<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Dr Hugh Pemberton</title>
<link>http://hdl.handle.net/1983/599</link>
<description/>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 15:17:13 GMT</pubDate>
<dc:date>2013-05-13T15:17:13Z</dc:date>

<item>
<title>"What matters is what works": Labour's journey from "national superannuation" to "personal accounts"</title>
<link>http://hdl.handle.net/1983/1812</link>
<description>"What matters is what works": Labour's journey from "national superannuation" to "personal accounts"
Pemberton, HR
A key element of Labour’s response to the Pensions Commission’s recommendations for ‘a new pension settlement for the twenty-first century’ is a system of ‘personal accounts’ that will be administered and invested by the private sector. The contrast with 50 years ago, when Britain faced similar pressures, is striking. Then, Labour presented to the British public proposals for a state-run scheme embodying redistribution between higher and lower-paid workers and the accumulation of a very large fund that would be directly invested in stock markets by the state to promote faster growth. Today’s scheme embodies neither redistribution nor collective control of the scheme’s assets, and investment and risk-taking will be the responsibility of individuals rather than the state. This article explores the differences between Labour’s proposals in 1957 and the scheme it proposes today. It considers what these differences tell us about the party’s changing conception of social democracy, and highlights the irony that, with consumers’ faith in financial markets shattered by the most severe financial crisis&#13;
since 1929, New Labour’s embrace of a private sector solution on the grounds that&#13;
‘what matters is what works’ now seems badly mistaken.
</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/1983/1812</guid>
<dc:date>2010-04-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Review of the 2007 periodical literature related to the period since 1945 and relevant to the study of British economic and social history</title>
<link>http://hdl.handle.net/1983/1161</link>
<description>Review of the 2007 periodical literature related to the period since 1945 and relevant to the study of British economic and social history
Pemberton, HR
This paper is a considerably extended version of my Review of the 2007 periodical literature for the Economic History Review (vol. 62). It features details of 166 articles published in 2007 and relevant to the study of British economic and social history.
</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:58:05 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/1983/1161</guid>
<dc:date>2008-08-20T11:58:05Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>30-year rule review</title>
<link>http://hdl.handle.net/1983/1070</link>
<description>30-year rule review
Pemberton, HR
A submission to the committee considering the 30-year rule and its possible relaxation.
</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/1983/1070</guid>
<dc:date>2008-02-26T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Back to the future: history and the pensions crisis</title>
<link>http://hdl.handle.net/1983/1054</link>
<description>Back to the future: history and the pensions crisis
Pemberton, HR
Dr Hugh Pemberton is senior lecturer in modern British history at the University of Bristol
</description>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/1983/1054</guid>
<dc:date>2006-03-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
