Helpp pleassssseee anyonnee :-))?

Question

To what extent do you agree with the claim that the labour party's programme on constitutional reform since 1997 has been large, possible significant but it certainly hasnt been radical?

Please answer...I am looking to see if i am on the right tracks with answering the question right for my uni paper!!

Thanks alll

Answer 1

One of the center pieces of Labour's program since 1997 has been reforming the House of Lords.  If I were you I would use that as since since a simple search will reveal that the question of reforming the Lords has been on the table since The Lords vetoed the "people's budget" at the turn of the century.  It was labor who got the 1911, and the 1949 Parliament acts through, under threat of abolishing the chamber.

Additionally, Tony Blair pursed some more right, market-friendly ideas, but these idea weren't new.  The only revolution represented by Labor's 1997 shift was that Labor was taking over ideas traditionally identified as belong to the Conservatives.  Among his manifesto commitments was independence of the Bank of England, (suspiciously an item being considered by David Cameron....) which Blair delivered as promised.  The idea of messing around with a central bank dates to John Maynard Keynes and his proteges.  The idea of such a government run bank was used as a primary device for recovering from the Great Depression.  

The 1997 Manifesto also promised to focus on NHS, a labor invention dating to the 1970's.  Though Blair/Brown have drawn fire in some quarters for repeating the errors of the '70s which led the Conservatives to power; the focus on NHS has been an attempt to learn from those errors, even if using more "Tory-type" solutions than the stauch traditional labor member might like.

The 1997 Manifesto also featured promises that could easily have come from a Conservative document at any earlier point.  Examples include a pledge to cut the VAT and not extend it to books and other items, not exceeding John Major's already promised budget, limiting governmental borrowing, and the so-called welfare-to-work budget.  The only reason I can imagine to term "New Labor" radical would be because Blair was willing to implement methods that were traditionally alien to his own party if it achieved his goals.  It is interesting to note, that in that same time period the US President, Bill Clinton, was noted for using the methods of his the opposing party to get elected.  Clinton promised to reduce the deficient, tax cuts, and fiscal responsibility.  These had all been hallmarks of the Republican party to that date.  During the contemporary period several political commentators speculated that a political realignment might be occuring, moving political partys away from their traditional strong points and forcing them to find a new niche.  With the passage of time, it appears to merely have been a wrinkle in the carpet, but one can easily identify an unsual contemporary political shift in most other western nations in the same time period.  Ex. Germany.

Answer 2

i understand u completely and agree with what u are saying.

Answer 3

I am not too sure what you are asking, but I think that the labour party has made thousands of extra laws and taxes that have radically reduced the standard of living for the middle classes, and trapped the working classes in a poverty pocket (tax credits etc.) that they cannot escape from.