Introduction

Existing verdicts give a mixed but generally positive evaluation on NewLabour’s welfare reforms. On the one hand, Rawnsley (2001, p 382)writes that the five promises of the pledge card, supposedly easy and early,had proved difficult and slow to deliver. A generally negative verdict isgiven in Critical Social Policy (2001). On the other hand,Toynbee and Walker (2001, p 7) claim that the five pledges have “alljust about been realised, without too much equivocation”. Theyconclude that “things did get better” (2001, p 240). Accordingto Rawnsley (2001, pp 382-3), the achievement is “quiteconsiderable”. He continues that, compared with many governments,this was well above average record. By the measure of the expectationsaroused by the size of the majority, New Labour’s transformatoryrhetoric and the ambitions that Blair had trumpeted, his government lookedless impressive. The vital and virtually unquantifiable issue is clearlyindividual expectations. As Philip Gould put it, “If I’d havegone to a focus group on April 29th 1997 and said this Labour government isgoing to run the economy more competently than any other, it’s goingto invest unprecedented amounts in public services plus it will create amillion jobs plus it will lift a million people out of poverty, they wouldhave thought I was mad. It was difficult enough getting them to believe ourfive pledges. They would have called me a Martian!” (inRawnsley, 2001, p 383). Glennerster (2001) gives New Labour’s socialpolicy an ‘alpha minus’: alpha for the strategy, gamma forpresentation, beta for some of the detail. Summarising the contributions tohis edited text, Seldon (2001) points to major change in ‘selectiveuniversality in welfare’, public expenditure (from 1999-2000),constitutional reform and devolution, primary education and employment. Heviews ‘some change’ in secondary education, local government,criminal policy, family policy, higher education and health. Finally, hesees continuity in a flexible labour market and public expenditure (until1999/2000). Similarly, he categorises some areas such as constitutionalreform, and some redistribution of income and reduction of poverty, as‘positive policy’. However, the exaggerated promises, thetwo-year spending freeze and the obsession with meeting‘targets’ is viewed as ‘poor or indifferent’policy. On the whole, Seldon regards the net record as positive.