So the big questions that remain to be settled are whether all this New Labour activity has been worthwhile, and whether in consequence New Labour is worth supporting. These are in essence simple questions, of course, but they are also ones whose importance precludes the giving of simple answers. Many people will answer them simply — that is the downside of a democratic process that allows prejudice and reason equal measure in the exercise of the vote — but in an electorate as sophisticated as the one that New Labour faces, the government will find itself in 2005/06, as it did in 2001, not simply tested but also tested rigorously, against its own targets and the targets set for it by its political opponents. And so it should, for if there is one feature of this government that marks it out from all previous UK governments, it is surely New Labour’s passion for performance indicators as the trigger to performance growth. Well, what is good for the goose is also presumably good for the gander: so if performance indicators are the flavour of the month, it is surely legitimate for us now to examine in detail just how well New Labour itself has so far performed?
KeywordsInterest Rate Foreign Direct Investment House Price Housing Market Child Poverty
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 18.R. Dickens, P. Clegg and J. Wadsworth (eds), The Labour Market under New Labour: The State of Working Britain 2003, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2003, p. 2.Google Scholar
- 28.K. Marsden, Gordon Brown and British Competitiveness: A Statistical Analysis, London, Centre for Policy Studies, 2003, p. 26.Google Scholar
- 39.HM Treasury, Productivity in the UK: The Evidence and the Government’s Approach, 1999, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
- 44.HM Treasury, Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity Challenge, 2001; DTI, Opportunity for All: A White Paper on Enterprise, Skills and Innovation, 2001.Google Scholar
- 53.R. Riley and G. Young, The Macroeconomk impact of the New Deal for Young People, NIESR Discussion Paper no. 184, December 1999. A later four-year assessment by Richard Blundell and others concluded that the New Deal for Young People had raised employment by 17,000 a year, rather than the 375,000 figure used by the government (Dickens et al., The Labour Market under New Labour, p. 17).Google Scholar
- 58.L. Mishel, J. Bernstein and J. Schmitt, The State of Working America, Washington, DC, Employment Policy Institute, 2000, p. 400.Google Scholar