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 East Coast: Why privatisation is not the end of the line for rail reform

    East Coast: Why privatisation is not the end of the line for rail reform

    I am writing this article on board what the Conservative Party hopes is one of the last publicly run trains in Britain. On Sunday, East Coast will be privatised. The nation’s stake – its share in the East Coast Main Line company – will be sold to Stagecoach and Virgin Trains for a meagre £11 million. The East Coast livery will be quietly replaced by a new brand, as if the last five and a half years never occurred. Why […]

    Read more →
  • News Dugher criticises Cameron for “ideological sell off” of East Coast ahead of privatisation tomorrow

    Dugher criticises Cameron for “ideological sell off” of East Coast ahead of privatisation tomorrow

    Tomorrow, East Coast Main Line will be taken over by private companies Virgin and Stagecoach.   Ahead of this, Michael Dugher, Shadow Transport Secretary, will give a speech in Leeds in which he’ll outline how Labour would allow public sector companies to “take on lines and challenge the private sector on a genuinely level playing field.” They’d do this, he says, within the first 100 days of government.  . Dugher is expected to say: “The end of East Coast Trains will […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why we should loudly support Rachel Reeves’ right to maternity leave

    Why we should loudly support Rachel Reeves’ right to maternity leave

    The reactionary howls that greeted Rachel Reeves’ maternity leave plans remind us that, in some quarters, although we have come a long way, there is still just as far to go on when it comes to recognising that (1) women have babies and (2) women can have babies and hold down jobs too. And while we might expect these attitudes in the Conservative party, we shouldn’t be complacent about rooting them out on our side of the political divide either. Of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment An Irish Labour Party activist is proposing a new way forward on Northern Ireland

    An Irish Labour Party activist is proposing a new way forward on Northern Ireland

    The Irish Labour Party will hold their Annual Conference this weekend. One motion in particular is of interest. Motion 94 proposes that the Irish Labour Party organises in Northern Ireland. The idea has been mooted before, but this motion proposes that the party form a joint entity with the UK Labour Party and that members in N. Ireland would be members of both the Irish and UK parties, similar to the National Union of Students/Union of Students in Ireland (NUS/USI) […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why Labour should welcome health devolution to Manchester

    Why Labour should welcome health devolution to Manchester

    This week’s surprise announcement from George Osborne that £6 billion of health and care spending would be devolved to Greater Manchester has caught Labour (and many in the NHS) off guard. All the details have yet to be agreed, but – based on the revelations in the Manchester Evening News, it is clear the proposals represent a big offer to the northern powerhouse. Whatever the outcome of last year’s Scottish referendum, the result was always going to lead to a political debate about […]

    Read more →
lablist-logo mark-ferguson maya conor coffee-cup
Everything Labour. Every Weekday Morning
×