The Conservatives, the Coalition and welfare reform: attitudes to social policy amongst newly elected MPs

The 2010 general election, which led to the establishment of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, also saw the largest turnover of MPs since the Second World War, with the election of 227 new MPs, thirty-five per cent of the House of Commons. Focusing primarily on the Conservative Party, although also looking more broadly across the House, this paper examines attitudes to social policy amongst the newly elected MPs. Drawing on interviews with an eventual sample of ten per cent of newly elected MPs, it examines their attitudes towards the role of the state in social policy, and the extent of parliamentary support for reform, within the Conservative Party, their Coalition partners, and across the House of Commons. The paper also draws upon earlier research by the authors, which examined MPs’ attitudes to social policy during the 2005-2010 parliament, to provide some comparative data on attitudes in the previous parliament, including, for example, whether there is any significant difference between MPs elected in 2010 and their longer serving colleagues

Attitudes to welfare amongst newly elected MPs

The 2010 general election which led to the establishment of the first coalition government at Westminster for over sixty years, also saw the largest turnover of MPs since the Second World War with the election of 227 new MPs, thirty-five per cent of the House of Commons. This paper examines attitudes to welfare amongst the newly elected MPs and provides some comparative data on attitudes to welfare in the previous parliament. Drawing on interviews with a target sample of ten per cent of newly elected MPs, it examines MPs’ attitudes towards the role of the state in welfare and the extent of parliamentary support for welfare reform, both within the Coalition parties and across the House of Commons. The paper also draws upon earlier research by the authors which examined MPs’ attitudes to welfare during the 2005-2010 parliament. That research suggested that in the previous parliament there was evidence of some cross-party consensus in MPs’ attitudes to welfare, with a general convergence around the idea of more selective and targeted approach to welfare provision, and support for a mixture of public and private provision. However, it also revealed that the attitudes of MPs first elected in 2005 were somewhat more polarised than among their longer serving colleagues. This paper will seek to determine whether the attitudes of the, much larger, intake of the 2010 election are more or less polarised, and what impact this might have on the government’s welfare reform agenda and beyond

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

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

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

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

They’re making a list: the inexorable rise of the special political adviser

The government has released its annual data on the number of special advisers it employs. Andrew Defty assesses the figures and discusses how the numbers have grown over successive governments

The government’s refusal to release the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into Russian activities against the UK is part of a worrying pattern of obstruction and delay

Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee has produced a report into Russian interference in UK politics, but it cannot be published without government approval. Andrew Defty explains that Number 10’s failure to release the report before Parliament was dissolved is the latest in a series of government actions that have hindered effective parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence and security services. Reform to ensure the committee has greater independence from executive obstruction should be considered in the next Parliament