Moral Argument and the Justification of Policy:New Labour’s Case for Welfare Reform

This article proposes a framework for exploring how politicians use moral arguments to win support for their policies. It proceeds from the premise that the formulation of such arguments is mediated by three factors that constitute a general context of justification - ‘ideology,’ ‘argumentation’ and ‘hegemonic competition.’ For analytical purposes, the framework reconstructs the process of justification as one in which argumentative strategies are selected, modified and utilised in the light of these factors. The framework is applied to New Labour’s case for the New Deals and Flexible New Deal. The analysis reveals that these initiatives and the moral arguments used to promote them are broadly consistent with New Labour’s ideology; the arguments are appropriate to the policies; and that New Labour succeeded in setting the agenda on welfare reform

Nudging into subjectification: Governmentality and psychometrics

The current age of ‘austerity’ is associated with neoliberal ideology. Neoliberalism can be understood as a form of governmentality – a way of reconfiguring selves and the social order in accord with the demands of market economies. A recent UK policy initiative by the Coalition government’s Behavioural Insights Team required benefit claimants to submit to online psychometric testing. We examine this policy in some detail, arguing that this use of psychometric testing is flawed, unethical, and unlikely to help claimants to find work. Our analysis of the test procedure and its results suggests that the policy functions primarily as a means whereby benefit claimants can be ‘nudged’ towards acceptance of the precepts of neoliberal subjectivities

Who can go back to work when the COVID-19 pandemic remits?

This paper seeks to determine which workers affected by lockdown measures can return to work when a government decides to apply lockdown exit strategies. This system, which we call Sequential Selective Multidimensional Decision (SSMD), involves deciding sequentially, by geographical areas, sectors of activity, age groups and immunity, which workers can return to work at a given time according to the epidemiological criteria of the country as well as that of a group of reference countries, used as a benchmark, that have suffered a lower level of lockdown de-escalation strategies. We apply SSMD to Spain, based on affiliation to the Social Security system prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and conclude that 98.37% of the population could be affected. The proposed system makes it possible to accurately identify the target population for serological IgG antibody tests in the work field, as well as those affected by special income replacement measures due to lockdown being maintained over a longer period

Defending probation: Beyond privatisation and security

The current debate about the privatisation of probation in the UK has tended to set up a false dichotomy between state and private that diverts attention from the fact that privatisation as part of a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ intends, in fact, to continue the domination of the risk management approach. What is emerging is a public–private combination of increasingly centralised public sector probation and the private ‘security-industrial complex’ of global security corporations. An important consequence of this process is the annihilation of both residual elements of voluntary sector and community work within probation itself and of the smaller private charities and third sector organisations that have long collaborated with probation in traditional desistance work. This complex dynamic is a reflection of some of the key internal inconsistencies of neoliberalism as a political strategy