Dr David Bates \u2013 Principal Lecturer in Politics and International Relations<\/b><\/p>\n
The emerging orthodoxy in the media \u2013 never really challenged by \u2018political scientists\u2019 – is that the Tory led coalition has lost the ability to ensure the delivery of its policies. The relationship between civil servants and elected members of the government is \u2018dysfunctional\u2019.\u00a0 Some may take solace in this \u2018dysfunctionality\u2019; telling themselves \u2018at least these ideologically driven hard line neo-liberal policies are unlikely to be translated into practice\u2019. They point to those much reported \u2018U-turns\u2019 on the part of Ministers \u2013 from Health to Education \u2013 where highly controversial policies have (so it would initially seem) been placed on the backburner.\u00a0\u00a0 (Of course, Nick Clegg \u2013 at least from what he said in his speech to his party conference \u2013 wish to claim credit for acting as a break to such policies!)<\/p>\n
As practitioners of ideological critique know only too well, we need to invert the dominant problematic. The \u2018chaos\u2019 is only apparent; or to put it another way, the chaos is precisely the point. The Government was well aware of the turmoil that was likely to result from the \u2018bedroom tax\u2019. They are not at all concerned that \u2013 particularly in more marginalised Labour constituencies \u2013 we are witnessing an exponential growth in food bank provision. (Michael Gove <\/a>of course remarked that those using food banks are feckless \u2013 should they not have made more of an effort to \u2018save\u2019 in the good times?)<\/p>\n Those to the right of the Conservative Party on economic issues are more effectively represented in Government than even in the days of Mrs Thatcher. They are supported by a group of Liberal Democrat Ministers who would not have looked out of place in the administration of Mr Gladstone. (See David Law\u2019s chapter in the influential Orange Book<\/i><\/a>, if you think this claim is too strong! For Laws, the social liberalism of the 1906 Liberal Government \u2013 which ushered in unemployment insurance and old age pensions – was profoundly mistaken.)<\/p>\n The focus of these neo-liberals is not the effective and smooth delivery of policy; rather, they are concerned to bring about a fundamental shift in the distributive structure of the current regime of capital accumulation. Apparently, not long before Mrs Thatcher died, she remarked that the Tory led coalition had not yet made \u2018enough enemies\u2019. Mrs Thatcher in her prime would never have demonstrated such a lack of understanding. The hegemonic project in which she played such a dominant role achieved one of its fundamental objectives \u2013 to instil the belief that there is \u2018no alternative\u2019. \u00a0So, it is to be expected that there will be very little resistance. \u00a0\u00a0And any attempt to articulate an alternative discourse of \u2018fairness\u2019 is equally doomed to failure.<\/p>\n The so-called chaos of current policy \u2013 particularly in the arena of welfare reform \u2013 is better understood as a coordinated attack on welfare recipients. The \u2018social insecurity\u2019 which results further undermines the possibility that an effective agency of resistance will result. Some individuals (and families) will go to the wall. Others \u2013 at least those \u2018able\u2019 to do so \u2013 will enter highly unstable sectors of the labour market \u2013 where their vulnerability will be only too pleasing for their employers.<\/p>\n