New Labour's Approach to Family Policy - Essay Example

Running Head: New Labours approach to family policy New Labours Approach to Family Policy of the appears here] of the appears here] New Labours approach to family policy Labour’s bid to become a party of family values has created many controversies. In June this year, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in an interview supported the idea of huge expansion of state intervention in family life as a method of stopping children from problem families drifting into harmful behaviour and criminal activities. Labour’s intension of intervening in family life can create a social crisis. According to New Labour’s policies, young people from the age of five should be branded as being at risk of turning out to be criminals under state’s plans to tackle chaos in the society. And thus the government would play a role in promoting marriage and encouraging fathers to spend more time with their families. Despite explanations, clarifications and justification, it is state intervention within the family. Jack Straw has stated that the government is “not about lecturing people about how they should live their lives”. Supporting Families, the manuscript of New Labour’s ideas is in fact a controversial document. It has created many contradictions. On the one hand it gives an impression that it believes in social reality, but on the other it says that case for promoting marriage as stable way of raising children. Interference is clearly seen. No doubt, the intension of Labour government by introducing family values is to cut crime and raise confidence of people that streets are secure. But, giving a licence to the state to intervene in family life can have adverse affects on the structure of the society. An efficient starting point to try and tackle this compound issue is looking at the changes in family structure in the recent past, and how some of the important elements that one associates with the family have changed in meaning. (Mitterauer 1982, 1-9) For instance, in the past thirty years marriage has undergone quite a radical transformation both in time and its meaning. Marriage, in the recent past was the first union and the concept of cohabitation was alien and immoral-the union of men and women was very much put under the pressures of religion and the expectations, norms and values of the people with whom they shared society. New Labour’s eagerness for intervention in family life as a method of improving the deeds of children will revive condemnation of Labour’s nanny state senses. The party’s misunderstanding echoes fundamental contradictions within capitalism, in particular the double role of the family. For a lot of people families are about personal relationships. However the family is also an institution which capitalism has relied upon for economic reasons. In modern day society, cohabitation has become gradually more common and marriage has become much less popular and occurring at a much later stages in peoples lives. The ever rising popularity of cohabitation can most notably be seen in Europe over the past six years. In a survey that was carried out among twenty five to thirty four year olds between 1998 and 2000, established that the percentage of cohabitating couples in Britain had risen by thirty per cent. One could say that the change is because of the general approach change to cohabitation that has occurred in the past thirty years- it no longer carries such an unattractive stigma and is perhaps now seen as more of a pre-cursor to marriage rather than an unapproved of style of living. However, with this said, if cohabitation is becoming increasingly more common then it is possible that it could become so common that it becomes indistinguishable from marriage, and in this case, what implications could this have for social policy? For example, almost every policy that it is formed assumes that couples are married. Housing and the ownership of property for example, could be an area of policy which could be seriously affected by this assumption. If you are married and your spouse becomes ill or dies suddenly, then the assets of the deceased are handed down to the next of kin-the wife or husband of the deceased. However, if there is no clearly defined next of kin, due to the choice of not marrying, then the procedure can become extremely complicated and can mean that spouses lose out on what was meant to be theirs. Health is another area of policy where the unclear definition roles can cause confusion, what with the expectations and duties of those having to perform caring roles (Harriet Harman 2002). Supporting Families, consultation document of New Labour plainly discloses these contradictions. The document believes that “women increasingly want to work and have careers as well as being mothers”. But in same breath, the thrust of New Labours Welfare to Work policy has been to get lone parents, the section of women least likely to work outside the home, into the workforce. In modern day Britain an apparent difference now exists and the rights of a husband and the rights of a cohabitating partner, though not vastly different, are clear defined. However, there is an area where the distinction between those who are married and those who are cohabitating is still quite unclear and is having quite a deep effect on the formation of policy. With the percentage of the births within cohabitating unions on the rise, the role and responsibility of the parents in the case of division is becoming increasingly complicated to define. According to Harriet Harman, it has handed power to men, for in the case of divorce; there is no legal obligation for them to pay child support or to give financial support to the mother. It is fairly evident that this is an area that needs addressing though it could be argued that the only way of doing this would be by enforcing some kind of legal contract in cohabitating unions, yet it can be argued that by doing this cohabitation and marriage turn out to be almost the same thing. (Pampel 1992, 524-46) Childcare strategy in the New Labour’s family policy in particular is a positive approach which will support families and permit women to preserve their economic sovereignty. The changes in fertility rates - how many children a woman would have a particular age – is also another area that is having a profound effect on policy. It has just been found that we are not meeting the ideal rate to replace the population-2.14. This is hence meaning that the number of young people in the population is decreasing and that the majority is vastly becoming those who are ageing or elderly. Because of this rise of elderly people in the population, a greater strain is being placed upon the welfare system to cater for their needs and demands. Though, in terms of sociology and the prosperity of the country, the greater threat lies in the fact that the population is being replaced and that policy is not being formed to fight this threat. Policy should act to ensure that the incentive to make a family remains high but also that it balances the individuals personal ambitions and family life equally. This particular point is extremely relevant to the next element of the discussion which is that of the changing roles and expectations of men and women. (Mitchell 1991, 61-70; Ditch 1995, 1-3) There has been noticeably increase in the empowerment of women during the last 30 years in Britain. Better education and employment opportunities after marriage and amongst mothers have meant a great shift in the roles and expectations of women in the context of the home has occurred. (Kuusi 1964, 31-33) The most visible of these changes can be seen in the decline in time spent on domestic work and general household maintenance, and the deficit in these areas is not being met by an increased effort from men. Another by-product of womens increased engagement with employment and training is that of a breakdown in the traditional and informal care system. Women no longer have the time to care for elderly relatives like they used to and thus the welfare system is having to provide care for them instead of the informal welfare system that used to. But, it has been argued that even though this a problem, womens empowerment has done more good than harm, what with it teaching children about self esteem, respect and independence that be gained from work and that "life is about work and not just claiming benefit"(Harriet Harman 2002). Yet, an on-going problem still remains. The welfare state was formed upon the “male breadwinner” model yet as one can noticeably see, it is not just males who are earning and consequently a crisis in provision is occurring. Should families with both parents working receive just as much welfare benefit as those families with only one parent working? Is the financial benefit reaped from only having both parents at work as much as having only one parent at work? Social policy must act to resolve this conflict and try and find a solution that encompasses both the upkeep of the informal welfare system and the aspirations of women. (Bradshaw 1995, 1-7) In conclusion, it can be said that state’s intervention in family life may be able to improve behaviour of young people, but at the same it can create a conflict between the state and the people. From the proof discussed one can see that changes that have happened within the family in Britain over the past thirty years have had a deep effect upon the formation and delivery of social policy. What the New Labour’s family policy misses is an understanding of social policy. Social policy is meant to "protect citizens against economic risk and poverty" and it was developed when family life was considerably different and gender roles were more defined and traditional. (Kahn 1983, 50-57; Castles 1993, 15-19) The construction of the family has changed that it is now almost impossible to try and still use the male bread winner model as foundation for creating social policy that affects the family. Though children may still be dependants of their fathers, women are not dependants of their husbands or partner. However, there is still evidence that there is a two tiered system when it comes to the provision of welfare for single men and women. Men receive employment related benefit yet single mothers are stigmatised for the benefit they receive is means and moral tested-it heavily depends upon how much the have and will contribute to the social security system. References Bradshaw J., et al. (1995). Social Assistance in OECD Countries. London: HMSO. Castles F., ed. (1993). Families and Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies. Brookfield, Vermont: Dartmouth Publishing Co. Ditch J., et al. (1995). A Synthesis of National Family Policies. York, England: University of York. Harriet Harman. (2002) Women with Attitude by Susan Vinnicombe, John Bank, foreword by Harriet Harman, 2002, Routledge Kahn A., and S. Kamerman ( 1983). Income Transfers for Families With Children: An Eight-Country Study. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kamerman S., and A. Kahn (1981). Child Care, Family Benefits, and Working Parents. New York: Columbia University Press. Kuusi P. ( 1964). Social Policy for the Sixties. Helsinki: Finnish Social Policy Association. Mitchell D. ( 1991). Income Transfers in the Welfare State. Brookfield, Vermont: Gower Publishing Co. Mitterauer M., and R. Sieder ( 1982). The European Family. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Pampel F., and J. Williamson ( 1988). "Welfare Spending in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1950-1980". American Journal of Sociology 93( 6): 1424-56. Pampel F., and P. Adams ( 1992). "The Effects of Demographic Change and Political Structures on Family Allowances". Social Service Review 66( 4): 524-46. Rainwater L., and T. Smeeding ( 1995). Doing Poorly: The Real Income of AmericanChildren in a Comparative Perspective Read More