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

November 21, 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

  • Comment Jim Murphy has set out an ambitious (and Labour) vision for development

    Jim Murphy has set out an ambitious (and Labour) vision for development

    Since its earliest days Labour has been an internationalist party and proud of it, too. From Keir Hardy and Harold Wilson to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, those who shaped Labour’s vision in the 20th and early 21st Century regarded the fight against poverty overseas as a natural extension of the fight against poverty at home. If Labour wins in 2015, we look forward to our proud tradition continuing. But with the clear focus of the current leadership on the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Party democracy is important, so let’s fight for it

    Party democracy is important, so let’s fight for it

    Contrary to popular belief (and by popular belief, I mean the belief that prevails amongst the Shadow Cabinet and its apparatchiks) the Labour Party does not exist as a fan club for the Parliamentary faction. The Labour Party is an instrument through which ordinary people can shape their own lives and change the future of this country in a direction that is beneficial to our people. The recent decision by the Labour leadership to vote with the Coalition and implement […]

    Read more →
  • Comment What can Labour offer young people?

    What can Labour offer young people?

    Tony Blair proclaimed in 1997 that his three main priorities in government were ‘education, education, education.’ This has not translated to an increase in votes from young people.  Voter turnout between 1997 and 2005 amongst those aged 18-24 fell from an estimated 54.1% of this age range in 1997, down to 38.2% in 2005.  By contrast, voter turnout amongst those who are aged over 65 has never fallen below 70% since 1964.  As voters aged over 65 are more likely […]

    Read more →
  • News Iraq Inquiry report now expected in 2015

    Iraq Inquiry report now expected in 2015

    Sir John Chilcot’s report into the Iraq War is now not expected to be published until spring 2015, leaving worries for Labour as to how it will affect the election campaign. The Independent reports that “discussions between the inquiry and the Cabinet Office remain deadlocked, and a year-long stand-off is now unlikely to be resolved before the current parliamentary session ends. Even if a deal were reached over the summer recess, legal protocols and procedures would push the Iraq report’s […]

    Read more →
  • Featured MPs should not be employing their own staff

    MPs should not be employing their own staff

    Over the weekend, Eric Joyce made a very sensible suggestion. He may have a penchant for violence that is unbecoming of a Member of Parliament, and he may be some way down the list of people you’d go to for comment on Parliamentary standards – but on this one issue he was completely right. Joyce went on Sky News yesterday and said that MPs should not be employing staff directly, they should be employed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority […]

    Read more →