One Nation Labour and the lessons of Surestart

November 15, 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

Latest

  • Comment On policy, Labour needs to do to the NHS what it has done on rail and energy

    On policy, Labour needs to do to the NHS what it has done on rail and energy

    “A radical manifesto which transforms our society… A new settlement for our country”.  That was Angela Eagle’s promise to delegates in Milton Keynes last weekend and, in many areas, they will be happy with what has been agreed. One million new homes built over the next Parliament, a radical overhaul of the energy market, and part re-nationalisation of the rail network.  Put together and these ideas have the potential of forming a new settlement akin and worthy of those achieved […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The policies are great, but what about the money?

    The policies are great, but what about the money?

    After four years of massive cuts, 2015 is the year when council finances will start to fall off a cliff. Local government has borne the brunt of the cuts to public spending since 2010. My Council, Islington, typical of authorities in urban areas across the country, has lost 35% of its budget over the last four years. That’s a staggering £112 million. Councils have done a great job of coping with these cuts. My Council has gone through a process […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Londoners don’t want a staffless, soulless Tube system

    Londoners don’t want a staffless, soulless Tube system

    The London Underground is the single most important piece of public infrastructure in the capital. Over three million people use the Tube each day, to get to work, visit family or see friends. A healthy Underground network is at the heart of a healthy, vibrant London. It is a fantastic system that is the envy of the modern world, but we must ensure we do not neglect our crown jewel. Later  today, I will be addressing a conference on the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Fairness dictates that we show concern for both sides

    Fairness dictates that we show concern for both sides

    We have all been shocked to see the surge in violence between Israel and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. This conflict is causing enormous hardship on both sides. Particularly distressing is the sight of civilian casualties. The scale of human suffering in the current escalation is immense and every civilian casualty is a tragedy. The people of Gaza have the right to live in peace and freedom, just as Israelis have the right not to fear for […]

    Read more →
  • News Are Osborne’s spinners block journalists from asking questions they don’t like?

    Are Osborne’s spinners block journalists from asking questions they don’t like?

    An intriguing story emerged from a copy of the Express and Star last week, the regional newspaper that covers the West Midlands and Staffordshire. Daniel Wainwright reports that during a recent visit from the Chancellor, a radio journalist said she wanted to ask George Osborne about food banks, and was told that he simply wouldn’t answer it. Here’s the story: “Talking of George Osborne, here’s a little insight into what goes on in the run up to getting an interview. These […]

    Read more →