British Social Policy


 


Introduction


            Today’s British social policies are steered by the New Labour Party.  It turns out, however, that its policies in general are product of what is known as the “Third Way”.  It is neither the Conservative or the Thatcherite way nor the Labour Party way, but a blend of what is best in these two worlds. 


            This essay seeks to meet three objectives.  First, it is to expose a comparison of approaches to social policy between a Thatcherite leaning and the New Labour Party.  Secondly, it is to state the rationale behind and the ways by which the New Labour acted on reforming the policy on pension and benefits.  And lastly, it is to analyze the extent and impact of market forces on the National Health Service for the previous two decades from today; and subsequently, it is to describe and account for the primary change(s) in social policy on the elderly people. 


 


Thatcherism on Social Policy


“What we need now is a far greater degree of personal responsibility and decision, far more independence from the government, and a comparative reduction in the role of government.” 


- Margaret Thatcher (cited in ‘’ 1992)


 


            Generally speaking, a Thatcherite approach is one of a free market economy, monetarist economic policy, and privatization of state-owned industries, low direct taxation yet higher indirect taxation at the same time, anti-trade unions, nationalism, and centralism.  It ensures the “size” of the Welfare State as well as the local government (‘’ 2006).  In effect, the backdrop of policies in a Thatcherite leaning strictly paints a liberalist world.  Aside from economic ones, it is likewise manifested in other aspects, i.e. political and social policies.  Take a look at its counterpart — New Labour. 


 


New Labour on Social Policy


“Individuals prosper best within a strong, active society, whose members acknowledge that they owe duties to each other as well as themselves.”


- Tony Blair (cited in


 


            The New Labour Party has recognized the fact that British society is living in an environment whereby a heightened social exclusion exists.  As such, society, community, and inclusion constitute the heart of its policies ( &  2002).  Social exclusion is a condition whereby certain groups are marginalized and thereby putting them in a disadvantage position.  The term “inclusion” means a condition by which one belongs to the society economically and socially.  The stress of which is on the privilege and obligations of citizens (cited in  &  2002).  Contrary to the Thatcherite approach, New Labour resolves economic hitches not in sole economic perspective, but incorporates social justice. 


            According to  &  (2002), the approach in social policy of the New Labour is such that it encourages citizens to be active individuals of the state.  It is presumed that the “active citizen” has a “moral” obligation to edify people on “the rights and wrongs of being a citizen of the state or member of a local community”.  Policies are thus directed not only on the role of the government or the State, but also on the people, of/by/for whom the government serves.  The strategy of the New Labour is social solidarity for economic progress.  It campaigns for the coming of “morally empowered individuals” who will communally act hand in hand to hit the objective of an “economically vibrant nation” ( &  2001). 


            Interestingly, New Labour now is traversing the path of British governance in a “Third Way” vehicle.  It promotes social justice hand in hand with the economic environment.  The succeeding paragraphs reveal how. 


 


Social Policy on Benefits and Pension Reform


            According to  (2004), there are three tiers on the British government’s policy on pensions and pensioners.  One is that it has only led individuals to work longer, since the compulsory age of retirement has been abolished.  One will even get financial incentives for doing so.  Secondly, it has only made the pensioners to depend further on the benefit system.  Lastly, expect a refusal from the government to considerably increase state pension, since it is correlated with inflation and not earnings.  Pensioners therefore can no longer just sit and depend on the benefits or pensions that they receive from the Welfare state.  To imagine vividly,


“In the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, for instance, the government requires stakeholder pension funds to be established within existing trust law and run by a board of trustees while allowing for other governance structures to be approved in the future. Stakeholder pensions should promote an inclusive community based on partnership. Hence, the fund must accept low minimum contributions and allow members to stop and restart contributions without any penalty. Such regulations will ensure that everyone can join a fund. People in low-paid, part-time, or irregular work–many of whom are excluded from the existing schemes–should have improved opportunities to save for retirement” (cited in  &  2001). 


             


            The New Labour envisions a state that acts as an “enabler” and a “partner” of the state with regards to the public sector.  It believes that lofty levels of public spending are detrimental to the economy, contending, “The welfare state encourages a culture of dependency among an underclass of welfare recipients”.  By way of doing so, the government is tasked to aid job seekers, create work pay, and support those who are unable to work.  In return, individuals are tasked to seek training or work, utilize opportunities, be self-sufficient, save for retirement and do away with welfare hoax.  All of which are directed of making these individuals to recognize “their full potential”, encouraging economic independence, and creating a solid society ( &  2001).  Because of the need to sustain the market by way of agency (borrowing from ) among its citizens is the simplest statement that justifies the state’s revision of its social policy on pensions and benefits. 


 


Market Forces on National Health Service


            According to  (2000), United Kingdom has been the initiator of privatization policy on a large scale even up to the public sphere.  It has even made use of the private sector’s strategies in public administration.  In an interview with Dr. , its privatization has taken place in 1979, during which Thatcher is in power.  Management is said to have been transferred to managers who are not health professionals.  In the 1980s cleaning, catering and laundry staff have been put into a “competitive tendering”, as a way out of the low paid staff.  Come the ‘90s, there has been the Private Finance Initiative, which brings in a new face of private ownership of hospital capital — buildings and land.  Now with a universal healthcare, the risks are compacted in order for individual providers, patients, or service to suffer the risk and cost of catastrophic treatments, as well as a clear demarcation line between clinical decision-making and funding.  To quote,


“The market doesn’t like that.  It likes to segment the risk pool into winners and losers so that it can cherry pick.  It wants to take the profits from the low-cost treatments and healthy patients” ( 2004). 


 


            Another is the issue of demand in the National Health Service.  According to  (1995), from simply being a health care system, it has become a “demand driven system organized on the principles of (quasi-) market competition and quality assurance”.  The rationale of which is said to be that consumers or patients are being “empowered”, at the same time the health professionals are acting as agents of an “effective and efficient system of hospital management”. 


 


New Labour’s National Childcare Strategy


            For one, childcare provision is one policy that is missing in the United Kingdom.  New Labour has given birth to it in such a way that its approach is a market-led one.  In this policy, the state acts as the “partner” of the private and voluntary sectors.  The state controls indirectly public goods.  It does not provide.  The state allocates public goods — childcare, education, and training — in buttressing a greater chance for equality ( 2005). 


            In essence, for the past years, social policies on childcare would only concentrate on providing a public good, i.e. childcare to the parents, specifically the mothers.  With this childcare policy introduced by New Labour, childcare provision is incorporated with the market environment.  Verily indeed, the state acts as a partner, with encouraging private firms to take part in this public good.  Social policies do not merely focus on solving a specific social problem.  Rather and simultaneously, they are to promote better economic conditions. 


 


Conclusion


            Undoubtedly, Thatcherite approach in social policy making still reverberates despite the New Labour taking the lead.  Likewise, New Labour still advocates social justice and ensures its social policies to mirror it.  However, it has been found out that current social policies regarding pension and childcare are produced out of a combination of both approaches.  The pensioners are legitimately being coerced to fix the government’s expenditures burden.  The State resolves childcare in the light of privatization, a major shift for the past 2 decades.  British social policies in accordance with the Third Way prove the ideal and the best way out, as they hit two social problems with a singe stone. 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Bibliography:


 


Journals:


 


Internet:


 


 


Magazine:


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top