the subject of the Thatcher government and its attempts of returning to traditional family values through policy and legislation. Margaret Thatcher broke the mould of the average Conservative party leader, and it was not simply because she was the first woman to gain that position. Although the Conservatives had been vexed by the size of their election defeat in 1945, they had soon retrieve to regain power by 1951 (Wilson, 2005, p.484). Successive Conservative leaders from Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold MacMillan, and Alec Douglas Hume had accepted the post-war political, economic and social consensus established after 1945 (Sandbrook, 2005, p.51). It had been Margaret Thatchers immediate predece ssor as Conservative leader, Edward Heath that had first attempted to overturn the post-war consensus through the adoption of the Selsdon programme. As Education secretary, Margaret Thatcher was part of the Heath government that eventually returned to Keynesian economic policies, due to workmanship union opposition, and the desire to increase economic growth to prevent unemployment levels going past one meg (Fisher, Denver Benyon, 2003, p.11). The Heath government would fall victim to increasing plenty union opposition that led to the three day week, whilst Heaths defeat in both general elections of 1974 meant that leading Conservatives were looking for alternative policies and a new leader with a different approach to the brush aside Heath. Margaret Thatcher decided to stand for the party leadership and succeeded in displacing Heath. After she became Conservative leader, her differing ideological outlook from her post-war predecessors started to emerge. Thatchers right wing r hetoric, no frill leadership style, her forthright messages, and obvious sense of nationalism struck the right chords with the British electorate during the late 1970s (Eatwell Wright, 2003, p. 160).Margaret Thatcher was determined to restore the electoral fortunes of the Conservative and then went on to freshen up the ailing British economy by fundamentally altering social, economic, and political attitudes within the country. Thatcher believed that Britain needed to radically modernise its social and economic policies to reverse economic decline and social decadence. The practice of medicine that Thatcher prescribed to cure Britain of its social and economic woes was the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies and a return to traditional family values. According to neo-liberal economists such as Hayek and Friedman, Keynesian economics and extensive welfare states like Britains after 1945 were socially and economically detrimental. Thatcher had been introduced to these conce pts by one of her closest advisors, Sir Keith Joseph, and she saw them as the firmness of purpose to Britain economic decline and social degradation (Coxall, Robbins, Leach, 2003, p. 54). The welfare state removed the motivator to work, or the incentives to reduce the size of families, whilst providing adequate standards of living for those that were work start or content to have children outside of marriage and long term relationships. The interest of Keynesian economic policies had increased the power of pile unions whilst confine the efficiency of both public and private sector enterprises. Thatcher argued that excessively high rate of taxation reduced the incentives for people to work harder and meant that some people were financially better off by being unemployed. Thatchers solution to these problems was to end Keynesian economic policies, lower taxes, sell off public assets, and attempt to reduce the size of the welfare state. The inability of the Callaghan government to turn Britains economic ills and the Winter of Discontent of industrial action and public sector strikes allowed Thatcher to take power after winning the general election of May 1979 (Fisher, Denver, Benyon, 2003, p.11).Once in office the Thatcher government undertook a radical reshaping of economic policy that had a major impact upon British society and influenced the success of policy and legislation to bring back traditional family values. The pursuit of economic liberalisation was the governments policy given precedency over all other policies and initiatives. Thatcher believed that economic liberalisation would be the particle accelerator that would modernise and revive Britains economic performance, with the anticipated consequence that it would revive at least some of the traditional family values. That was the underlying belief that people should work to make their lives better rather than relying upon the welfare state to give them handouts. The problem with adopting monetarist economic policies was that it resulted in the highest levels of unemployment witnessed in Britain since the Great Depression of the 1930s. With more than three million people unemployed, expenditure on the social trade protection budget increased rather than decreased. Economic policy in this instance actually made the return to traditional family values less credibly to be achieved. High unemployment levels instead meant a return to inter-period levels of poverty, and the closure of ineffectual coal mines and steel mills devastated whole communities (Coxall, Robbins, Leach, 2003, p. 54).High unemployment levels also helped the Thatcher government to break the power of the trade unions more effectively than legislation on its own. That legislation was restrictive of trade union powers in its own right, more so than the failed efforts of the Heath government a decade earlier. The Thatcher government regarded employment legislation as vital in making its efforts to erod e trade union power effective. The Employment dissemble of 1980 took away the rights of trade unions to run closed shops (allowing workers the right not to join trade unions), take lowly industrial action, or, use flying pickets to force employers to give into their demands. The Employment Act also laid down certain conditions that trade unions had to follow precisely before they could take industrial action. For instance, trade unions had to hold postal ballots to vote for or against strike action. Any trade union that did not hold official ballots was going on strike illegally, and therefore faced legal action from employers. For the Thatcher government the Employment Act of 1980 proved invaluable with its conflicts with the warring trade unions, especially the coal miners (Forman, Baldwin, 1999, p.450).For the Thatcher government its conflict with the National kernel of Mineworkers (NUM) led by Arthur Scargil proved the ultimate test of whether it could change the social a nd economic structure of Britain to fit in with its ideological outlook. The NUM had been regarded as being largely responsible for the defeat of the Heath government during the 1970s, so the Thatcher government wanted to defeat it as a symbol of Britain being alter economically, socially, and politically. Although the Thatcher government did give way over pay disputes in 1981 as it did not believe it could defeat the NUM, it was biding its time. However, by 1984 the Thatcher government was certain that the bureau had changed in its favour through its new legislation that reduced petty(a) strike action, and because coal had been stockpiled at power stations to prevent the NUM from forcing the government to give in. The bitter miners strike of 1984-85 effectively broke the power of the NUM forever, and showed that the trade unions could no longer bring down any government that they wanted to (Forman Baldwin, 1999, p. 196).As part of its policy objectives to bring back traditional family values the Thatcher government tried to improve the law and order situation without much apparent success. Once again the economic policies of the Thatcher government had consequences for the successful conduct of its social policies. The chief consequence of Thatcherite economic policies was as already mentioned high unemployment. High unemployment made it harder to reduce the level of crime in fact crime rates rose as sharply as unemployment rates did throughout much of the 1980s (Fisher, Denver, Benyon, 2003, p. 12). Unemployment increased peoples sense of desperation as well as putting many of them into poverty. Crime increased as people tried to make ends meet, and it also increased as a result of a rise in the number of people taking illegal drugs. High unemployment and the illegal drug trade meant that respect for law and order was reduced in the majority of inner city areas rather than improved. A combination of high unemployment, heavy handed policing, and increase d levels of racial tension lead to the outbreak of inner city riots in 1981 that scare the Thatcher government (Jones et al, 2004, p. 628). To prevent a repeat of those riots the Thatcher government introduced urban service areas, and attempted to change the policing methods used in areas that contained ethnic minority communities. The Thatcher government tried to reduce crime by allowing courts to set tougher sentences and the introduction of youth detention centres, yet nothing seemed to work (Jones et al, 2004, p. 628). The failure of the Thatcher government to reverse the emanation crime figures is a clear demonstration that the social policy, and legislation of governments can have little or virtually no influence over peoples behaviour if they did not want that behaviour to be altered. Although there was a strong link between rising crime and rising unemployment during the Thatcher government the levels of crime have not decreased, disrespect unemployment falling since its peak in the late 1980s (Jones et al, 2004, p. 629).Other areas of the That