Background
to the
Research
- To understand the framing
of social policy issues in the 1997 General Election in NI, it is
necessary to understand the historical impact of the politics of conflict
and division on the development of and debates around, social policy
in NI. For this reason, the first introductory section and the next
historical background section within this chapter, provide an outline
of key dimensions of the relationship between the politics of conflict
and social policy in NI. The third and final section then focuses
on how social policy issues featured in the 1997 General Election
campaign.
Research
Approach
- The chapter is informed by the author's
scrutiny of party manifestos and media coverage of social policy issues
in the period running up to the May 1997 General Election. In addition
the author also provides a summary of the main features of the history
of social policy and its development in NI.
Main Findings
The Historical Development of Social
Policy in NI
- Three particular features of social policy
in NI have made the development of, and debates around, social policy
different than in Britain.
- First, during the 1920-72 period, Unionism
adopted a more residualist approach to social policy in NI than was
the case in Great Britain.
- Second, before and after the introduction
of Direct Rule, non-departmental bodies (NDPBs) or 'quangos' have
been more important in NI than in Britain, in delivering social policies
and in public provision.
- Third, the period following the introduction
of Direct Rule has involved the introduction of social policy initiatives
and which are directed at the politics of conflict, inequality and
'community relations'. These differ substantively and ideologically
from those in the rest of the UK.
- Since the introduction of Direct Rule local
politicians, who have only participated in local government, have
had little need or opportunity to engage with social policy other
than at a superficial level. Only a handful of NI politicians through
their participation as elected members of (the Westminster) Parliament,
have acquired significant experience of social policy.
Social Policy in the 1997 General Election
Campaign
- Journalistic analysis of parties and their
manifesto positions did not include discussion of parties' stances
on social policy issues at all. Constitutional questions dominated
regional coverage. However, there was some reported debate over social
policy issues in constituencies where the competition was between
candidates of similar constitutional orientation. Candidates used
social policy issues as a vehicle through which to remind the public
of the social class orientation of the other party.
- While media coverage of social policy
issues was slim, all but one of the parties' manifestos did cover
social policy issues. The one that did not was that of the Democratic
Unionist Party.
- A common orientation across the parties
was a desire to secure the largest possible share of UK public expenditure
for NI. However, there were important differences between the parties.
- The Ulster Unionist manifesto critiqued
the proportion of Gross Domestic Product spent on social security
payments, and how much these cost the UK taxpayer. The SDLP presented
social security as one arm of an overall strategy to tackle poverty
and promote social inclusion. The Sinn Fein policy position concentrated
on unemployment, employment and economic development issues.
- In terms of health care, the Ulster Unionist
Party argued that the National Health Service was experiencing three
problems: inadequate funding levels; an over elaborate system of administration,
and an inability to prioritise. The SDLP argued that there should
be a radical overhaul of the internal market.
- Equality and Social Inclusion: Sinn Fein
called for strengthened Fair Employment legislation whereas the SDLP
called for the setting of targets for improvements in equality and
strong implementation of Targeting Social Need (TSN) and Policy Appraisal
and Fair Treatment (PAFT), rather than the strengthening of the Fair
Employment legislation itself. The Ulster Unionists rejected any change
to Fair Employment, and did not mention TSN or PAFT at all.
Conclusions
- The approaches taken by the Ulster Unionists
to a variety of social policies - social security, economic and rural
development - would be likely to disproportionately benefit those
on middle and higher incomes.
- Both Sinn Fein and the SDLP advocate policies
to decrease social exclusion, though they differ in terms of the mechanisms
by which they believe this can be done.
- Although none of the NI parties have a
direct say in, or responsibility for, levels of taxation, it is not
the case that they are therefore identical in their approach to public
spending.
- Historical political concerns about the
demographic composition of NI, and therefore the constitutional persuasions
of the voting population, continue to influence approaches to social
policy, among some parties at least, as they did before the introduction
of Direct Rule, albeit in much less direct ways.
|