1. Public Policy in the UK – left, right and the third way
Cathy Gormley-Heenan
PUP508J2

2. Questions to consider What is the Third Way?
Is it a new definition of socialism?
How does it relate to neo-pluralist discussions?
What is involved in New Labour’s modernising agenda?
What impact does this have on developing and implementing public policy?

3. Introduction Departure from left-right politics to a new ‘Third Way’
Beyond both Old Labour and New Right – why?
Acceptance that battle between market and public sector was over
More than just UK – Germany and US also!
Critics argue that the ‘Third Way’ is imprecise and subject to a variety of interpretations.
Others argue that it lacks any ideological basis and progressives on the basis of ‘what works’.
A novel phase in British politics, since it heralded a departure from left-right politics towards a new ‘Third Way’. Coined by academic Anthony Giddens (head of LSE) – author of ‘The Third Way’.
Stood somewhere between Thatcherite cosenservatism (leaving the economy to the market) and post 1945 Labour (which relied heavily on nationalisation and running the economy through the state with its Keynesian policies).
Blair suggested that the battle between the market and the public sector was over, so the Third Way could allow for an increase in the role of the market when necessary/suitable.
For example, state assets could be sold off if they no longer served any purpose; private financing could be used to fund public projects if government monies were unavailable; commercial service providers could be introduced if it were more efficient than the public sector service provisions (CCT & then Best Value). Can you think of examples of this?
Not a unique concept to the UK, Germany and the US also began to talk about the ‘Third Way’.In September 1998, Clinton and Blair held a conference in New York to officially launch their new ideology. Both said they rejected the neo-liberal belief that everything can be left to the market, but also saw the traditional left-of-centre faith in state intervention in the economy as outdated.Blair and Schroder launched a joint paper on the ‘Third Way’ on the direction of economic and welfare policy in New Labour, the Third Way and UK welfare policy will be examined in detail later.
Critics argue that the ‘Third Way’ is imprecise and subject to a variety of interpretations.

4. What is the Third Way?
It is an argument about change and the need to respond to change
Old ideological positions are rejected and a new position embraced
What matters is what works
There is not less, but more, for the state to do
Both markets and the state must work in the public interest
Social inclusion means ensuring a decent life chance for all
There are mutual obligations between citizens, and between the state and its citizens
There is a political strategy here as well as a political theory
REF: Jones et al. Politics UK, 2004, pp
It is an argument about change and the need to respond to change ( for example globalization and mass higher education)
Old ideological positions are rejected and a new position embraced ( take the values system from the Old left and the need for a market economy from the New Right and marries them together).
There is not les, but more, for the state to do – for example partnerships between public and private sector require more regulation and attention than anything which may have preceded it.
Both markets and the state must work in the public interest – if market behaviour becomes anti-competitive then its needs to be subjective to corrective legislation and if public services are inefficient then they need to be reformed.
Social inclusion means ensuring a decent life chance for all ( not necessarily equality of outcome but rather equality of opportunity)
There are mutual obligations between citizens, and between the state and its citizens (its not just about duties (New Right) or rights (Old Labour) but about both. Welfare state system is a good example of this.
There is a political strategy here as well as a political theory (modernization strategy)

5. Third Way Approach to Public Policy
State working in partnership w private and voluntary sector (pluralism ?)
Government regulator and guarantor but not direct provider of public goods (Street level bureaucrats?)
‘Joined-up government’ developments (networks?)
Redrawing of ‘social contract’ – rights and responsibilities (rationalism?)

6. Positive Aspects Endorsement of a mixed economy of welfare services;
Partnership in policy planning and implementation.
Active promotion of equality of opportunity (as opposed to the old way of equality of outcome)
Belief in broader values of welfare spending as investment in ‘social capital’.   
‘Helping people to help themselves’.
‘Giving people a hand up not a hand out’.

7. Negative Aspects
Contradictory elements to it – endorses the market economy but points out that it can lead to social disintegration.
Not a centre-left project at all – more so it amounts to a shift to the right by endorsing global capitalism, backing tough law and order policies (Look at the current home office policies and examine this issue)

8. Modernising Government Policy
‘For Labour, good policy making is strategic, holistic, focused on outcomes and delivery, evidence based, inclusive (in the sense of taking account of the impact of policy on different groups) and, finally, based on clearly defined objectives’ (Richards & Smith, 2002; 241).
Policy making is: 'the process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes and actions to deliver ‘outcomes’ – desired changes in the real world’. (Modernising Government White Paper, 1999)

9. Modernising Government Policy
Minister without portfolio/Minister for the Cabinet created
Policy Unit created
Strategic Communications Unit created
Performance and Innovation Unit created
Increase in political appointments – ‘special advisors’
Reviews, task forces, advisory groups created
*NOTE ALL OF THE CHANGES ALREADY – Strategy Unit (2002), Delivery Unit (2001)
Policy was to be delivered through ‘joined up government’ – Ministers would have cross-cutting portfolios’ joined up budgets for things like drugs, child development, creation of bodies such as the Social Exclusion Unit with a cross departmental remit.
Creation of a Minister without Porfolio/Minister for the Cabinet – role is to assure co-ordination in government policy and act as 10 Downing St’s Chief of Staff in carrying out the implementation of cross departmental strategies.
Policy Unit created as a think tank within government, providing independent thinking across all policy areas.
Strategic Communications Unit created to present unified presentation of government policy across all departments.
Creation of Performance and Innovation Unit to report to Prime Minister on medium and long term public policy challenges that cross departmental boundaries.
Introduction of a significantly increased number of ‘special advisors’ (political appointments’ from 38 under Major to 78 under Blair in 2000.
Creation of reviews, task forces, and advisory groups (made up of representatives from public, private and community/voluntary sectors). Government is not adverse to brining in outsider expertise and does not respect old departmental boundaries. Indicates a more pluralistic approach to policy-making and les reliance on civil servants for advice.
The unit was set up in 2002, bringing together the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), the Prime Minister's Forward Strategy Unit (FSU), and parts of the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS).

10. Modernising Government Policy
Can conclude that an innovative approach to policy making has been adopted under New Labour as a consequence of re-organisation at the centre (with all of the various new depts.) and the introduction of ad hoc committees to deal with specific policy issues.
Can also conclude that such reforms have increased a lack con-ordination and control at the center. Too many power bases have now been created and traditional departments no longer know where to go to secure their own departmental goals. Traditionally networks for securing policy success have become blurred.

11. Criticisms thus far…
‘the Blair Government is sustaining the principles of parliamentary sovereignty, secrecy and elitism that underpin the core executive’ (Richards & Smith, 2002:250).
This contradicts with the governments constitutional reform agenda (eg devolution) which should increase pluralism through devolving power away from the centre.
Government plans for freedom of information also shows up many contradictions in terms of the policy process. ‘Your Right to Know’ vs Freedom of Information Bill  
‘the Blair Government is sustaining the principles of parliamentary sovereignty, secrecy and elitism that underpin the core executive’ (Richards & Smith, 2002:250). Remember what Mo Mowlam said about the Cabinet being dead and all of the criticism of a Presidential style leadership.
This contradicts with the governments constitutional reform agenda (eg devolution) which should increase pluralism through devolving power away from the centre.
Government plans for freedom of information also shows up many contradictions in terms of the policy process. On the one hand government acknowledges ‘Your Right to Know’ but on the other the Freedom of Information Bill excludes any documents relating to policy advice.
Problem – it is only through revealing the advice of ministers that the policy process can be effectively opened up.
Consequence – policy process will continue to be elitist and officials will not be held accountable for poor advice given, poor decisions taken.

12. Policy Problems for New Labour
Fuel protests 2000
Foot and Mouth Disease 2001
Railway Accidents
Controversy over public-private partnership
DEL Learning account fraud
Constitutional Reforms
THE SAME PUBLIC POLICY FAILURES THAT EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT HAS HAD!!!! Why?
Constitutional Reform problems –
Assymetrical devolution
Over proportional representation at Westminster by Scotland
Barnett formula left untouchedElectoral Refoorm – Jenkins Commission’s recommendations ignored AV+
House of Lords reform in flux because of lack of agreement over composition.
Abolition of Lord Chancellor – a huge issue!!!!

13. The Hare and the Muddle Approach
Hare pattern in policy making – an over excitable centralist system that, however, has faced substantial barriers in delivery given the ‘ungrounded statist’ nature of British public policy
Muddling through – suggest that policy making is unable to offer coherent policy planning or overarching policy programmes esp in relation to civil service
Martin Lodge paper, 2003
As in the case of Aespo’s fable, British policy-making is accused of over excited policy making that fails to complete the ‘policy race’ successfully.
Why> Absence of constitutional safeguards is seen as facilitating opportunities for hasty and unconsidered policy-making, inevitably leading to failure. One of the major downsides of strong government
Hare and muddle accounts both seem to imply policy failure either beacsue of too much centralised power or because of a lack of capacity for policy making.
Labour combines both hare and muddle approaches to policy maing. Public sector reform policies – developed in haste, but quickly forgotten, only to be replaced by further reform Initiatives.

14. Key Documents
See Policy Hub Publication list for extensive list of material relating directly to POLICY under New Labour
Better Policy Making CMPS, 2001)
Modernising Government White Paper (1999)