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 Stagnant wages and the scourge of child poverty show Britain’s economic model is bust – Lilian Greenwood’s report from Labour for the Common Good

    Stagnant wages and the scourge of child poverty show Britain’s economic model is bust – Lilian Greenwood’s report from Labour for the Common Good

    British wages have been stagnant for over a decade. The share of wealth owned by labour, as opposed to capital, is in long-term decline. Median household income peaked somewhere around 2003. The five richest families in this country now own more wealth than the poorest twelve million. The typical earnings of millenials are around £2,800 a year lower than the generation before them at a similar stage of their lives. Nearly 4 million children are growing up in poverty. Last […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Tories open up 16 point poll lead over divided Labour

    Tories open up 16 point poll lead over divided Labour

    Labour is trailing the Conservatives by 16 percentage points according to a new ICM poll. The party is polling at 27 per cent of the vote, compared with the Conservatives at 43 per cent. The poll, coming less than two weeks into Theresa May’s premiership, has increased speculation of the Government calling an early general election in order to give May a mandate from the public. The figures are the lowest since 2009 – in the peak of the financial […]

    Read more →
  • Comment 500 Labour councillors: Why we are backing Owen Smith to continue the fight against austerity

    500 Labour councillors: Why we are backing Owen Smith to continue the fight against austerity

    In a month’s time, we will be casting our votes for Owen Smith as Leader because we believe this is the only path forward to a Labour Government and putting a stop to the immense damage the Tories are doing to our communities and our nation. We have closely watched the debate in our Party in recent weeks and are deeply impressed with how Owen has done. He has driven home the message that the fight Labour must lead is […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn and Smith will kick-off debates with first hustings in Wales

    Corbyn and Smith will kick-off debates with first hustings in Wales

    Members will see Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith go up against each other in the first leadership hustings on Thursday 4 August. Iain McNicol, Labour general-secretary, confirmed Corbyn and Smith will be grilled on their policy positions at the evening event. Members can submit questions to be discussed in front of an audience in Cardiff. The event is the first of a series debates between the contenders, each of which will be streamed online for members to watch. There will also be events […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour donor due in court in bid to kick Corbyn off the ballot paper

    Labour donor due in court in bid to kick Corbyn off the ballot paper

    Jeremy Corbyn could call for the Labour leadership contest to be put on hold if he loses a crucial court case today and is kicked off the ballot paper. The party’s decision to allow Corbyn a place in the vote without requiring a fresh round of MP nominations is due to be challenged in the High Court this morning. Labour donor Michael Foster believes the party has “misapplied” the rules over whether a sitting leader is automatically included on the ballot […]

    Read more →
x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit