“…I highlighted the ways in which family policy under New Labour saw a shift from promoting 'the family' to 15 However, there are a number profound contradictions within the Coalition's family policy, and their support of same-sex marriage sits uneasily with rhetoric about the problems of 'fatherless families' (Cameron, 2011). 16 Although New Labour increased their spending on certain aspects of the welfare state, there was still a neoliberal agenda that sought to shift responsibility from the state to the private sector and to the individual (Barker and Lamble, 2009). New Labour's policy on welfare reform was clearly underpinned by a desire for 'economic efficiency' (Barlow and Duncan (2000a): 27), and cutting back on certain forms of 'bad welfare' (benefits) in order to reallocate resources to 'good welfare' (health and education) (Powell, 2000).…”
a b s t r a c tThis article explores the ways in which coupledom is promoted through contemporary family policy in the UK. It does this in the context of dominant political discourses suggesting that broken relationships are a major political problem and the cause of almost all that is wrong with British society today. The paper performs an analysis of recent family policies, revealing narratives claiming that stable coupled relationships are the foundation of a strong nation. The reverse of this narrative, therefore, is that to not be in-or even worse, to not even aspire to be in-a coupled relationship is not just a personal failure, but a failure for the nation as a whole. The article therefore argues that the UK government encourages a particular type of intimate relationship, despite an increasing recognition of 'diverse' family forms. Building upon Rich's notion of compulsory heterosexuality, the article concludes that what we are witnessing in current British society is not compulsory heterosexuality, but compulsory coupledom.
“…I highlighted the ways in which family policy under New Labour saw a shift from promoting 'the family' to 15 However, there are a number profound contradictions within the Coalition's family policy, and their support of same-sex marriage sits uneasily with rhetoric about the problems of 'fatherless families' (Cameron, 2011). 16 Although New Labour increased their spending on certain aspects of the welfare state, there was still a neoliberal agenda that sought to shift responsibility from the state to the private sector and to the individual (Barker and Lamble, 2009). New Labour's policy on welfare reform was clearly underpinned by a desire for 'economic efficiency' (Barlow and Duncan (2000a): 27), and cutting back on certain forms of 'bad welfare' (benefits) in order to reallocate resources to 'good welfare' (health and education) (Powell, 2000).…”
a b s t r a c tThis article explores the ways in which coupledom is promoted through contemporary family policy in the UK. It does this in the context of dominant political discourses suggesting that broken relationships are a major political problem and the cause of almost all that is wrong with British society today. The paper performs an analysis of recent family policies, revealing narratives claiming that stable coupled relationships are the foundation of a strong nation. The reverse of this narrative, therefore, is that to not be in-or even worse, to not even aspire to be in-a coupled relationship is not just a personal failure, but a failure for the nation as a whole. The article therefore argues that the UK government encourages a particular type of intimate relationship, despite an increasing recognition of 'diverse' family forms. Building upon Rich's notion of compulsory heterosexuality, the article concludes that what we are witnessing in current British society is not compulsory heterosexuality, but compulsory coupledom.
“…Indeed, Australian politicians from Abbott () onwards have often maligned the unemployed as “job snobs”. Barker and Lamble (:325; see also Fletcher et al. : 172; Watts & Fitzpatrick ) note, however, that the empirical evidence does not support this claim:[N]oncompliance often stems from circumstantial, rather than volitional, factors such as illness, confusion about obligations, transportation barriers, bullying, and inappropriate work or training requirements […] Other factors—such as child‐care demands, structural barriers to employment, addictions, disability, discrimination, physical and mental health—may be more relevant than ‘motivation’ or ‘willingness’ to seek work.…”
Compulsory Income Management (CIM) is a form of conditional welfare that involves the mandatory quarantining of a portion of welfare recipients’ social security payments. Quarantined funds are accessible via a government‐issued debit card, with restrictions surrounding where and on what funds can be spent. Official justifications of CIM have framed these policies as attempts to combat substance abuse and gambling problems, and to thus secure better outcomes for welfare recipients and their families. Central to this narrative has been the argument that welfare quarantining will ensure more money is spent on ‘essentials’, including accommodation. No existing studies, however, have specifically interrogated the impacts of CIM on housing security. This article responds to this gap in the literature by reviewing existing research concerning CIM's impacts and locating this research within broader debates regarding the causes of homelessness and the efficacy of individualised policy interventions. In doing so, it highlights CIM's potential to exacerbate housing insecurity not only through technical issues such as rental transfer failures, but also by contributing to underlying stressors such as economic disadvantage; relationship difficulties, poor health and addiction; and social stigma. The article concludes that – far from addressing the structural causes of homelessness – CIM has enflamed them.
“…It is not the purpose of this article to align with a traditionally 'left' or 'right' political perspective. However, this quote is useful in tracking how social justice policies have been gradually constructed in economic terms, under both New Labour and Conservative governments (Barker andLamble 2009, Grabham andSmith 2010).…”
Section: Neoliberalism and 'Economisation'mentioning
This paper uses ideas drawn from Wendy Brown's critique of neo-liberal approaches to governance, to argue that the 'economisation' of social policy such as welfare and legal aid and the family justice system, has resulted in an economic re-making of the ideas of justice, fairness and equality, which have traditionally underpinned these policies and the context of the family court. The paper will map the political context to the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO hereafter), in order to understand how it has been possible to justify the cuts to family law that were made under the statute. This will involve considering how attitudes towards social security and welfare have changed, and how a waning commitment to the original aims of the legal aid scheme has manifested in the specific context of family law. The paper will then explore the effects of this approach for the family justice system, specifically the post-LASPO family courtroom. Using recent case reports, the paper will argue that the family court is now 'dilemmatic', in that it is now caught between its traditional obligations of safeguarding fairness and equality, and the economic demands which constrain the ability of judges and court staff to ensure those obligations. Having considered the way in which legal aid policy and the family justice system have been approached through a solely economic lens, the paper will finally turn to examine how LASPO itself was justified in this neo-liberal context. It will be argued here that the re-made notions of justice, fairness and equality have been repurposed for economic aims, and that this is a symptom of a wider loss of commitment to the original substance of these principles. In understanding how traditional notions of justice have been redrawn in economic terms, this paper concludes by arguing that family lawyers, practitioners and academics operating in a post-LASPO context must explicitly reject the economic terms of value against which these notions are measured, if their arguments against the effects of these cuts are to be in any way effective.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
