This book investigates the role of MPs and peers in the making and scrutiny of welfare policy, drawing on an empirical analysis of welfare attitudes and parliamentary activity during Labour's second term of office. The book takes issue with two contemporary theories of policy change: the view that there is a consensus for centre-right welfare approaches; and the view that parliamentary influence over policy formulation is waning.

In considering claims of a ‘new consensus on welfare reform’, Bochel and Defty warn of overstating attitudinal change. While they recognise distinctive features of New Labour's welfare reform agenda (for example, the rejection of ‘tax and spend’ policies, the endorsement of public–private sector welfare provision, the reformulation of the state as an ‘enabler and regulator’ and aspirations to reduce poverty and labour market exclusion), they qualify the conclusion that this represents a ‘new welfare consensus’ across and within the major political parties. The alternative argument is that, while there has been a shift towards the middle ideological ground, there remain considerable levels of disagreement and there has been a corresponding increase in intra-party ideological divisions. Comparing their interview data on MPs and peers attitudes to welfare reform with Taylor-Gooby and Bochel's (Reference Taylor-Gooby and Bochel1988) study of parliamentary opinion, the authors found that there is now much more cross-party agreement and that this indeed revolves around cross-party support for public and private partnerships in welfare provision, selected and targeted welfare provision via means testing, no substantial increases in direct taxation as well as concern about reducing poverty among the deserving poor (mainly children, poor working families, older people) and ensuring quality universal health and education services. This adds up to a ‘new'cross-party consensus, but it is far from a universal one. A large minority of the Labour MPs interviewed (46 per cent) retain favour for an increase in general taxation to pay for increased welfare provision and an equal proportion (45 per cent) asserted that the state should be responsible for providing welfare as endorsed public–private partnerships. Public opinion, while also demonstrating a shift towards emphasising individual responsibility for paid work and public–private partnerships, continues to report a majority view that quality public services are more important than low taxation. In fact, Bochel and Defty present an alternative characterisation of change as one of cross-party consensus as well as intra-party divisions. The authors argue that intra-party as well as cross-party ideological divisions are becoming increasingly significant in welfare policy formulation.

In relation to parliamentary influence in policy formulation, Bochel and Defty examine parliamentary challenges to executive proposals. They note that back-bencher rebellions within the House of Commons have increased over the course of New Labour governments, resulting in significant policy amendments such as in the case of incapacity benefit reform, the introduction of the Private Finance Initiatives and changes to tuition fees in universities. They novelly conclude that the reform of the House of Lords, while increasing Labour support in the second chamber, has also led to a more challenging and assertive second chamber (perhaps due to the combined effect of a greater sense of legitimacy and the less intense regulation of the Lords by the party whips). In terms of MPs’ own sense of their influence on policy formulation and amendment, Bochel and Defty found that MPs (particularly in the context of a large Labour majority) stressed their opportunities to influence policy formation within parliamentary committees and informal ministerial contact – activities less captured by parliamentary voting analysis, which often informs ‘the decline of parliament’ thesis.

Bochel's and Defty's argument is well formulated, clear and empirically supported. However one can also raise some concerns. Firstly in substantive terms the assessment of peer attitudes is not as thorough as that of MPs, which is important given the claim (although it is tentatively made) of a more assertive second chamber. The book also does not address the issue of party membership, and the degree to which (a minority) of disaffected party members from Labour and Conservative parties have left to form alternative parties or the degree to which wider party membership in the country has changed. Secondly the book perhaps demonstrates the complexity, fashions and challenges of policy research, whereby access to political actors and activities is difficult and qualitative-led research designs can lack credibility. In credit to the authors they succeed in gaining rare access to parliamentary opinions and they explicitly describe their sample characteristics, interview questionnaire method and the difficulties of accessing MPs’ (or placing significant demands on their time). However a limited qualitative analysis is pursued as the book presents a quantitative content analysis of how many MPs answered particular pre-structured interview questions. There is little in-depth analysis of political perspectives or quotes from interviewees setting out their own descriptions of their political philosophies, strategies, practices or actions. The specific meanings that key terms such as ‘public–private partnerships’ or ‘child poverty’ hold for individual interviewees are not unravelled. Further, and as the authors themselves concede, without interviewing members of the executive or senior bureaucrats, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the relative influence of parliamentary actors. Critical questions (that are also recognised by the authors) become: do governments predict parliamentary reaction and strategically devise policy to allow for subsequent amendments or can parliament successfully secure/alter the direction of policy formulation? Interviewing executive members as well as bureaucrats would be a step towards examining these hidden aspects of policy making, but it is notoriously difficult. Even if we interviewed policy makers, how would we know that their accounts of the policy process were genuine? Or is a genuine account even possible? Overall, Bochel and Defty clearly illuminate ways that parliamentary members attempt to assert influence, continue to hold diverse views on welfare reform and that New Labour has increasingly made concessions during the parliamentary passage of legislation.