Compare the Social Democratic and New Right Approaches to theWelfare State and the Social Policies, which flow from either perspective

Authors Avatar

Perspectives On Welfare                

Compare the Social Democratic and New Right Approaches to the

 Welfare State and the Social Policies, which flow from either perspective

In 1945 Clement Atlee and the Labour Party defeated Winston Churchill’s Conservative Party in the General Election. Atlee announced he would introduce the Welfare State outlined in the 1942 Beveridge Report with free medical treatment for all. A national system of benefits was also introduced to provide ‘social security’ so that the population would be protected from the ‘cradle to grave’. The new system was partly built on the National Insurance Scheme set up by Lloyd George in 1911, ().

After the Second World War the British public wanted more than anything to avoid the unemployment of the 1930s. They remembered how difficult life had been then. They were looking forward to a brighter future after the war, where starvation and poverty were eliminated. During the Second World War, the government had asked Sir William Beveridge and a group of experts to examine living standards in Britain, including poverty, education, employment, health and housing. The new Labour Government decided to follow the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, so they set up a Welfare State, ().

The Labour Party were very proud of the welfare state, they implemented social policies to help them establish the welfare state, which main concern was getting rid of the five giants: want, disease, idleness, squalor and ignorance.

“We are proud of the great structure of social welfare legislation which has been implemented by the Labour Government, but at the same time we must guard against complacency, as there is still much to be done. The five giants have been subdued. But the battle freedom from the want is not yet over. There is still much avoidable distress, for which social action and social effort are needed,” (From The Welfare State (The Labour Party, 1952) cited in Sullivan, 1996).

 Yet, many argued that large sections of the state education, health, social work, housing and other services should be ‘reduced or changed to private, voluntary, tender, voucher, mutual aid, co-operative or subscription services,’ (Anderson et al 1981). According to Denham, Anderson argued that:

“The urgent need [to reduce] public expenditure combined with the ever present obligation to monitor services which cost so much and affect so many people means that the welfare state is overdue for sustained scrutiny,” (Denham, A. cities Anderson, D. 1996:63)

Denham believed those wishing to subject the welfare state to ‘sustained scrutiny’ should concentrate their efforts on the carefully and thoughtful developments of a policy to reduce such services, (Denham, A. 1996:63).

Join now!

“If there is to be less government and …less nationalized welfare, health and education, there has to be a policy for their reduction. That means a thoughtful respect for the content and customers of welfare, education and health services. It also means thinking about the types of criticism that will be effective and those, which could be ignored or neutralized. If the welfare state is a source of employment and remuneration to millions of teachers, social workers, academics et al, then it will not be amused by incisive criticism. It will respond to it by argument and evidence but ...

This is a preview of the whole essay