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

  • News Video “Our country only works for a tiny elite few at the top, and this Labour Party knows that must change” – Miliband responds to the referendum result

    “Our country only works for a tiny elite few at the top, and this Labour Party knows that must change” – Miliband responds to the referendum result

    This morning, Ed Miliband gave a speech, following on from Johann Lamont and Alistair Darling, in which he responded to the results of the referendum. He clearly emphasised that although Scotland voted to remain part of the UK, this was the beginning of massive change across the country: “this was a vote for change. change doesn’t end today. Change begins today…devolution is not just a good idea for Scotland and Wales, it is a good idea for England and indeed Northern […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The English question must now be settled too

    The English question must now be settled too

    So it’s a No. But the process of constitutional change is only just beginning. While it is not yet clear precisely what additional powers on tax, spending and welfare, the Scottish Parliament will get, the binding pledge of the main Westminster party leaders will have to be honoured. But in the process, the English question must be settled too. The first, curmudgeonly, reactions of predominantly Tory MPs has been to complain about Scotland’s special treatment. Before too long, resentment will […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Scotland What happens now? We keep our promises to Scotland – and we build a better Britain​

    What happens now? We keep our promises to Scotland – and we build a better Britain​

    Well that was close. Not as close as it might have been. But far too close. We never should have got to such a position, but post-mortems can wait until tomorrow at least. There are bigger issues at stake. This is certainly no time for triumphalism. Relief? Pride? Happiness? Of course. Our union is stronger today. But Scotland is divided. 45% of those who voted – 1.5 million people – actively chose to leave the UK. The vast majority of […]

    Read more →
  • News Video “We have chosen unity over division” – Alistair Darling

    “We have chosen unity over division” – Alistair Darling

    With the votes counted, and Scotland voting NO to independence, Alistair Darling – head of the Better Together campaign – gave this speech on the referendum outcome.  He stressed that although Scotland had voted NO, this doesn’t mean that the commitment to devolution has faded away:  “The people of scotland have spoken, it is a clear result, they have kept our country of four nations together and as millions of other people, I am delighted…Now it is time for our […]

    Read more →
  • News Scotland have voted No to independence, say LabourList readers

    Scotland have voted No to independence, say LabourList readers

    In a few hours time, we will find out that Scotland has voted against independence – according to LabourList readers, anyway. 77% of those who took our survey this week said they thought that the outcome of today’s referendum would be a No vote. Despite polls have closed in over the past fortnight, our readers are confident that Scots will have chosen to preserve the Union. 23% think that the result will be in favour of Yes. Only two polls in […]

    Read more →