Changing Contexts of Social Policy in UK
The conservative led government is made up of a coalition of parties that came into formation in the 1980, this coalition’ s policies strongly believe in support, freedoms and responsibility within the United Kingdom Society. The New rights on the other hand, is a political and academic approach to understanding the society and emphasizes on stopping the government from supporting individuals who choose not to work and earn income (Hayes & William, 1999, n.p)
In this governance system, policies regarding most social settings such as the family are considered with much weight. Ideally, the family concerns in the current government have illuminated disparities and similarities in comparison to the previous new right government’s approach to the family concerns. In the conservative coalition, it is believed that family stability is core to a stable society. In respect to this; the government has well laid strategies geared towards the protection of the family basic rights as well as against various other social malpractices. The various ideologies of this coalition government are positive about family (Corden A., 2000, n.p).
The government supports the creation or formation of families and promotes shared parenting from the earliest stages of the family make up. It also encourages a system of supple parental leaves from work for the working parents. In its provisions, this coalition government has comprehensive laws that improves on the use of mediation services in case of family breakup, and seek viable means of providing greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents (Hayes & William, 1999, n.p). After the New labor government’s entry into power through election in the year 1997, there was change from a feministic government to a more individualistic government. In essence, the government had moved from the sole advocacy regarding the female rights to an all inclusive form considering the entire society with issues regarding employment, access to paid labor and the rights of forming autonomous households to women as well as men. The government is committed to ending child poverty by the year 2020 and supports the provision of free early childhood education as well as promoting the diverse provision of support with enormous gender balance in the early workforce (Harker, 2000, 173).
In the new rights government, focus was majored on morality and the return to the traditional and the social norms since in their opinion, there was breakdown in the social cohesion as a result of the declining moral values. In the previous new rights, it was the role of the family to train the children on differentiation of the wrong and the right and impart a sense of morality in the children at early ages. This governance form had clear and diverse ideologies over issues surrounding feminism and greatly disagreed with the rising rates of single parenting in the society. Unlike the coalition government that strived to prevent family breakup and at the same time view single parenting as an empowerment symbol for the female, the new rights view single motherhood as a moral decay in the society. In their argument, they reiterated that, mothers who rely entirely on the government support are largely responsible for undermining the values of society. In particular, they argue that children are harmed because there is no father to provide financial support and to help socialize the child into the normal values of society (Harker, 2000, 173).
The two governance forms both support the family development but differ in several other ideologies. The conservative coalition looks mostly on the growth and development of the family units while the previous new right government mainly focused on the moral point of view with regard to the family formations.
Corden A., 2000. Child support Policy Regimes in the US, Uk and other countries. Similar Issues Different Approaches Focus University of Wisconsin Institution of Research into poverty Vol.21 No 1
Harker, L., 2000. The provision of childcare: the shifting public/private boundaries. New Economy, September, 7, 3, 172-75 (4)
Hayes, M. & William, C., 1999. Family Law Principals Policy and Practice Butterworths