Archive

Archive for the ‘General Politics’ Category

Towards associative democracy

August 25, 2015 2 comments

Abstract

Starting from a case study in public procurement devoid of any sense of reality, but full of the twisted logic of managerialism in times of austerity, I move onto an assessment of how such ridiculous development in public service (non)-delivery might act as a catalyst for a new surge of associative democracy institution building at a local level, which might then act as a bridgehead to wider autnomous re-professionalisation and trade union focus on service function, in the spirit of ‘English pluralist’ activists/writers like RH Tawney, JN Figgis and Paul Hirst, and in keeping with the insights of implementation theorist Michael Lipsky.  I also consider how such efforts might be supported by a social work profession in crisis and a Labour party in, erm, its own crisis.

(This is a consolidation with very minor changes of two previous posts, written some weeks apart.)

 

Part I

Here’s the Reverend Giles Fraser on how the police are now the social services of last resort:

The police have to sort stuff out that other people don’t know what to do with, or haven’t got the resources to deal with. Like vicars, they are often the last stop in a game of pass the parcel.

Ah, if only that were true.

This is an excerpt from a specification for a contract recently awarded by a local authority in the North of England:

External Family Support Service contract 

The Contractor [to a NW local authority] will provide intense targeted support at short notice to families with multiple and complex needs often in crisis situations where there is a significant risk of children being accommodated by the Local Authority.

The Contractor will be required to provide Family Support hours as and when requested by the Local Authority. Specifically the service will be required outside of normal office hours.

The Contractor will be expected to provide the above hours across seven days per week, including Bank Holidays.

Work includes:

Care for children / young people in their own home in situations where parents may be intoxicated or recovering from minor surgery etc. and unable to meet their children’s needs for a short period of time.

Conduct work with parents to raise their awareness of the impact and consequences of their chaotic lifestyle and behaviour on their children’s physical and emotional welfare.

Leaving aside the bizarre juxtaposition of intoxication and minor surgery as impediment to safe parenting (possibly a copy and paste error, possibly just ignorance), I think it might be agreed that this is quite a challenging contract: available at all hours, going into potentially volatile domestic circumstances, ensuring child safety and then – presumably when parents are sober enough to listen – putting them to rights on their responsibilities.

Yes – as I had to advise a group of senior social workers I showed this excerpt to at a conference – this is a real contract, really awarded by a real local authority, really recently.

How much, then, do you think the contract might be worth, expressed in £ per hour of provision?

When I asked the same group of social workers what a local authority might expect to pay for this work, taking into account of all the management, training and supervision requirements set out in the contract, and assuming that this would be a lone worker service (not, incidentally, something the police would envisage), the first estimate was £100 per hour of intervention.  That seemed reasonable, they said, given the complexity of the service.  After some ‘lower, lower’ exhortations, they settled on a measly £20 per hour.

This is what the contract specification actually says:

The maximum price permissible to fit within the Council’s affordability envelope is £16.00 per hour for the support and £8.00 per report.  This is due to the on-going budget pressures the local authority is currently experiencing.

When I told them the real price, the social workers thought I had made it all up.

But that’s not quite it.   The tender exercise also invites bidders to say by what percentage they will reduce their price if they want to get paid on time; this ‘early payment discount’ is an increasingly common feature if local authority contracts.

The upshot is that this local authority has outsourced vital emergency social services work to a provider who may be getting as little as £14 per hour for complex and potentially dangerous work on a 24/7, 365 days a year basis.

Let’s be frank.  The service set out in the specification simply cannot be delivered at that price.  It’s just impossible.  The provider will know that.  the local authority knows that (indeed the excerpt above more or less acknowledges it).  So what will actually happen is that the contract will be ‘delivered’ on paper, but not in the real world.

In one scenario, the provider staff member may turn up at a flat, they have been referred to by the social services Emergency Duty Team (EDT), who got a call from the police.  The provider staff member will call the police, on the basis that it’s too dangerous, and leave – having recorded an hour on her timesheet.  The police will call the EDT, just as they did an hour ago……   The vulnerable children may or may not be removed to a ‘place of safety’ under Sec 46 of the Children’s Act 1989.  In all likelihood, they won’t be, because within this ‘unreal’ contract there is provision for making the existing place safe.

In fact, in terms of Giles’ concept of “social service of last resort”, it’s no longer the police – it’s a service which doesn’t really exist.

This is just one contract.  I could point you to others quite like it.  I was told by one local authority commissioning officer dealing with contracts for the implementation of the expanded duties under the Care Act 2014 that there was “no room for quality in this one”: she just had to make sure the right target number of carer assessments etc. were ticked off.  When I wrote to another commissioner seeking a small expansion in contract value with a view to bringing real added value to it (this in family support), I got a copy-and-paste legalistc letter warning that we risked breach of contract if we did not comply with the terms.  No mention was made of what we were actually offering.

All over the country, providers are gaming contracts, cutting quality, cutting corners, because they have to.  Commissioners in their turn prefer not to know this is going on, because it’s easier that way, and service users won’t know any better.  This is a product not just of austerity, but also of a collapse of collective responsibility amongst public service professionals, who have been brow-beaten by their managers to the extent that reality is actually what your boss wants it to be, not what’s actually real.

But how do we try and make reality again? How do we turn back the tide of managerialism-of-the-unreal in a time of continued and even greater cuts?  Concrete labour movement and civil society organisation proposals come in part II.

Part II

In part I, looked at one particular example of how local authority outsourcing has come under such pressure – both financial and managerial – that contracts are now simply undeliverable; there has developed, I contended, a distance between what ‘exists’ in contractual form and what happens in real life.

The ‘unreal’ contracts of this type tend to concentrated on delivery of support services to the most disadvantaged.  The main reason for this is that those who receive (or don’t actually receive) these kind of services are less open to scrutiny and challenge than more universal services.  If a contract for bin collection is let and bins only get collected on paper, not from houses, there’s a pretty good chance that service users will make the local authority aware, and that subsequently performance will be questioned in overview & scrutiny by councillors.  If (to use another real world example) vulnerable carers of vulnerable people get a 3 minute phone assessment of their needs, thereby assumed to be insignificant (and cost-free), rather than the full in-person assessment they should have got and which should have resulted in a full support package, then it is unlikely that this will be picked up as part of a systematic but always inevitable non-delivery/gaming of the contract. The carers’ forum, established within the contract to make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen, is easy enough to skew, so that all that comes to it is a story of delivery success.

What, though, can be done about all this?  How can we put the reality back in outsourcing, given continued and ever increasing pressure on public expenditure? How, in particular, can we ensure that the most vulnerable service users are not exploited in this way?  This post seeks to explore some responses to this challenge, as well as seeking to locate these practical responses within a coherent framework for wider activism and empowerment.  As this is a Labour party supporting blog, it also sets out these ideas in the context of the Labour party and movement’s current process of ‘renewal’ (if its current internal debate can be termed such).

Here’s the kind of response I’d like to see.

I’d like to see groups of public service workers coming together, ideally though not necessarily (see below) using the existing institutional legitimacy of local Trades Councils, to develop and implement a programme of scrutiny of outsourcing arrangements, existing and proposed.   This Trades Council committee, strengthened but not dependent on service user input, should make it its principal job to assess the viability of contracts in terms of finances, likely quality of delivery and appropriateness of monitoring systems.

They should award themselves the authority – and that is the crucial concept to which I’ll return – to call before them commissioning managers, service directors/heads of department and where necessary Chief Executives to explain their decision making around how outsourcing contracts have been developed, and where necessary to justify their real world ‘deliverability’.  In the end, the committee should take a view on whether or not the contract as set out by local authorities (and over time the NHS, as ‘devo max’ starts to be implemented) is acceptable to the Trades Council.

Of course, the key questions now arise of  a) Why on earth local authority officers would subject themselves to such a process? b) Why would anyone in a position of local authority power take any notice of a decision by a Trades Council?

The short answer is that, initially at least, they may not. They may even laugh at the prospect.  I’ll come on to how this might be changed, but first I want to look in somewhat wider terms at what an attempt to set up this alternative decision-making process, under the aegis of the Trades Council infrastructure (where it still exists) is really all about.  Doing so – in the context of how power does and might work – may help in turn to determine what initial actions are appropriate in getting this kind of stuff off the ground.

We’re talking here about the establishment of a political institution which doesn’t have the sanction of the state and which, more importantly, contests the authority of the central state – via its sanctioned local decision-making process – to make decisions about how public money is best spent.   As such, we’re talking  about the kid of associative democracy championed by pre-warEnglish pluralist socialists GDH Cole and JN Figgis, and later championed, in the context of the authoritarian bent of the Thatcherite state, by Paul Hirst (pdf) before his untimely death.  In this vision of how society organises itself, the state has no a greater a priori legitimacy than any other form of social organisation, and by extension whenever the state seeks to impose itself as sole legitimate authority, it is open to valid challenge from any other grouping of people which chooses to assert its own legitimacy in deciding, say, how resources are allocated.  Such groupings might include the church (whose legitimacy as an association on a level footing with the state is at the heart of theologian JN Figgis’ work), but also those whose particular function and expertise brings them together as a group – namely the professions (in their widest sense) and the unions [1].

In practice such a political standpoint could translate, in the circumstances we’re dealing with, into the following kind of assertion: “we are a properly constituted body of public service professionals and we have as much if not greater right to oversee and scrutinise the local authority’s commissioning of services in this area, and it is our view that the service as currently commissioned cannot be delivered effectively/safely.”

From this starting point, establishing the right to be taken seriously by the local authority’s decision makers is a matter of establishing legitimacy with a range of ‘players’ [2], both within and beyond the local authority.  Clearly the use of the Trades Council institutional status may count for something, and it may be surprising what a forma letterhead and a ‘proper’ approach to the local authority can achieve, but there are a number of other ways, including through the Labour party structure (especially via councillors open to trade union persuasion [3]), through the voluntary, faith & community sector (VCFS) infrastructure and through local higher education links.  If that sounds improbable, then it might be worth reflecting on the effectiveness of the 1971 Scottish TUC inquiry into the Tory government’s attempts to annihilate shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde, the success of which was all built on establishing the external legitimacy of the inquiry.

The key thing to note about all these examples of how local workers and service users might establish associative legitimacy on a par with that of the (local) state is, of course, that they are just examples.  Every local area will have different circumstances, and different opportunities for building alliances focused on the establishment of ‘parallel legitimacy’.  While I favour the Trades Council as the existing organisational form which might take a lead on such ‘parallel’ institutional development, not least as engagement in this relatively narrow area of public procurement might act as a bridgehead to wider re-orientation of the trade union movement  [4], it may not be the most suitable one in many areas, especially those where Trades Councils simply no longer exist or where  they have been adjusted to other purposes over the years which just aren;t amenable to this new area of activity [5].

In terms of which professional groups might play a key part in this kind of calculated associative democracy initiative, where the focus is largely on defence of quality services for/with the most vulnerable, there is no better candidate than that of social work.  The social work profession is currently in a time of crisis [6], with its professional standards outsourced to a management consultancy firm, the College of Social Work (established in 2009 to develop professionalisation)forced to close in September, and a whole new training regime being swiftly imposed through theFrontline programme [6], with the intention that future social workers will wield a limited range of intervention tool to ‘sort out’ troubled families.  The old concepts of social justice, and the need to see struggling families in context, are being brushed away as an irrelevance to the immediacies of modern social work, and the proponents of those old concepts as academics interested only in preserving their comfortably ‘ivory towers’ existence

In the face of this onslaught, social justice-oriented social workers face a choice: fight a no doubt heroic but almost certainly losing battle on the current accreditation and training terrain, or beat a deliberate retreat and take up the campaign for social justice social work on different terrain.   The organic emergence of the Social Workers Assembly from the wreckage of the College of Social Work, with its intent to challenge the state’s intervention in their professional standards, could turn out to be a leading example, at national level, of the kind of parallel legitimacy organisation I advocate, but it is likely only to be able to do this by developing its legitimacy at local levels first; working with other parts of the labour movement, and with campaigning organisations like theFamily Rights Group [7] in areas where it holds expertise, and in a way which demonstrates that it is able to (re)-establish social work as a profession which, like medicine, can and should be both self-governing.

In the end, whatever groups of public service workers, trade unionists come together around te establishment iof a new decision-making institution of the type proposed, I think there should be two wider aspiration, beyond establishing initial legitimacy.

First, as noted, it should be seen as a bridgehead to greater union/professional engagement in service design, in a way which takes the labour movement beyond the current narrow focus on terms and conditions, and (back) towards the ideal of trade unions as safeguarders and promoters of quality service provision in its own right (and with an ever expanding conception of what a public service is).  I have written more about this here and here.  In ideological terms this might be described as unions taking a Tawney turn, in their active attempt to take from the forces of managerialism the right to direct resources towards the best possible social function.

Second, and closely related to this, should be a conscious attempt to help public servants re-orientate their own working lives, so that – in the terms Michael Lipsky used and which the PCS used to seek to practice – they become advocates for those service users, rather than more or less alienated from those their profession used to serve.

Of course, none of this insitutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of a trade council’s right to veto or adjust an outsourcing contract, creates more money for councils to do tender properly.  Tha’s the brutal reality of a Tory government. What it does do, though, is highlight the way in which many councils are having to/choosing to squeeze contracts focused on services to the most vulnerable, less than other areas of expenditure, precisely because the poor and vulnerable have had, to date, less capacity to resist (and because they vote less).   This in turn creates some space for trades councils etc to push local authorities towards more innovative social financing arrangements of the type advocated here, and in many other thinktank forums, but so far massively underdeveloped because of a political risk aversion to the kind of complexity that such ‘downstream savings’ require (see my post here for more on this).

Finally, where does the Labour party – in its current soul searching/holding out for a hero mode – fit with all this.  In terms of the leadership debate, Jeremy Corbyn has not yet engaged with this area at all – hence the lingering doubts about whether his is a solely state-oriented socialism.   If he does win, it is to be hoped that the process of re-orienting the Labour party’s resources towards the kind of community organisation advocated by Stella Creasy – though she too needs to reflects on the contradictions inherent to her (and Liz Kendall’s) view of power   – will be near the top of the to-do list.  In practical terms, this might mean enabling/encouraging CLPs to work with and resource emergent or re-emergent trade councils (remembering of course that trades councils cannot constitutionally affiliate to Labour), or with other institutional developments.  This kind of grassroots resourcing, funded through an extended NEC CLP Improvement Fund, should take precedence over the proposed Diversity Fund, which is a distraction from the real job in hand, and which simply fuels the Westminster-centricity of the party.

More likely, of course, is that whoever leads or deputy leads the party will prove to be a disappointment when it comes to internal party and movement development.  That goes with the territory.   In reality, local parties – along with any local bodies and people they can develop alliances with – are going to have to do it for themselves.

 

Notes

[1] The legalistic principles (Laski, esp. chapter 1), and the historical reality of state formation by violence (Tilly) that underpin the doctrine of associative democracy are my preferred underpinning to my proposals for the development of institutions with parallel legitimacy of the state, not least as they coalesce with a more explicitly Marxian analysis of the state as an agent of capital, and therefore one which needs to be undermined through these ‘parallel legitimacy’ means or more directly.

However, it is also worth pointing out – perhaps in the interests of strategic alliance buildingbetween the left and (more intelligent) Conservatism – that associative democracy is also consistent with the basic tenets of communitarianism, and even with the kind of reformed ‘Big Society’ programme now advocated by people like Danny Kruger.  From this perspective, it might be argued that the kind of parallel democratic structure advocated here acts as a corrective to the current ‘rights v responsibilities’ imbalance.  The old Big Society programme, now rubbished by the left and earlier advocates alike, can be seen as massively imbalanced towards the responsibilities side of the bargain, with local communities and organisations getting all the crap that goes with coping with the cuts, but none of the rights that could have gone with that.  (We”ll leave aside here that a key failure in both communitarian and Red Tory/Big Society thought is the essentialistassumption that positive communities are just ‘there’ – an assumption arugably even less validthan it was when it was first dreamed up, or emerged from faith-based discourses such as Catholic Social Teaching)

[2] See my earlier post on strategic action fields and the development of links to organisations with ‘mutually realisable interests.

[3] Trades Councils’ constitutions do not allow for official affiliation with the Labour party.

[4] I have written before about the wider potential for modernised and reinvigorated Trades Councils.

[5] In my own area, South West Lancashire Trades Council changed its remit over the years so that it runs to all intents and purposes like a small charity, focused on debt advice.  This is not a criticism of the people who have taken it in that direction in response to an identified and unmet need, and it is quite possible with appropriate support from the TUC that many could re-emerge with new purpose and energy.

[6]  For evidence of the hostility between the ‘new young Turks’ at Frontline and other social work educators, see its CEO’s “get out of the way” attack in Progress magazine, and the response.  The choice of Porgress magazine as a place for the initial attack is not a coincidence, since it was Progress, and in particular its head honcho Andrew Adonis, who were responsible for making Frontline happen, via a compliant IPPR (which hot-housed Frontline) and a Coalition government delighted at the managerial, anti social work ‘blob’ approach being promoted by Frontline.  The coup has been, to date, astonishingly effective.

[7] Declaration of interest: I sit on the advisory panel of the Family Rights Group’s Your Family, Your Voice project, which is seeking to drive its work to more local level, though it is early days.

 

Outsourcing reality (part II): the response

August 25, 2015 Leave a comment

In part I, looked at one particular example of how local authority outsourcing has come under such pressure – both financial and managerial – that contracts are now simply undeliverable; there has developed, I contended, a distance between what ‘exists’ in contractual form and what happens in real life.

The ‘unreal’ contracts of this type tend to concentrated on delivery of support services to the most disadvantaged.  The main reason for this is that those who receive (or don’t actually receive) these kind of services are less open to scrutiny and challenge than more universal services.  If a contract for bin collection is let and bins only get collected on paper, not from houses, there’s a pretty good chance that service users will make the local authority aware, and that subsequently performance will be questioned in overview & scrutiny by councillors.  If (to use another real world example) vulnerable carers of vulnerable people get a 3 minute phone assessment of their needs, thereby assumed to be insignificant (and cost-free), rather than the full in-person assessment they should have got and which should have resulted in a full support package, then it is unlikely that this will be picked up as part of a systematic but always inevitable non-delivery/gaming of the contract. The carers’ forum, established within the contract to make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen, is easy enough to skew, so that all that comes to it is a story of delivery success.

What, though, can be done about all this?  How can we put the reality back in outsourcing, given continued and ever increasing pressure on public expenditure? How, in particular, can we ensure that the most vulnerable service users are not exploited in this way?  This post seeks to explore some responses to this challenge, as well as seeking to locate these practical responses within a coherent framework for wider activism and empowerment.  As this is a Labour party supporting blog, it also sets out these ideas in the context of the Labour party and movement’s current process of ‘renewal’ (if its current internal debate can be termed such).

Here’s the kind of response I’d like to see.

I’d like to see groups of public service workers coming together, ideally though not necessarily (see below) using the existing institutional legitimacy of local Trades Councils, to develop and implement a programme of scrutiny of outsourcing arrangements, existing and proposed.   This Trades Council committee, strengthened but not dependent on service user input, should make it its principal job to assess the viability of contracts in terms of finances, likely quality of delivery and appropriateness of monitoring systems.

They should award themselves the authority – and that is the crucial concept to which I’ll return – to call before them commissioning managers, service directors/heads of department and where necessary Chief Executives to explain their decision making around how outsourcing contracts have been developed, and where necessary to justify their real world ‘deliverability’.  In the end, the committee should take a view on whether or not the contract as set out by local authorities (and over time the NHS, as ‘devo max’ starts to be implemented) is acceptable to the Trades Council.

Of course, the key questions now arise of  a) Why on earth local authority officers would subject themselves to such a process? b) Why would anyone in a position of local authority power take any notice of a decision by a Trades Council?

The short answer is that, initially at least, they may not. They may even laugh at the prospect.  I’ll come on to how this might be changed, but first I want to look in somewhat wider terms at what an attempt to set up this alternative decision-making process, under the aegis of the Trades Council infrastructure (where it still exists) is really all about.  Doing so – in the context of how power does and might work – may help in turn to determine what initial actions are appropriate in getting this kind of stuff off the ground.

We’re talking here about the establishment of a political institution which doesn’t have the sanction of the state and which, more importantly, contests the authority of the central state – via its sanctioned local decision-making process – to make decisions about how public money is best spent.   As such, we’re talking  about the kid of associative democracy championed by pre-war English pluralist socialists GDH Cole and JN Figgis, and later championed, in the context of the authoritarian bent of the Thatcherite state, by Paul Hirst (pdf) before his untimely death.  In this vision of how society organises itself, the state has no a greater a priori legitimacy than any other form of social organisation, and by extension whenever the state seeks to impose itself as sole legitimate authority, it is open to valid challenge from any other grouping of people which chooses to assert its own legitimacy in deciding, say, how resources are allocated.  Such groupings might include the church (whose legitimacy as an association on a level footing with the state is at the heart of theologian JN Figgis’ work), but also those whose particular function and expertise brings them together as a group – namely the professions (in their widest sense) and the unions [1].

In practice such a political standpoint could translate, in the circumstances we’re dealing with, into the following kind of assertion: “we are a properly constituted body of public service professionals and we have as much if not greater right to oversee and scrutinise the local authority’s commissioning of services in this area, and it is our view that the service as currently commissioned cannot be delivered effectively/safely.”

From this starting point, establishing the right to be taken seriously by the local authority’s decision makers is a matter of establishing legitimacy with a range of ‘players’ [2], both within and beyond the local authority.  Clearly the use of the Trades Council institutional status may count for something, and it may be surprising what a forma letterhead and a ‘proper’ approach to the local authority can achieve, but there are a number of other ways, including through the Labour party structure (especially via councillors open to trade union persuasion [3]), through the voluntary, faith & community sector (VCFS) infrastructure and through local higher education links.  If that sounds improbable, then it might be worth reflecting on the effectiveness of the 1971 Scottish TUC inquiry into the Tory government’s attempts to annihilate shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde, the success of which was all built on establishing the external legitimacy of the inquiry.

The key thing to note about all these examples of how local workers and service users might establish associative legitimacy on a par with that of the (local) state is, of course, that they are just examples.  Every local area will have different circumstances, and different opportunities for building alliances focused on the establishment of ‘parallel legitimacy’.  While I favour the Trades Council as the existing organisational form which might take a lead on such ‘parallel’ institutional development, not least as engagement in this relatively narrow area of public procurement might act as a bridgehead to wider re-orientation of the trade union movement  [4], it may not be the most suitable one in many areas, especially those where Trades Councils simply no longer exist or where  they have been adjusted to other purposes over the years which just aren;t amenable to this new area of activity [5].

In terms of which professional groups might play a key part in this kind of calculated associative democracy initiative, where the focus is largely on defence of quality services for/with the most vulnerable, there is no better candidate than that of social work.  The social work profession is currently in a time of crisis [6], with its professional standards outsourced to a management consultancy firm, the College of Social Work (established in 2009 to develop professionalisation) forced to close in September, and a whole new training regime being swiftly imposed through the Frontline programme [6], with the intention that future social workers will wield a limited range of intervention tool to ‘sort out’ troubled families.  The old concepts of social justice, and the need to see struggling families in context, are being brushed away as an irrelevance to the immediacies of modern social work, and the proponents of those old concepts as academics interested only in preserving their comfortably ‘ivory towers’ existence

In the face of this onslaught, social justice-oriented social workers face a choice: fight a no doubt heroic but almost certainly losing battle on the current accreditation and training terrain, or beat a deliberate retreat and take up the campaign for social justice social work on different terrain.   The organic emergence of the Social Workers Assembly from the wreckage of the College of Social Work, with its intent to challenge the state’s intervention in their professional standards, could turn out to be a leading example, at national level, of the kind of parallel legitimacy organisation I advocate, but it is likely only to be able to do this by developing its legitimacy at local levels first; working with other parts of the labour movement, and with campaigning organisations like the Family Rights Group [7] in areas where it holds expertise, and in a way which demonstrates that it is able to (re)-establish social work as a profession which, like medicine, can and should be both self-governing.

In the end, whatever groups of public service workers, trade unionists come together around te establishment iof a new decision-making institution of the type proposed, I think there should be two wider aspiration, beyond establishing initial legitimacy.

First, as noted, it should be seen as a bridgehead to greater union/professional engagement in service design, in a way which takes the labour movement beyond the current narrow focus on terms and conditions, and (back) towards the ideal of trade unions as safeguarders and promoters of quality service provision in its own right (and with an ever expanding conception of what a public service is).  I have written more about this here and here.  In ideological terms this might be described as unions taking a Tawney turn, in their active attempt to take from the forces of managerialism the right to direct resources towards the best possible social function.

Second, and closely related to this, should be a conscious attempt to help public servants re-orientate their own working lives, so that – in the terms Michael Lipsky used and which the PCS used to seek to practice – they become advocates for those service users, rather than more or less alienated from those their profession used to serve.

Of course, none of this insitutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of a trade council’s right to veto or adjust an outsourcing contract, creates more money for councils to do tender properly.  Tha’s the brutal reality of a Tory government. What it does do, though, is highlight the way in which many councils are having to/choosing to squeeze contracts focused on services to the most vulnerable, less than other areas of expenditure, precisely because the poor and vulnerable have had, to date, less capacity to resist (and because they vote less).   This in turn creates some space for trades councils etc to push local authorities towards more innovative social financing arrangements of the type advocated here, and in many other thinktank forums, but so far massively underdeveloped because of a political risk aversion to the kind of complexity that such ‘downstream savings’ require (see my post here for more on this).

Finally, where does the Labour party – in its current soul searching/holding out for a hero mode – fit with all this.  In terms of the leadership debate, Jeremy Corbyn has not yet engaged with this area at all – hence the lingering doubts about whether his is a solely state-oriented socialism.   If he does win, it is to be hoped that the process of re-orienting the Labour party’s resources towards the kind of community organisation advocated by Stella Creasy – though she too needs to reflects on the contradictions inherent to her (and Liz Kendall’s) view of power   – will be near the top of the to-do list.  In practical terms, this might mean enabling/encouraging CLPs to work with and resource emergent or re-emergent trade councils (remembering of course that trades councils cannot constitutionally affiliate to Labour), or with other institutional developments.  This kind of grassroots resourcing, funded through an extended NEC CLP Improvement Fund, should take precedence over the proposed Diversity Fund, which is a distraction from the real job in hand, and which simply fuels the Westminster-centricity of the party.

 

More likely, of course, is that whoever leads or deputy leads the party will prove to be a disappointment when it comes to internal party and movement development.  That goes with the territory.   In reality, local parties – along with any local bodies and people they can develop alliances with – are going to have to do it for themselves.

 

Notes

 

 

[1] The legalistic principles (Laski, esp. chapter 1), and the historical reality of state formation by violence (Tilly) that underpin the doctrine of associative democracy are my preferred underpinning to my proposals for the development of institutions with parallel legitimacy of the state, not least as they coalesce with a more explicitly Marxian analysis of the state as an agent of capital, and therefore one which needs to be undermined through these ‘parallel legitimacy’ means or more directly.

However, it is also worth pointing out – perhaps in the interests of strategic alliance building between the left and (more intelligent) Conservatism – that associative democracy is also consistent with the basic tenets of communitarianism, and even with the kind of reformed ‘Big Society’ programme now advocated by people like Danny Kruger.  From this perspective, it might be argued that the kind of parallel democratic structure advocated here acts as a corrective to the current ‘rights v responsibilities’ imbalance.  The old Big Society programme, now rubbished by the left and earlier advocates alike, can be seen as massively imbalanced towards the responsibilities side of the bargain, with local communities and organisations getting all the crap that goes with coping with the cuts, but none of the rights that could have gone with that.  (We”ll leave aside here that a key failure in both communitarian and Red Tory/Big Society thought is the essentialist assumption that positive communities are just ‘there’ – an assumption arugably even less valid than it was when it was first dreamed up, or emerged from faith-based discourses such as Catholic Social Teaching)

[2] See my earlier post on strategic action fields and the development of links to organisations with ‘mutually realisable interests.

[3] Trades Councils’ constitutions do not allow for official affiliation with the Labour party.

[4] I have written before about the wider potential for modernised and reinvigorated Trades Councils.

[5] In my own area, South West Lancashire Trades Council changed its remit over the years so that it runs to all intents and purposes like a small charity, focused on debt advice.  This is not a criticism of the people who have taken it in that direction in response to an identified and unmet need, and it is quite possible with appropriate support from the TUC that many could re-emerge with new purpose and energy.

[6]  For evidence of the hostility between the ‘new young Turks’ at Frontline and other social work educators, see its CEO’s “get out of the way” attack in Progress magazine, and the response.  The choice of Porgress magazine as a place for the initial attack is not a coincidence, since it was Progress, and in particular its head honcho Andrew Adonis, who were responsible for making Frontline happen, via a compliant IPPR (which hot-housed Frontline) and a Coalition government delighted at the managerial, anti social work ‘blob’ approach being promoted by Frontline.  The coup has been, to date, astonishingly effective.

[7] Declaration of interest: I sit on the advisory panel of the Family Rights Group’s Your Family, Your Voice project, which is seeking to drive its work to more local level, though it is early days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a priori

 

Corbyn and mandatory reselection

August 16, 2015 4 comments

A report at the Staggers indicates that Corbyn has decided not to seek to reintroduce mandatory re-selection for MPs, meaning that many Blairite MPs will feel that bit more sure of themselves*. With all these new affiliated supporters swirling around as a result of Corbyn-mania, timetabled re-selection for each constituency would have made every one of coup-plotting scumbags of the PLP into potential targets for the anti-Blairite feeling that’s raging.

Instead, any attempt at de-selection of MPs will become mired in the bureaucracy of each CLP and will be a test of how well organised the left is, in that constituency. Here’s a hint. It’s not organised, and anyway I doubt very much the majority of those who consider themselves Labour lefts would agree with my definition of Blairite. Jon Cruddas? Blairite. Andy Burnham? Blairite. Ed Miliband? Blairite. The result is that many people who aren’t vocally anti-Corbyn but have tied Labour to a pro-austerity platform wouldn’t even be challenged, if it is up to the existing Labour left.

Without the focus of immediate selection battles, as a lightning rod to unite and coalesce the pro-Corbyn sentiment into something more durable, there’s a huge chance all these extra affiliated supporters will just drift away. Then the Labour Right will seize their moment to hit Corbyn just as soon as they can conspire with their willing allies in the Guardian and the usual anti-Labour media to make Labour’s poll ratings tank, as Middle England runs for the hills, while the working class still sees far too many Blairite faces about.

I’m not saying it is an easy task, to unite the pro-Corbynites, but to try anything else is to try and run the Labour Party via the existing structure, which is totally and completely in the hands of the right-wing. The thing that has won people over is the offered break with Blairism and anti-austerity policies. SOne thing like automatic re-selection can pull those people further in, e.g. by targeting all the people who abstained on welfare. I note as an aside that Paul on this blog has written an article suggesting that abstaining was the right choice, based on something that total moron Anthony Painter said. I’ll be coming back to that in a separate article, to give that cowardly notion a right kicking. Stay tuned.

Corbyn has made a mistake, attempting to conciliate the Right; it is the same mistake Foot made with the Limehouse lot before they all fucked off to start the SDP. In doing so he is trading the trust of ordinary people (as opposed to the Stockholm-syndrome infected lefty hacks still hanging on to Labour for dear life) in order to look statesman-like. The Right will never conciliate and the people who will back Jeremy are doing so BECAUSE he’s an enemy of the Blairites.

Not to say that the Right can’t be brought to heel in any other way. The capitalist class is not neutral in all this; if for a significant part of that class, we were reaching the limits of austerity and they were growing nervous about the ability of a Tory government to keep control, then they might exert pressure to quieten the Labour Right while they gauge the strength of the union movement to resist the government’s plan to effectively ban strikes. But there’s no indication of that, that I can see.

Once Corbyn wins, and the in-fighting causes an atmosphere of hysteria amongst the Labour commentariat, as it did in the dying months of Brown’s premiership, and the knives come out, what then? It’s clear that the working class can be influenced when the unions move in a given direction. That has been the case with Corbyn, ably abetted by the intervention of Blair and co to really back up what Corbyn says of himself. The unions – and socialist in Labour – need a plan B. Because once Corbyn is ousted, dark night really will have fallen on Labour.

==

*though it’s far from certain that Corbyn has that kind of clout even as leader.

Categories: General Politics

Corbyn’s ten point plan

August 15, 2015 Leave a comment

Concrete, definitive stuff – compared to the amorphous anything-for-power bullshit of the other three candidates:

1.Growth not austerity – with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow’s jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all – let the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden to balance the books.

2. A lower welfare bill through investment and growth not squeezing the least well-off and cuts to child tax credits.

3. Action on climate change – for the long-term interest of the planet rather than the short-term interests of corporate profits.

4. Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector – privatisation has put profits before people.

5. Decent homes for all in public and private sectors by 2025 through a big housebuilding programme and controlling rents.

6. No more illegal wars, a foreign policy that prioritises justice and assistance. Replacing Trident not with a new generation of nuclear weapons but jobs that retain the communities’ skills.

7. Fully-funded NHS, integrated with social care, with an end to privatisation in health.

8. Protection at work – no zero hours contracts, strong collective bargaining to stamp out workplace injustice.

9. Equality for all – a society that accepts no barriers to everyone’s talents and contribution. An end to scapegoating of migrants.

10. A life-long national education service for decent skills and opportunities throughout our lives: universal childcare, abolishing student fees and restoring grants, and funding adult skills training throughout our lives

if you’re not backing Corbyn, you bloody should be, you vacillating, scabrous, pitiful excuse for a human being.

Categories: General Politics

Journo tells us why Corbyn is popular…

August 14, 2015 Leave a comment

And neatly illustrates why media types are so disconnected from reality. He also identifies clearly why it’s a bullshit argument to consider supporting anyone else – they aren’t planning to fix the things that are so horrifically broken about our society.image

Categories: General Politics

Shock news: Toynbee still utterly useless

August 13, 2015 Leave a comment

“Stop reading the Guardian, it rots your brain almost as much as writing for it.” This is surely the only possible message from Toynbee’s latest cretinous excretion in today’s Guardian, where she casts a stern look at the mess being made by the Corbynites and remonstrates that they should get back in their box. Can’t have nasty ordinary working class people influencing the Westminster bubble can we? That’s the job of a well-coifed, well-educated, well-connected Guardian columnist…and we don’t want dear Polly on the dole now do we?

Instead Toynbee touts Yvette Cooper as leadership material, with her pro-family economics; so pro-family she abstained on the welfare bill for example. But wait, this is all part of a strategy! If no one knows enough about what Labour stands for, then surely they’ll give their vote?! Voters can’t be scared away if Labour don’t actually have any policies except having nicked stuff from Osborne’s Idiots Guide to the Economy.

The only thing remotely shocking about any of this is how many obscenely moronic Labour people are still buying into this vacuous horseshit. You can see them on Twitter with their earnest tweets about Sure Start and their suited-and-booted election pictures. Don’t ask them to vote against the cuts though, that’s dirty red talk.

In other news: Cooper has a new Clause IV to propose; “Better to break the poor than break a thoroughly promising political career”.

Get back in the fucking sea

Categories: General Politics

600,000 sign up to vote for Corbyn

August 13, 2015 Leave a comment

The Mirror is reporting that 600,000 people have signed up as affiliated supporters of the Labour Party. I’m going to go out on a limb to suggest they’re not joining to vote for Liz fucking Kendall. They’ve signed up because a glimpse of light has smashed through the Blairite miasma, and offered a simple way people can fight back against austerity.

Rewind five years. John McDonnell launched a campaign to be Labour leader. He was immediately deluged with attacks by the soft left in Labour, and the media raked over his comments on the IRA. Meanwhile the Labour leadership – including Harriet Harman and Ed Balls – used a spoiler candidate in the form of Diane Abbott to counteract the huge pressure from constituencies, which was acknowledged by that bastion of Labour hackery, Tom Harris.

In the intervening five years, austerity has ratcheted up the pressure on the working class. Meanwhile, sections of the capitalist class are rebelling against austerity. The conflict between elements in the IMF and EU, calling for major debt relief for Greece, motivated by fear of a social explosion, shows this, even if so many prominent economists (the lawyers of the capitalist elite) weren’t sounding such cautious notes on austerity.

For this reason, even a (suitably contained) Corbyn-led Labour Party could be a viable Plan B, should the worst come to the worst in the debate over Europe, from the point of view of the capitalist class. It became quickly evident at the outset of the leadership  competition that from the point of view of ordinary people, Labour has no one else credible left in its ranks. This is the last card to play before, driven by austerity, Pasokification takes hold, as the masses continue to search for any political method of combating austerity.

From the point of view of a TUSC-supporting Socialist Party member, you’d think that I’d be backing one of the other candidates, all the better to steer people to TUSC over the next few years. That would be a shockingly narrow and sectarian view. I want Corbyn to win – wholeheartedly and with no reservations. I think it’s the best thing possible for the working class – because for these 600,000 and beyond, it will raise hopes, which Labour cannot meet. It will raise confidence, which Labour, and the centrist Labourite drones in the affiliated unions, can’t match. And when the Right apparatus and PLP move against Corbyn, which they will, it will be a sharper lesson for the watching masses than all the articles Marxists can write.

Let’s not forget that Labour’s bureaucracy has already kicked out 1,200 people who have tried to join. These include people like Mark Steel, who is an unaffiliated socialist, to the best of my knowledge. The reason given was that he did not share the Labour Party’s aims and values. The only reason more people haven’t been kicked out is probably because these 600,000 are mostly names on a page to the CLPs, who would quite happily kick out socialists, if they could identify them.

A Corbyn-led party will not magically change in its fundamentals. Let those – many of the readers and former readers of this blog included – beware who said that Miliband and his “refounding Labour” schtick represented the end of Blairism. Blairism is not contained in one organisation, such as Progress; it is a political expression of the degeneration of Labour’s membership and decomposition of its link to the working class. Blairism infects even the groups of the left, like the LRC, whose logic in voting for cuts at council level is no different from the open Blairites, “we must keep within the limits of the possible, we can only influence things if we win seats.”

This logic represents the collapse of class consciousness, but also furthers that collapse – because on this basis, the people attracted to Labour aren’t the sort of people we want. They’re the middle class do-gooders, who are appalled by what the Tories have done and who are prepared to vote for anyone saying they’ll stop it, so long as it comes across as quite genteel. They are doomed to continual disappointment. Moreover they are a political deadweight when it comes to the key task of activating and organising the working class on the basis of their clear thirst for anti-austerity, socialist ideas. They don’t understand the problem of our time in these terms and many would run screaming from the actual working class if suddenly it awoke.

Nowhere is this more visible than in Stand Up to UKIP, in my view; the practice of denouncing all Kippers as racists and substituting direct action for trying to engage with the very real concerns of huge swathes of the working class is utterly counter-productive and divides out the middle class political day trippers from the masses. Not to say that counter-demos don’t have their place by the way, but if that sort of thing is all you’re doing then you’re not laying the basis for a mass response to the pernicious lies of UKIP, and their aiders and abetters in Labour and the Tory parties. These types, the do-gooders, caught up in the hype, will likely vote Corbyn – and that’s great, I think, but they don’t have the chops for the battle with Blairism in Labour, or austerity. For that reason I still think re-joining Labour is ultimately a dead end, though I and other Marxists will watch with interest to see if any of this 600,000 get involved in any way; personally I doubt they will, post election contest.

Like the huge votes for UKIP, however, who were all things to all men, at the last election, uniting little Englanders with animal rights campaigners, former Labourites with anti-immigrant Tories, workers with the hang em and flog em petit-bourgeoisie, it’s what Corbyn’s leadership explosion signifies that matters. The masses are still seeking a way out – passively, still, for the minute. The key struggle will be to end that passivity – and a Corbyn leadership, and the lessons it teaches, can help with that.

A writer on this blog, on Though Cowards Flinch, has attempted to disagree. He suggests, in an article written prior to Corbyn’s successful nomination, that we’ll still be left battling the roots of Blairism, and therefore that focusing on the leadership is a distraction. Interestingly this echoes similar comments made when John McDonnell was fighting to be nominated five years ago; I permitted myself some navel gazing and went back to read my oeuvre from that period, though back then Paul was quick to genuflect that he’d do his utmost to get John McD elected if he was nominated.

This view is only possible if you have a static view of the Labour Party, and of the working class. Anyone with an eye on the working class could tell you that with a Blair or a Burnham at the top of the Party and in league with the apparatus, there is no hope of convincing ordinary working class people to join and that therefore the battle for change is over before it began. It doesn’t follow that they’ll join with Corbyn in charge – but there’s a better chance, as has been found with this avalanche of affiliated members joining.

Not for nothing but socialists often challenge in unions for positions like the presidency, as it actually raises their profile and attempts to connect their programme to the rank and file. Often they win the presidency before they win the NEC of these unions. They use that position to highlight the clear programmatical differences with the union right, which is precisely what the press, what Blair and no few others have done with Corbyn, thereby cementing his popularity, it seems.

The Labour Party is a very different beast to unions, being to the right of the most right wing unions like Unison, which overturned its own leadership at a recall conference, or Usdaw, in which an open socialist got 45% of the vote for President. But the underlying principle is the same; however small your cadre, you must connect with the masses. Everything else is just an over-intellectualised circle-jerk.

 

Categories: General Politics
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers