This chapter reflects on reasons for neoliberalism’s surprising resiliency in the post-financial crisis period, such as its deep institutionalisation at both the national and international levels and the absence of major hegemonic rivals. It also considers whether Brexit and Corbynism might, at long last, spell the end of the neoliberal experiment in British politics.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Over the past few decades, the legitimacy of membership-based social movement organizations (SMOs) has been called into question (Bosso, 2005; Jordan and Maloney, 1997, 2007; Putnam, 2000). As professionally-run institutions, SMOs have been accused of a preoccupation with maintaining income through membership marketing at the expense of fostering active participation among their members. In a nutshell, SMOs are seen to be self-serving ‘protest businesses’ which contribute little to social movement activism, and civic engagement in general. Our research into student members of a leading SMO takes issue with this assertion. Whilst organizationally SMOs can appear bureaucratic and impersonal in their marketing strategies, it cannot be assumed that this approach is only capable of attracting passive ‘chequebook activists’. Our findings suggest that younger members feel a sense of loyalty and trust towards the SMO as an effective ‘brand leader’ in its field, though this is by no means unrelenting. As reflexive consumers of activism, members have also grown more accustomed to the flexibilities of emerging post-bureaucratic ‘DIY’ activist groups. In sum, SMOs would benefit from a stronger and more consistent ‘feedback loop’ between the organization and its younger and more active members, as this will help provide scope for greater innovation whilst resisting tendencies towards self-serving ‘bureaucratized activism’.

Political parties were at the heart of the traditional narrative of British democracy. But parties as agents of political mobilisation are in decline. By contrast, membership of political pressure groups and social movement organisations has grown considerably. This shift in political activism is considered by some, but by no means all, to offer a radical alternative narrative of democratic participation. This article examines the organisational changes taking place behind this shift; and explores the extent to which more traditional models of political agency can be reformed in ways that supports and sustains the political activism at the core of a healthy democratic society.

Welfare reform was at the heart of New Labour politics in the 1990s. It was also a significant aspect of David Cameron's bid for electoral success after 2005. The Liberal Democrats too made reform of the tax and benefit system, in particular for those on low incomes, part of their political pitch on the liberal left. Welfare reform was — and still is — unfinished business for British politics and policy-making. Despite a strong economic performance under the Labour Government after 1997, which saw near full employment, underlying rates of economic inactivity remained stuck at around one fifth of the working-age population. The recession that hit Britain in 2008 heaped unemployment on these already high levels of 'welfare dependency'. If welfare reform proved tough-going in an era of 'non-inflationary consistent expansion', it will be even harder in the 'age of austerity'. So, where is the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition taking welfare reform? Are we seeing a break with previous Labour policies or more of the same? Where do the Coalition's policies stand from a more international and comparative perspective? And does the Coalition Government offer the chance to establish the long-term settlement that welfare in the UK so desperately needs?

In July 2008, the Conservative leader David Cameron made a speech launching his party’s campaign in the Glasgow East by-election. The theme of the speech was ‘the broken society’: ‘the social breakdown you see here [in Glasgow Gallowgate] is just an extreme version of what you can see everywhere’, the Conservative leader said (Cameron, 2008f). British society was broken. The Labour government was to blame;and the Tories were just the party to fix it. A year earlier, Cameron had first talked in these terms ahead of the report from the party’s Social Justice Policy Group, one of a series of policy groups established by the new Tory leader. Cameron gave welfare reform to former party leader Iain Duncan Smith and his Centre for Social Justice. Under Duncan Smith between September 2001 and October 2003, the Tories had failed to make any headway in the polls, despite his attempts to find a more compassionate side to modern British conservatism. Now, under Cameron, the idea of the ‘broken society’ was being used to help to dispel the impression that the Conservative Party, by its own admission, was the ‘nasty party’ of British politics.

Abstract Within the contemporary context of networked political activism, a global civil society and individualized forms of public participation, this paper assesses the challenges these pose to established membership-basedsoci al movement organizations. Much of the existing literature focuses on the transition from traditional hierarchical structures towards fluid networks of political activism This paper offers a more reflexive approach in considering how changing repertoires ofpolitical activism impact upon issues of membership,and participation among,membership-based social movements.

Welfare reform has been central to 'New Labour' politics since the mid-1990s. In government, Labour can, with some justification, take credit for getting Britain working and cutting poverty. But while employment continued to rise after 1997, rates of economic inactivity remained much the same. And since 2005, the battle against poverty has stalled. This article assesses the Brown government's plans to reform the welfare state. These plans are leading to fresh political tensions within the Labour Party as the government seeks to extend its 'employment first' welfare policies by getting tougher on entitlements and extending the role of the private sector in delivering welfare-to-work. With the economic outlook deteriorating, and public spending under tighter reign, the outlook for Labour's reforms looks uncertain. The buoyant labour market that sustained the government's welfare-to-work programme - but which did little for the underlying rate of economic inactivity - has gone. After 10 years of government, welfare reform is unfinished business for Labour under Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Social policy was always likely to make headlines for the Labour Party once it got into power in 1997. It had the potential to touch many raw political nerves. And with social policy defining so much of what was new about New Labour, the government’s policies on welfare to work, education and the National Health Service, in particular, would be critical political battlegrounds for the party modernizers led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. As it turned out, social policy would also prove a key battleground between Blair and Brown over the next ten years.

This article explores Labour’s record on poverty and social justice since 1997. Poverty rates have fallen, but not for everyone on low incomes. And while fiscal policy has introduced a greater egalitarianism into public policy, British society remains as divided by income as it was when Labour took office. Critics continue to argue that more must be done to narrow the gap between rich and poor in the name of social justice. But the government’s record reflects the balance of priorities between a market-led strategy for growth and welfare policies for social justice in New Labour’s post-Thatcherite social democratic politics.

Social Policy & AdministrationVolume 41, Issue 7 p. 793-794 Creating Citizen-Consumers: Changing Publics and Changing Public Services - By John Clarke, Janet Newman, Nick Smith, Elizabeth Vidler and Louise Westmarland Stephen Driver, Stephen DriverSearch for more papers by this author Stephen Driver, Stephen DriverSearch for more papers by this author First published: 19 November 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.585_4.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume41, Issue7December 2007Pages 793-794 RelatedInformation

Social Policy & AdministrationVolume 40, Issue 3 p. 330-333 The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour by Ruth Levitas and Not so New Labour: A Sociological Critique of New Labour's Policy and Practice by Simon Prideaux Stephen Driver, Stephen DriverSearch for more papers by this author Stephen Driver, Stephen DriverSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 May 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2006.492_5.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume40, Issue3June 2006Pages 330-333 RelatedInformation

This paper examines parent participation in local Sure Start partnerships within the broader context of public involvement in policy-making processes. Public participation is set against a background where an emphasis on participatory democracy is seen as a solution to shortcomings identified with policy-making and implementation. However, the meaning of public participation is by no means straightforward and gives rise to problems at several levels. Many of these problems emanate from concerns with power and legitimation. While these concerns highlight important aspects of public participation in public and social administration, this paper, drawing on Foucault's concept of "pastoral power", examines whether public participation is better viewed as a predictable part of governance in modern Western democracies where subjects need to be recruited to exercise power over themselves.

In this important new book, Stephen Driver and Luke Martell examine how the Blair government is re-shaping Britain, Britain's place in Europe and British social democracy. This timely study of Labour's first term in power for two decades challenges the view that New Labour has thrown in the towel to Thatcherite neo-liberalism. Driver and Martell argue that Tony Blair's government has in fact taken politics and policy-making beyond Thatcherism. But they also cast doubt on some of the social democratic claims of Labour modernizers. While Labour's stunning election victories in 1997 and 2001 have given the Blair government an unprecedented opportunity to shape the political and policy landscape in Labour's image, Blair's Britain continues to bear the imprint of eighteen years of radical Conservative government.

New Labour has put support for the family at the core of its notion of the “strong community”. Across a range of policy areas the Labour government can be seen to be developing a direct and explicit family policy. But what kind of community is the government trying to shape by these policies? On the one hand, Labour appears to support the family as the basis of a more moral, dutiful and cohesive community. On the other hand, the government has given weight to policies that support social inclusion in the community through paid work. This paper examines whether there is a tension in Labour’s social policies between its emphasis on the importance of stable family life and the primacy given to paid work. Are critics like Ruth Levitas right when they argue that the government’s emphasis on paid work devalues, and is unsupportive of, unpaid work, especially caring for children and other family members? Alternatively, can this combination of communitarianisms—community as “stable family” and community as “paid work”—be seen to be marking out some “third way” on the family? We shall show that different aspects of the government’s family policies reflect different perspectives and policy agendas within New Labour and third‐way thinking more broadly. And while recognizing the tensions between work and the family, we shall suggest that they are often overstated and fail to give sufficient weight to the complementary aspects of Labour’s welfare reforms.