One Nation Labour and the lessons of Surestart

15th November, 2012 5:16 pm

By Duncan O’Leary

One Nation Labour signals a move away from technocratic politics to a much richer story about how people relate to and treat one another. It speaks to the value of human relationships, it stresses the importance of institutions that bring people together and it argues for everyday democratic processes which give people a stake in the decisions that affect them.

No-one said such a politics is easy though. The story of Surestart, one of the last government’s most ambitious ideas, is an instructive case study for anyone interested in the One Nation Idea and the notion of a political project that takes human relationships more seriously. Surestart was an attempt to do this in two ways. First, its focus was not just on delivering services for individuals, but on supporting good parenting and enriching family relationships. Second, the approach adopted was built on personal relationships (rather than bureaucratic structures). Services were shaped by knocking on doors and asking people what they needed, rather than being designed by policymakers elsewhere. ‘”What works” is important, but “how it works”…is equally, if not more, important’, wrote Norman Glass, the man who inspired Surestart.

Glass’s article, however, was not celebrating the programme but mourning its transformation from community initiative to national programme in 2005. His paean to the programme was prompted by the dilution of these two principles. When established in 1999, Surestart’s stated objectives were to:

“Work with parents-to-be, parents and children to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of babies and young children – particularly those who are disadvantaged – so that they can flourish at home and when they get to school, and thereby break the cycle of disadvantage for the current generation of young children” 

By the time Glass was proclaiming the ‘abolition’ of the programme, as it moved towards the ‘Children’s Centre’ model, the goalposts had moved. The aim was now to:

“Achieve better outcomes for children, parents and communities… through increasing the availability of childcare for all children; improving health and emotional development for young children; supporting parents as parents and in their aspirations towards employment.”

The focus on parenting and family relationships had given way to a more straightforward desire to help parents into work. This was far less about relationships and far more about hitting GDP targets and lifting working parents out of material poverty. Thus family centres became children’s centres. Running parallel to this change of direction were changes in the way Surestart was run. As the programme was rolled out nationally local authorities took the lead, heralding an era in which grass-roots influence over the direction of centres would be diminished.  In part, this decision was made on cost grounds. It was hoped that local bureaucracies could run things more efficiently than local people. But the shift in governance arrangements also reflected a concern that the overriding goal of Surestart – ‘better outcomes for children, parents and communities’ – was not being met.

The programme had been set up explicitly to tackle disadvantage, but the concern was that the piecemeal approach to establishing which services were required was insufficiently evidence-based. New guidance published in 2005 warned against merely offering the services requested by parents, at the risk of losing sight of the central purpose and objectives of the programme.

Norman Glass was clearly horrified at the transformation of Surestart and the changes are easy to criticise. The programme seemed to have less warmth and humanity by 2010 than it had done ten years previously. But the tensions – between growth and other priorities and between what people want and what the experts think ‘works’ – are dilemmas that will not go away. In a fiscal environment at tight as the current climate the countervailing pressures against a more ‘relational’ politics are, in fact, bigger than ever. Who will argue against a more rational and efficient way of doing things?

Two responses are necessary. The first is to make some big strategic choices about public spending. As Nick Pearce, James Purnell and others have argued, future governments are going to have to distinguish between desirable policies and real priorities. There will not be enough money around for both.  A more ‘relational’ politics would surely establish modern family services, with aims close to those that Surestart began with, as one such priority. The second necessity is to recognise that a ‘relational politics’ is messy and will take time.  The ‘most needy’ families will not always come forward first and the services that parents want will not always be those that the experts recommend. These tensions cannot be wished away but they can be ameliorated by the right form of statecraft.

Public services can reach people by working with institutions that are already trusted in local areas, rather than government having to create a new building every time it funds a new service. And policy can do more to bring people together to work out how best to deploy scarce resources. Democratic processes within institutions like children’s centres can bring professionals and the public into a dialogue about their respective priorities. The ‘outcomes’ that policymakers have identified (and put money towards) can be matched up with the priorities of the people involved.

Surestart did not get all of this right. But there are important lessons to be learned from its pioneering first phase. Chief among these is the temptation to swap a politics built on relationships for something altogether more rational.

Duncan O’Leary is Deputy Director at Demos. This is an edited version of an essay published in the IPPR report ‘The Relational State’.

This piece forms part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]

Latest

  • Comment Featured Local Government These election results show Labour’s made a significant start on the road to 2020

    These election results show Labour’s made a significant start on the road to 2020

    Labour is rebuilding its support and closing the gap the Tories had at the 2015 general election. That’s the first message from last night’s first wave of by-election and council election results. None of us doubts the scale of the challenge to assemble a winning electoral coalition for 2020. But the early returns show Labour has made a significant start and performed better than many predicted. The clear signs are that we are doing better than last year, when we […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Local Government News Scotland Wales Liveblog: Labour clings on to key councils in England but set for third place in Scotland

    Liveblog: Labour clings on to key councils in England but set for third place in Scotland

    We want to hear from Labour activists and supporters today so please send us your stories and pictures [email protected] The pick of the submissions will be added to the liveblog. Running the liveblog now is Sarah Pine, so you can also send tips on Twitter @mssarahpine 12.05 – Unsurprisingly, Corbyn has confirmed he has no plans to step down as leader. 11.48 – The final Wales results are in, but Labour have not gained any more seats. They remain the largest party […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Uncategorized Jones leading Labour back to power in Wales – but still uncertain of a majority

    Jones leading Labour back to power in Wales – but still uncertain of a majority

    Labour has held on to its status as the largest party in the Welsh Assembly but could end up short of a majority after losing the heartland seat of the Rhondda. The party is on course to form a minority Government in Cardiff under leader Carwyn Jones. Labour gained 34.7 per cent of the constituency vote share, down 7.5 per cent from 2011. In a shock result in the Rhondda, Leighton Andrews was beaten by Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood. Today Jones said […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Local Government News Uncategorized Labour retains control of key southern towns but is losing councillors

    Labour retains control of key southern towns but is losing councillors

    Labour has performed better than expected in local council elections around England. Of the 80 councils who have announced their results overnight, 41 have delivered Labour victories. While the party has lost 25 seats so far, this has only resulted in the loss of control of one council – Dudley – where now no party has overall control. Labour has retained control of key southern seats Crawley, Southampton, Norwich and Hastings, as well Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle and Sunderland. There are […]

    Read more →
  • News Scotland Scotland: Labour in third place with final results in

    Scotland: Labour in third place with final results in

    Labour has slumped to third place in the Scottish elections but the SNP have narrowly been denied an overall majority in Holyrood. Kezia Dugdale led Scottish Labour to 24 seats, a fall of 13, but looks set to continue as leader of the party. Nicola Sturgeon has been denied overall control of the Edinburgh Parliament as the nationalists claimed 63 seats, a fall of six. The Tories took second place as Ruth Davidson increased her party’s number of seats to 31, […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit