MPs' attitudes to welfare: a new consensus?

The post-war ‘consensus’ on welfare was based largely in the perceived agreement of leading politicians of Conservative and Labour parties on the role of the mixed economy and the welfare state. However, from the late 1970s economic and demographic pressures and ideological challenges, particularly from the New Right, led to cuts in spending on welfare, increased private involvement and an emphasis on more individualistic and selectivist approaches to provision. Recently some scholars have begun to discuss the emergence of a ‘new liberal consensus’ around welfare provision. Drawing upon interviews with ten per cent of the House of Commons, this article examines the extent to which a new political consensus upon welfare can be identified. In addition to analysing responses to questions upon welfare issues it considers the extent to which MPs themselves believe there to be some degree of consensus in approaches to welfare. It also considers whether any consensus exists merely in the political language used in relation to welfare issues, or whether there is a more substantive convergence

Safe as houses? Conservative social policy, public opinion and Parliament

Social policy is of key importance to contemporary society, accounting for two thirds of public expenditure and, through provision such as the NHS, pensions, benefits, schools, universities and social care, touching on the lives of much of the population on a daily basis. It has also been one of the areas where the Conservative party have sought to change their image, and to some extent policies, under David Cameron. Drawing upon a range of evidence, including interviews with more than ten per cent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, this article examines the potential challenges for a Conservative government of either stance, focusing on the extent of possible support for the Conservatives' approach to social policy amongst three key groups: the public, MPs, and members of the House of Lords

Scrutinising the secret state: parliamentary oversight of the intelligence and security agencies

This article considers the growing parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence and security agencies. It raises a number of questions about the role and effectiveness of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Parliament and parliamentarians

Good for the Conservatives, bad for the country: Four reasons why a snap election is a bad idea

Although there are clear benefits for the Conservative Party in holding a general election in 2017, the same does not go for the country, writes Andrew Defty. He explains why an election is unnecessary and how it may accelerate the break-up of the Union – all while deepening divisions over Brexit

Having security chiefs give evidence to Parliament isprogress, but future sessions must dig deeper

Last week was the first time that the heads of Britain’s security services have appeared in public in front of the newly reformed Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). Andrew Defty argues that although the session was in and of itself significant, in future the ISC members must exert a greater degree of scrutiny if the committee is to be an effective check on the security services

The delay in appointing a new Intelligence and Security Committee threatens to undermine its work before it has even begun

In February of this year, the then-Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) – the body which oversees the UK’s three main intelligence agencies – was caught in a journalistic sting operation. Since then, the ISC seems to have been inactive. It is now two months since the General Election and the Government (who take the lead in ISC membership nominations) have also been inactive in beginning the nomination process. Andrew Defty argues that the delay threatens to undermine the important work of the ISC at a critical time before it has even begun

If the Intelligence and Security Committee is to be an effective scrutineer, it must be able to rely on the accuracy of the information provided by the security services

Recent events at the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), the Parliamentary body tasked with holding MI5, MI6, and GCHQ to account, have shown the difficulty of knowing fully the activities of these organisations. Andrew Defty explores the possibility that representatives from GCHQ may have recently given a misleading impression to the ISC

A question of expertise: the House of Lords and welfare policy

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. Peers, it has been claimed, bring professional experience and expertise to the scrutiny of legislation, and have the time to maintain their expertise, in contrast to the Commons, where MPs, because of the demands of re-election and constituency business, are sometimes seen as being required to know a little about a wide range of subjects. Moreover, the presumed expertise of the Upper House has also been 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 this article seeks to examine what is meant by parliamentary expertise by focusing on one particular policy area – welfare. It seeks to explore 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