Introduction

The experience of Britain's Labour government since 1997 illustrates that social democracy can mean different things at different times even when it is the same government that is in office. The reform project of the Labour government, as one might perceive it in 2005, is not the project that one might have expected to see given the language and policies that Labour emphasised at the time of its 1997 election victory.

Of course, all governments’ programmes evolve during their period of office. This is inevitable and desirable as governments react to emerging circumstances, pressures and occasionally crises, and as they learn from experience. However, the development of an effective discourse in social policy relies heavily on the electorate and other policy and political actors understanding that there is a clear and consistent answer to the basic question: what is this government about? A government's basic narrative has to resonate with the public and other actors or else people will become cynical and mistrustful as they perceive that government as opportunistic and lacking in clear principles. The key question this chapter seeks to address is: has the Labour government since 1997 had a consistent story to tell about what it stands for in relation to key areas of social policy? We address this question by first outlining very briefly the nature of public discourse in the UK, and more specifically under New Labour since 1997. We then examine how this discourse has been played out in welfare policy. We also look briefly at pensions and health policy. The substance of the debates in each of these areas is necessarily complex and what can be attempted here is only a sketch of how the discourse in these areas has evolved, so as to cast light on how Labour has governed since 1997.

The UK has often been identified as a country with a ‘simple polity’ where government has the ability to impose change, subject to the sanction of periodic general elections. The term ‘elective dictatorship’ was coined by Lord Hailsham, an Opposition Conservative politician, in the late 1970s to describe a form of government where a ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system, combined with a relatively powerful executive and weak legislature, appeared to give the incumbent government significant power to put its policy agenda into practice.