Welfare policy under New Labour

Bochel, Hugh; Defty, Andrew

doi:10.2307/j.ctt9qgpmf

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the bulk of the parliamentary Conservative Party at this period displayed largely 'Thatcherite' views (Bochel and Defty, 2007) Norman and Ganesh, 2006;Norman, 2009), were also producing their visions of a compassionate Conservatism.…”

Section: The Strange Re-emergence Of Compassionate Conservatismmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Indeed, until and even under Cameron's leadership, support for a more socially inclusive approach to lifestyle choices, let alone a 'softer' approach to social policies more generally, was limited, with, for example, the parliamentary Party opposing the Interviews on the attitudes to welfare of MPs during 2004-5 (Bochel andDefty, 2007) found that among Conservative MPs, while, compared with the 1980s (Bochel, 1992), there was still considerable support for a minimalist approach to state provisions, there was more support for a more active role for the state in improving people's lives, and for government in building communities and improving life chances. MPs from the latter group stressed the need to combat poverty, particularly among children and older people.…”

Section: Compassionate Conservative Ideas Were Largely Restricted To mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Whatever happened to compassionate Conservatism under the Coalition government?

Bochel

Powell

2016

Br Polit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Following David Cameron's election as leader of the Conservative Party in late 2005, a series of initiatives suggested that he was seeking to reposition the Conservative Party, or perhaps to introduce some new thinking to the Party and to align it with interests and issues that it had not been linked with since at least the start of the Thatcher period. At the time, views among commentators varied about whether this was a genuine attempt to change the Conservative Party, including through a more compassionate approach to some social groups and problems, or whether it was simply designed to 'detoxify' the Party and to make it electable once more. However, many observers were unconvinced that the five years of the Coalition government saw significant evidence of the 'compassionate' ideas that Cameron and others sought to highlight prior to the 2010 general election. This article explores a number of possible reasons for the apparent disappearance of compassionate Conservatism in relation to social policies under the Coalition government. It suggests that rather than any one explanation, drawing upon a number of interpretations may provide the best understanding of the role and impact of compassionate Conservative ideas from 2010 to 2015.

show abstract

Section: The Strange Re-emergence Of Compassionate Conservatismmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Compassionate Conservative Ideas Were Largely Restricted To mentioning

confidence: 99%

Whatever happened to compassionate Conservatism under the Coalition government?

Bochel

Powell

2016

Br Polit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted above, whilst the House has not generally been viewed as playing a significant role in relation to social policy, nevertheless in recent years it has been willing to challenge the government on a wide range of topics, including many that There have been other ways in which the role of the Lords appears to have been changing, including an increase in the number of government bills that are being introduced in the Lords, again including on social policy issues (Bochel and Defty, 2007a). Around one-third of bills now start life in the Lords, including, for example, the Mental Health Bill in the 2006/7 session, which saw 6 defeats for the government and a total of 66 amendments made in the upper chamber.…”

Section: The House Of Lords and Social Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst there has been no consensus on further reform, the work of the 'transitional house' has led some to argue that the chamber has already begun to develop a new and more assertive role (Russell, 2003;Howe, 2007). There have also been suggestions from MPs that, as a result, the House of Lords is now playing a more substantial role in the formulation and scrutiny of social policy and legislation (Bochel and Defty, 2007a). In addition, the creation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which has responsibility for making recommendations for non-party political Peers, has led to the appointment of a 4 number of people with backgrounds in social welfare and related areas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Power without Representation? The House of Lords and Social Policy

Bochel

Defty

2010

Social Policy & Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past the House of Lords has generally, and arguably for good reasons, been ignored in discussions of the making and scrutiny of welfare. However, it has always played some role in this field, particularly in the scrutiny and passage of legislation, and since the removal of hereditary Peers in 1999, some writers have argued that the House has become more assertive. This article examines the attitudes of Peers, including a comparison with the views of Members of Parliament, and draws a number of conclusions about the role of the upper House in relation to social policy.

show abstract

“…The first, undertaken during 2004 and 2005, focused primarily on the attitudes and activities of members of the House of Commons in relation to the formulation and scrutiny of welfare policy. 11 That research drew on interviews with 76 MPs, a sample comprising ten per cent of the House of Commons. In addition ten peers were interviewed.…”

Section: A Less Expert House? the House Of Lords And Welfare Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Question of Expertise: the House of Lords and Welfare Policy

Bochel¹,

Defty²

2009

Parliamentary Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The expertise of its members is often cited as one of the distinctive features of the House of Lords. In particular it is frequently argued that because of its composition, and in particular the existence of the Crossbench Peers, debates in the Lords are more informed than in the Commons. In contrast to the Commons where MPs, because of the demands of re-election and constituency business, are required to know a little about a wide range of subjects, Peers, it has been claimed bring professional experience and expertise to the scrutiny of legislation, and have the time to maintain their expertise. Moreover, the presumed expertise of the Upper House is also central to debates about the reform of the House of Lords, with assertions that any further reform should retain the Lords ability to provide distinctive and informed scrutiny.Drawing on a series of interviews with a large sample of MPs and Peers from across parliament this paper seeks to examine what is meant by parliamentary expertise by focusing on one particular policy area -welfare. It will seek to determine the nature of parliamentary expertise on welfare in both Houses and suggests that in the field of welfare the Upper House may in fact be less expert than the House of Commons.

show abstract

Welfare policy under New Labour

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Whatever happened to compassionate Conservatism under the Coalition government?

Whatever happened to compassionate Conservatism under the Coalition government?

Power without Representation? The House of Lords and Social Policy

A Question of Expertise: the House of Lords and Welfare Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About