Reconstructing Social Democracy: New Labour and the Welfare State

Abstract

Books reviewed in this article: Driver, Stephen and Martell, Luke, New Labour: Politics afterThatcherism Jordan, Bill, The New Politics of Welfare: Social Justice in a GlobalContext Levitas, Ruth, The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and NewLabour Powell, Martin (ed.), New Labour, New Welfare State? The ‘ThirdWay’ in British Social Policy

Emotional labour and befriending in family support and child protection in Tower Hamlets

“…Social, economic, psychological and emotional challenges that families face need an appropriate response from social care agencies. Similar schemes in the UK and abroad have been shown to be highly successful because they are non‐stigmatizing, non‐intrusive and responsive to the emotions, ethnicity, views and specific social care and health needs of families (Barker 1988; Olds 1992; Johnson et al 1993; Bond 1999; O’Brien 2000; Taggart et al 2000; Ferguson 2001).…”

“…Government, health and social services and evidence from research all point out that innovative local projects alleviate the pressing welfare needs of children and families (National Council of Voluntary Organisations 1998; Robbins 1998; Bond 1999; Department of Health 2000; O'Brien 2000). Local schemes are especially urgent with children and families defined as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘in need’ (Department of Health 2000).…”

The contrasting roles of science and technology in environmental challenges

“…In the UK, a landmark parliamentary select committee report recognized citizens' distrust of conventionally-institutionalised science, following a number of high profile technological controversies and crises which brought into question the accountability and autonomy of science and the role of society therein (House of Lords, 2000). There is now a widespread public perception that experts can and do disagree, that they are not infallible by virtue of their specialist access to some rigorous scientific methodology that can guarantee their "objectivity," and that their purportedly "disinterested" advice may be influenced by professional, economic, or political considerations, or by their personal values (Smith, 2012;O'Brien, 2000). Social scientists (O'Brien, 2000;Fisher, Elbaum, & Coulte, 2010) have also voiced their concerns over the use of evidence by scientists, policy makers, and interest groups to justify decisions or to promote self-interest.…”

“…There is now a widespread public perception that experts can and do disagree, that they are not infallible by virtue of their specialist access to some rigorous scientific methodology that can guarantee their "objectivity," and that their purportedly "disinterested" advice may be influenced by professional, economic, or political considerations, or by their personal values (Smith, 2012;O'Brien, 2000). Social scientists (O'Brien, 2000;Fisher, Elbaum, & Coulte, 2010) have also voiced their concerns over the use of evidence by scientists, policy makers, and interest groups to justify decisions or to promote self-interest. They question the neutrality of scientific expertise.…”

“…What environmental technologies aim to achieve, what regulations aim to deliver, and the overall basis of how scientific knowledge is applied to address environmental challenges are seriously affected by how these challenges are defined. Problem framing implicitly shapes the options people consider or provides some measure of (non-) attainment with respect to those goals (O'Brien, 2000). Investments in abatement technologies have been generally seen as critical for reducing emissions from industry without compromising economic growth, although clean technologies are generally argued to be preferable to end of pipe solutions in the long run (Frondel, Horbach, & Rennings, 2007).…”