Have some people been developing a “relational state” for ages without even realising?

21st November, 2012 10:54 am

Yesterday it was announced that Bickerstaffe Children’s Services, the childcare social enterprise I help run, had been shortlisted for the Guardian’s Small business best practice awards. Which is nice.

Reading through the Guardian’s covevage – a journalist had called me a couple of weeks ago to get the lowdown – I was struck how One Nation it all sounded:

Bickerstaffe Lodge prides itself on individual relationships with parents, an approach it believes is the key to successful cashflow management at the nursery and early years centre and after school club near Ormskirk, Lancashire….
 
To ensure dependable cashflow, many nurseries invoice in advance, often for a month or a whole term, which can be very expensive. Most offer standard – sometimes strict – terms. Paul Cotterill, one of three directors who runs the Lodge as a not-for-profit organisation known as Bickerstaffe Children’s Services Ltd, says that often this lack of flexibility can lead to late payment or default, the exit of the child from the nursery, or loss of trust.
 
Identifying these pitfalls, Bickerstaffe operates a flexible, individually-tailored approach based on relationships with each and every parent.

“Right from the start we had a bit of unspoken flexibility,” Cotterill explains. “It wasn’t a crystal-clear business decision, it was more of a subtle switch that moved the invoicing process from a transaction approach to a relationship approach.”

Had we really, I wondered into my coffee, been developing a relational state for ages, long before the IPPR manual on it came out, even before Labourlist’s One Nation week told us how to behave relationally, and without even realising what we were up to?

Yes, we had been, I decided. Indeed, when I read Tess Laming’s contribution to the IPPR report, it felt like she might have been making notes at the back of the cramped nursery office, as we discussed how to go about cashflow management in a way which met our business needs not just in terms of cash but also in in terms of overall quality, and – crucially – in a way which met the legitimate demands of our staff to ‘do the right thing’ by our parents: As Tess says:

Crucially, the logic of a democratic and relational state must extend to a new political economy that does not seek simply to maximise shareholder coffers but to balance the interests of capital, labour and wider society, build the legitimacy of employees’ voices in the workplace and ensure their creative potential doesn’t go to waste (p.56).

And it seems to me that, high-falutin’ as all this ‘relational state’ John Cruddas stuff may sound at first, if it’s actually simply reflecting intellectually what’s happening in ‘best practice’, then there must be something in it, and Labour may well be on the right track with its new political philosophy.

The challenge now is to ensure that, as political philosophy is translated into party policy over the next couple of years, that policy remains rooted in the ‘best practice’ of organisations like ours, and workers who stand in solidarity – a term which has slipped rather from the Labour lexicon – with the people they work for. Or, as Marc Stears says much more eruditely:

Most human relationships are mediated through some form of institution, be it formal or informal. These institutions provide a structure that enables relationships to persist across time in a way that ensures they are not entirely dependent on the whim of any individual at any particular moment. Persistent organisation of this sort is what distinguishes the euphoric moments of communality that accompany one-off events, such as the Olympic Games or a music festival, from the sustainable relationships that are needed if we are to flourish in the ways that many of us are seeking. Traditional institutions, including trade unions and cooperatives, played this role during the tumultuous time of industrialisation, but many have struggled mor e recently. An agenda focused on relationship-building should begin by promoting our collective institutional life (p.41).

Bickerstaffe Children’s Services is, we hope, one such ‘persistent’ institution. There are lots more out there, just waiting to become Labour policy.

  • Serbitar

    If the “Big Society” had actually come to something rather than fizzling out like a damp squib I might give more credence to articles like this, but to try to pretend that “Relational Welfare” represents, or could ever represent, a plausible national solution to service the needs of the populace is as misguided as it is optimistic. Although rather sweet. Awww.

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

  • http://twitter.com/Bickerrecord Paul Cotterill

    Serbitar
    I’m afraid I don’t quite get the criticism here. I’m talking about worker involvement and engagement in the quality of their work – not something the Big Society ever touches on. Do you not think the quality of public services will improve if they’re a bit more based on trust between worker and, for want of a better term, service user?

Latest

  • News Tony Blair to stand down as Middle East Quartet Special Envoy

    Tony Blair to stand down as Middle East Quartet Special Envoy

    Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair will stand down as Special Envoy of the Middle East Quartet next month, he has confirmed. The Quartet is made up of Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU. Blair announced that he was accepting the role on the day he left Downing St in 2007, and the office focuses largely on the problems arising from the Isreal/Palestine conflict, including tackling the lack of economic development in Palestinian areas. Responding to the news, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Attention please: there’s too much politics in our leadership contest

    Attention please: there’s too much politics in our leadership contest

    This is going to sound like a weird thing to say but bear with me: There’s too much politics in our leadership contest. I don’t mean the rather unedifying way that supporters of one candidate or another are slagging off the others. I mean that’s unattractive, short sighted and downright dumb (exactly who do you think will sit in the Shadow Cabinet when your guy or gal wins? When they are implementing the policies set by your champion, how then […]

    Read more →
  • News Video “You can’t empower local government if you impoverish it” – Harriet Harman’s response to the Queen’s Speech

    “You can’t empower local government if you impoverish it” – Harriet Harman’s response to the Queen’s Speech

    Harriet Harman, who is the interim Labour leader, today gave her party’s response to the Government’s Queen’s Speech. In it, she directed a number of jibes to the Tories, saying to David Cameron “we are both, by our own admission, interim leaders” in reference to his announcement prior to the election that he wouldn’t serve the full five years as leader. She made it clear that Labour were intent on holding the Government to account and she argued that changes […]

    Read more →
  • News Scotland Ken Macintosh asks for changes to be made to Scottish Leadership contest rules

    Ken Macintosh asks for changes to be made to Scottish Leadership contest rules

    Ken Macintosh MSP, who is considering standing to be the next leader of the Scottish Labour Party, has written to the outgoing leader Jim Murphy, the Chair of the Scottish Executive Committee and to the General Secretary of the Scottish Labour Party to ask for changes to be made to the way a new party leader is elected. In an open letter, Macintosh he asks that Scottish Labour Party elect its new leader by using One Member One Vote system and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Understanding the election result: we mustn’t overdramatise the facts or oversimplify the answers

    Understanding the election result: we mustn’t overdramatise the facts or oversimplify the answers

    “Labour’s era may now be over and perhaps it is time for something new”, wrote one commentator in last Sunday’s Observer.  Keen to gain a hearing for their views, academics and journalists have joined some of my Labour colleagues in talking up the implications of our defeat on 7 May, just as they did in 1992. Then, as now, we were told that Labour could never form a majority government again. Just five years later we secured our biggest victory […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit