Pressure Group

Fathers4Justice is a well known pressure group supporting the idea that children should be allowed to see their fathers and no access should be denied. Their ideas are supported by many facts about men that are related to withdrawal from their offspring. These include: 1 in 3 children live without their father, the cost of family breakdown is £47 billion a year and dads are 3 times more likely to die after separating from the mother. These facts are within the pressure groups manifesto.


Fathers4Justice campaign in an unusual but effective way. Most commonly, the men dress as superheroes and climb on top of cranes, skyscrapers and famous buildings and hold up posters and banners to put their point across. Obviously, the danger in this gets people to notice their pressure group and commonly make the media. Most recently, on the news, the pressure group got past security and sat on the Buckingham Palace roof for over 24 hours. The length of time spent in these dangerous places also gets the attention of others. Fathers4Justice commonly use illegal methods and one of these was tipping flour on the Prime Ministers head during a meeting in the House of Commons. Of course, this got attention from the government which is really a  main aim from any pressure group.


Fathers4Justice is a promotional pressure group, this means that they endeavour to promote a particular cause and fight for it making sure it is noticed and heard. For this reason, they can sometimes be referred to as 'cause' groups.


I believe this pressure group is successful, not just because of the campaigns but because of how organised and set up it is. For example, they have a website supporting the cause which is well organised and has a well thought out manifesto with easy access, there is also an opportunity to  donate to the group. It is packed with information and clearly states what the group is all about. Also, the campaigning methods attract attention. This is the whole point of a pressure group, therefore, it is very successful and well known.

To what extent are the current ideas of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party similar and different?

How similar are the Policies of the Conservative and Labour Parties? On the issue of Law and Order, the Labour and Conservatives have similar policies to an extent. Labour policy is to take a stiffer approach to crime and try to do away with image that the Labour party was soft on crime. Labour has taken tough line on crime ("tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"). Also since Labour took over we have seen a 10% increase in the number of people in prison, but the Labour party have also encouraged the use of early release schemes. They also aim to increase the size of the police force. The Conservatives have a slighter tougher line on crime. The Conservatives have also opposed the idea early release schemes, a theme that they heavily picked up on during the 2001.                     

 

Conservative policies are pretty similar, with aims to keep inflation and public spending down. As you can see, Labour and Conservative's policies on the economy are pretty similar. Labours policies on health are to increase public spending on the N.H.S. (6.1% annual increases till 2004), and are in general committed to the basic N.H.S. as it stands, we also see an emphasis on primary health care with ideas like "N.H.S. Online" and "N.H.S. Direct". Conservative policies on health are to match Labours planned public spending increases, the conservatives also seem keen to prove that they are the party of Health Care, as you can see if you study Ian Duncan Smiths 2001 conference speech, "we will find ways to achieve high standards".                       

 

They also support the idea of a European Defence System, a "European Army". The Conservatives are more anti European, generally opposed to further European integration for the foreseeable future, Williams Hauge's 2001 election campaign's slogan was "Keep the Pound". They are also opposed to the idea of a common European Defence policy, as Ian Duncan Smith said in his 2001 conference speech "that is what is dangerous about the plan for a European army" and that it would "stand in the way of our national defence". But the Conservatives are not interested in leaving the EU. As you can see this an area in which the parties have very different aims and there for very different policies on how to achieve them. As you can see, the two parties on average agree on the ideas of most things, but disagree slightly as to how to achieve these ideas, but there are some areas like Europe on which the parties are very split.

Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat? Why?

Now Jeremy Corbyn is the new party leader of Labour, I believe that British social democracy has returned.
Jeremy Corbyn's policies have been relentlessly attacked by mainstream politicians and media pundits, not only from the right but even more by the self-proclaimed “centre left.” Time and again the charge is that Corbyn’s ideas are dangerously extreme and unworkable, and will not fit with public opinion, and hopelessly behind the times. However, it looks like the scare tactics that were employed to such effect only recently in the Scottish independence referendum may not work this time.
In fact, far from  unworkable, Corbyn’s policy proposals are moderate, common sense measures that would lessen some of the economic damage done since the 2008 recession, rebalance social provision away from corporate welfare, and restore an element of security for many of those margined by a neoliberal project that has been running at full pace since the rise of Thatcherism in 1979. Corbyn’s economic program is comparable to Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, while his commitment to raise taxes on corporations and high-income earners is basic math for anyone really interested in reducing budget deficits rather than just “starving the beast.” His proposals for rent controls have a huge resonance in the UK, where a super-inflated property market makes affordable rent a necessary complement for a living wage. While investment in public education and free university tuition would bring enormous social benefits, it would not be successful economically.
Jeremy's policies are seen as unpopular or out of step with public opinion. 71% of voters see economic inequality as a major social ill, 62% prioritize social justice, and 85% believe corporate greed is a significant problem.
 What accounts for the hysterical attacks, name-calling, vilification, and smear tactics that have been unleashed against Corbyn and those likely to vote for him?
There are two answers to this question which taken together also give a broader insight into the value and meaning of social democracy within the contemporary moment.
The first answer relates to the very popularity of Corbyn’s platform: like the extraordinary popular mobilization for Scottish independence last year, Corbyn’s leadership bid appeals to the wrong kind of voters. That is, it appeals to those who have already been excluded from the political calculus of the elites.
From this, it shows Jeremy Corbyn's policies, ideas and the way he is controlling the labour party shows a return in social democracy rather than him being a social democrat.