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 Why Britain’s women won’t “calm down”

    Why Britain’s women won’t “calm down”

    From November 4th until the end of 2014, women across the country will effectively be working for free. The gender pay gap means that women are paid on average 15% less than their male counterparts; we have to work an extra 60 days annually to earn the same amount as a man doing the same job. For black and minority ethnic women, the pay gap is 20%. Women in Britain need a pay rise. It was heartening to see so many […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Get used to hearing a lot more of what Cameron’s Tories really think…

    Get used to hearing a lot more of what Cameron’s Tories really think…

    The revelation earlier this week that government welfare minister Lord Freud had referred to disabled people as ‘not worth the full [minimum] wage’ seemed somewhat familiar – and not only because of the Prime Minister’s repeated assertion that, when it comes to disabled people, anything his government does is above criticism. Fans of longstanding rent-a-reactionary-view Philip ‘why it is so offensive to black up your face’ Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, will remember that he made the same point in […]

    Read more →
  • News “I rule it out”: Burnham says he won’t be making a leadership bid

    “I rule it out”: Burnham says he won’t be making a leadership bid

    Andy Burnham has been named in several newspapers lately as a possible future Labour leadership candidate, but he was keen to scotch such rumours when he appeared on Marr this morning, saying: “I rule it out… No, I am [a] Labour loyalist to my core. I am loyal to the leader, and the leader of our party, Ed Miliband, has said, the NHS will be his big priority going towards this election. I am 100% focused on developing a plan for the […]

    Read more →
  • News Tory minister: “disabled people work harder because they’re grateful to have a job”

    Tory minister: “disabled people work harder because they’re grateful to have a job”

    Tory Minister Lord Freud was put under pressure this week after he suggested that disabled people were “not worth” the minimum wage. Today another Tory Minister appears to have make similarly ill-judged (and revealing) comments about the Tory Party’s approach to disabled workers. The Independent on Sunday reports that Andrew Selous – the former parliamentary aide to Iain Duncan Smith and now a Justice Minister – told a fringe meeting: “disabled people work harder because they’re grateful to have a job”. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Our party should welcome a debate with Farage – and we can win it

    Our party should welcome a debate with Farage – and we can win it

    By James Dray and Lewis Iwu Should UKIP be part of the televised election debates? Forget for a minute the question of whether or not Farage should be entitled to be there; instead, let’s look at the real question; can we beat him? A man who significant numbers of people see the rather obvious faults of but still really rather like? A man who decimated Nick Clegg in the European debates? We think that we can, and more importantly, we […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y