How Co-Operatives can be part of Labour's future

In our latest piece for the Huffington Post  Bev Clack and I spell out how responsible capitalism is often not applied by big business and the resulting effects for us all.   What we’d like to do is spell out some examples of how different things can be! 

(Announcement just made that Huff Post has been hacked so there may be a delay in getting our post out there !)

One example :

The John Lewis Partnership

The reason it is called The John Lewis Partnership is because at the outset in 1929 it desired to establish  a relationship with staff who are considered  partners within the business.   In providing dedication and energy to make the business special, The JLP  seeks to reward the partners by offering eg :

·         A proportion of its profits as a percentage of salary.

·         Each Partner's pay rate is examined and discussed annually to ensure that it is consistent with the local market rate and reflects the Partner's contribution to the business.

·         The John Lewis Partnership offers a non-contributory, final salary pension scheme after three years’ service. Those with less than three years' service have the option of participating in a joint contributory scheme until the three year period is reached.

·         There are extensive career development opportunities which are discussed from day one, preferential holiday arrangements throughout the UK, generous leave.. and more. 

·          

Waitrose Supermarkets is part of the John Lewis Partnership. No wonder when one opens, local staff often leave their retail jobs with other employers.

To put it simply The Partnership is open, fair and transparent. Profits are shared, everyone has a voice and there is a true sense of pride within.  

Anyone would think this model was a modern phenomenon – but it was set up in 1929 when other workers were battling for decent working conditions in retail, manufacturing etc.  During this period the Trade Union movement grew and continued to fight for workers’ rights – even to the extent of

agreeing basic rights eg one day per week free from work usually Sunday, paid holidays, down to 10 minute breaks each morning and afternoon to have a drink and visit the loo !    The JLP does not align to the trade union movement.

The Co-Operative Model of business – 2012

Interestingly the UN has named 2012  “The International Year of Co-operatives”  in the hope that it will encourage countries around the world to promote the establishment of these types of businesses.  People who work in a co-operative directly benefit from its success – rather like the John Lewis Partnership.  It is owned and operated by a group of individuals and can, for example, be a cake stall at a market or can be much larger - we all know the Co-Operatives stores on our high streets for example.  Some village shops are now run as co-operatives – without them locals would lose their local shop.  .

If the co-operative happens to be a building firm, or a bakery for example, the workers decide what they build or what they should bake !  A library or a green-grocer can be run as a co-operative – anyone can run one !   A co-operative is a democratic organisation. Its principle is ‘one member, one vote’ and the workers make mutual decisions about the business.  Another name often used for a co-operative is mutualisation.  Decisions about holidays, pensions, are made by the workers or certainly in tandem with a Board of Trustees if there is one !  

Quite a different type of service offered by a co-operative has been established in New York, providing a care service.  Rather than caring being seen as a low grade job, it has developed into a care training organisation offering full training with benefits and guaranteed hours.  

Decisions are made by a Board of Directors, half of whom are elected from the worker-owners.   There is a Worker Council too which acts as a liaison between the Board of Directors and the employees, consulting on decisions and other issues.  There is an annual vote to approve the net profit allocation and other benefits.

There is no reason why local caring co-operatives could not be established here in the UK.   What a great model – training and caring at a local level for the benefit of all who are involved – the workers *and the clients !

Consensus Politics and Ethical Socialism

There is something very attractive about the view that greater consensus will lead to a more civilised approach to politics. Negotiation, accepting differences and coming to agreement lies at the heart of good relationships, so why not good politics?

But there are dangers in consensus, particularly if you are committed to an ethical vision of a politics that can affect real social change.  We’ve been reflecting on the reality of these dangers for the Labour party since they came more clearly into focus about 10 days ago.

Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home claimed that ‘we all’ now accept that compassion has to be limited, focused towards the ‘deserving’ rather than the ‘undeserving’ poor. (Of course, who decides who are deserving and who are not, as well as the ramifications of this approach, he was not prepared to say.) 

Demonising one group in society as ‘undeserving’ is troubling, and usually involves assumptions about people claiming benefit. In practice, those claiming benefits are a very diverse group of people. Such cultures did not spring out of nowhere: they were created under the last Tory government when it failed to develop new industries as it ripped out the old. And, to our pain, the Labour government did not do enough to support new businesses in those stricken areas.

Montgomerie’s argument reflects the neo-liberal consensus of the last thirty years. Success or failure is something that can be identified solely with the actions of the individual. This is far from an adequate way of analysing the complex roots of poverty, both of wealth and aspiration. It is not surprising to hear conservatives make simplistic statements about the nature of poverty. It is more upsetting to hear parts of the Labour Party expressing similar views.

Tristram Hunt MP on Question Time recently offered a case in point. He suggested that to raise welfare pay outs in line with inflation was a mistake: “I think the system is flawed. What they’ve done is taken one month’s inflation figure of 5.2% and they will apply it across the year - instead of taking the year-long average.” David Dimbleby asked him: “You would have endorsed a lower figure to unemployment benefit and pensions?  Hunt replied, “Yes, I would have”. 

Cutting tax credits is undoubtedly putting a real strain on working families up and down the land.  A woman in the same audience made that abundantly clear: “It isn’t about unemployment benefits so much, it’s housing costs…Most people who work in this town earn between £12,000 to £15,000 per year.. Housing Benefit cuts are hitting families hard. We have rents of £400-£500 per week.” You don’t have to be a mathematician to work out what this means for people’s lives.  

But pitting the working poor against the unemployed is a recipe for ethical disaster. It creates scapegoats who can be marginalised and treated as less than human. It’s not healthy, and, more importantly, it isn’t fair. A better approach is to argue for the living wage, and interventions that actively narrow the gap between top and bottom earners. 

Jumping on the populist bandwagon that believes all claimants are scroungers is an abnegation of Labour’s responsibility to challenge these increasingly common myths of the feckless poor who are reaping the whirlwind of their own irresponsibility. Such myths must be tackled head on, and this necessitates spelling out the complex interlinking factors of poverty and welfare dependency. We should not be simplifying the argument in order to satisfy an unthinking and uncaring approach to social deprivation.

So Labour is confronted by three urgent questions that require an answer: 

The first: who represents the Labour Party? And, conversely

The second : who does the Labour Party represent ?

The third : Can you only get elected if you appeal to the prejudices of middle England?

The first question raises the importance of broadening the party’s base and, particularly, getting people from non-middle class and professional backgrounds into representative politics. And we certainly need people in there who have some life experience in various walks of life. Alan Johnson is a great example both in his background and in the way he practices his politics. There are such people out there and we need them at the forefront of our politics. Only by allowing their experiences and voices to challenge and shape our policies can we hope to address the malaise in social and political life.  Although Labour won the by-election last week the overall turn-out was very poor.

The second question raises the fundamental question of what the Labour Party is for. We need to reengage with our history, recognising what brought us into being and why it was necessary to create a party that spoke for ordinary working people. And that means thinking about who we represent today. 

Thirdly, to gain power again, we have to put forward positive policies that speak to the kind of society we want to create; policies that are appealing and, importantly, that have broad appeal to those people we meet on the doorstep.  We must bear in mind that their needs are quite different today as a consequence of living in Cameron’s Britain of austerity. Therefore we need to examine Labour’s agenda critically and compassionately.

Thank goodness Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman was on the Question Time panel and able to talk about the facts of poverty and welfare dependence. It is this kind of solid, informed response that we need. In response to a recent poll that found 54 % thought unemployment benefits were too generous, he asked whether those people would still think that if they knew the average claimant received £67.50 per week. He also elaborated on realities of a labour market where five people are chasing every job. In such a climate, can the narrative of the lazy unemployed really be maintained? 

To his credit, Tristram Hunt did refer to people losing their jobs in steel manufacturing and mining in the 1980s.  “Where are those manufacturing jobs now?” he asked. Indeed.  We only have to refer to the Sheffield Forgemasters fiasco that occurred immediately after the General Election. Under Labour, public money was utilised to bail out the banks, and simultaneously Labour was concerned that jobs were maintained. It made economic sense. But this Tory-led government would not take similar steps to support manufacturing. Those jobs were lost and as a consequence we have more people on benefit.

The Labour government’s strategy to keep people working was right. At the time of the last general election the economy was starting to recover, and the debt we incurred in bailing out the banks would, eventually, have been recovered too. The Eds are therefore right to resist the consensus behind Osborne’s failed Plan A and they deserve more support for pursuing this strategy than they are currently getting from some sections of the party.

It’s time to dispel some of the myths in order for us to state clearly that we are the party of compassion. The majority of people, we believe, would welcome this. Many are asking about the direction of the Party at the moment, and we need a renewed commitment to the core Labour values of justice, compassion and inclusion. That means re-establishing the party as the voice for the voiceless. And nothing could be more important, given that we are looking at a whole new struggling population – the squeezed middle – whose voices are not being heard. 

It’s time for Labour to question the voices of consensus who espouse compassionate conservatism. It is time to stand up for the values that brought so many people into the Labour party in the first place.

It’s time for Labour to enter the fight for Britain’s soul.

I co-wrote this with Bev Clack and it was recently posted on The Green Benches

About these echoes...

Also published on The Green Benches blog

In this morning’s Observer we see a report that Labour is accusing the BBC of becoming a coalition government echo-chamber !  How true.  http://is.gd/3c4ERl  We have seen this develop and grow over many months – some would say years.  But there is a strong feeling that it has become more prevalent if not insidious.  The Tories apparently complain regularly that they do not receive fair coverage.  However, they must realise that we know that their complaints are bluster !    The government doesn’t only receive positive coverage from the BBC, at times the BBC appears to proffer approval - with icing plastered on top !  Maybe by complaining, the Tories believe Labour will be prevented from complaining or even questioning!  Well, if that was the strategy they got it wrong !   Maybe you don’t quite see what the fuss is about and need convincing.. 

Three small examples :

BBC Question Time  - the panellists usually consist of one Tory, one Lib Dem, one high ranking businessman, someone from a charity perhaps or a journalist, and then a Labour rep.   A balanced panel ?  I don’t think so !   Furthermore, Mr. Dimbleby will constantly interrupt the Labour spokesperson whilst often allowing the Tory, the Lib Dem and/or the business rep, to continue his/her point to oblivion.  And if there is any criticism of the government, the topic is often changed and the discussion moves on.   Don’t tell me that you haven’t noticed !   

On news programmes, the Lib Dems appear to be increasingly interviewed as the opposition. They most certainly are not the opposition - they are very much part of this Tory-led government.  Just because they jump up and down after Nick Clegg has attempted a pseudo rebellion to keep the party faithful on board does not make them the official opposition.   Labour is often by-passed and if invited,  give shorter answers and often cut off mid-stream.  You haven’t noticed ?  Watch more carefully...

On the occasions that Labour does get invited eg onto Newsnight,  usually we see someone who might have been a high profile politician/minister from about 10 years ago.   Often they do not represent the current leadership’s team or thinking.  They are usually speaking from the perspective from when Labour was first re-elected back in 1997.  Things have moved on.  Its time the BBC caught on !   If it really wishes and is willing to do so.. 

So why has this happened ?   One theory could be that the many journalists and presenters at the BBC are products of  independent boarding school education.  Therefore their contemporaries are on the whole Conservatives who, alongside them, were taught that they were born to rule !    Or maybe they shared a pint in the Students’ Bar at Oxbridge.   Am I being unfair ?    Perhaps they merely feel more comfortable and have a natural inclination towards their Conservative pals.  Not exactly wholly representative of the population though are they ?  Maybe the BBC should examine its recruitment strategy.  If it really wishes and is willing to do so.. 

And why does this matter ?   The vast majority of people watch the BBC News but it seems to be unwilling to assist Labour to convey its message even though the BBC is the UK’s public broadcasting body.   Labour must be able to tell the population about its opinions, its ideas, to convey their stance and much more besides.  There might be some coverage but not to the extent that the government enjoys and not with the same positive tone.  

And it isn’t just about promoting the government agenda – it’s about ignoring what is really happening out there – in society.   This morning BBC Breakfast news covered the newspapers – pointed to one headline on a newspaper – that of the Olympics about a potential betting scam but chose to ignore the other more emboldened headline on the same front page - that of four Tory party donors gaining honours! Had it been Labour donors – well, I think we would know what to expect !   

I used to have so much respect for the BBC and in some of its entertainment/drama/culture programming I still do eg The Frozen Planet.   But it lets itself down, as well that of the majority of the population, by its policy of providing unfair and biased news coverage towards the government whilst often ignoring the problems that the majority in society are facing.   

Does the BBC truly deserve the honourable banner of Public Service Broadcasting that it historically and currently still holds?

IS NEW LABOUR REALLY TO BLAME FOR UK RIOTS ?

Published Summer 2011 on The Green Benches website. 

This is the accusation being laid at Labour’s door by Peter Oborne  http://is.gd/iEV4oI.

This thought will be painful for many in the Labour Party, myself included.  I voted for

Labour in 1997, for Tony Blair.  He was a breath of fresh air.   Tony and his team had great ideas, the tories looked tired and could not recover from what seemed an endless number of scandals. As a result, New Labour won a landslide victory.

Yes, New Labour introduced the minimum wage, reduced unemployment, invested in the NHS, in education, commenced Surestart…  But as we know things began to sour, initially due to the Iraq war when we saw marches at Westminster, Labour MPs speaking and voting against the government – including the one I worked with. These were heady, uncomfortable days.  I felt very much at odds with my own party.  Members left Labour in droves..

It was almost from that point onwards that things started to go downhill, even though we won a general election again and again.  But was that, in part, due to the tory party still recovering..?  They certainly didn’t like being thrust into opposition – their arrogant assumption that they belonged at the top table had been proven wrong !

In May 2010 we found ourselves in opposition.  Many had become disenchanted with Labour.  Not just middle England voters who Tony had targeted, but those at our core, those who intrinsically belonged with Labour.  Many felt let down and they let us know.  They were once known as the working class, but many are no longer working…  

A couple of weeks ago we witnessed the worst riots ever seen in the UK.  People have been outraged at seeing communities set on fire, shops looted, people killed etc. I don’t need to go into this. But within a week after the riots began, and after the calls for strong sentencing, reports and interviews emerged that confirm there are very serious problems in some communities http://is.gd/eiJulf  These are many young men who have no hope of finding a job and where young girls become pregnant as a  route to finding independence, an income.  We heard that many young people leave school without some basic educational achievements yet we understand that educational achievements were rising year after year.   

So along with Peter Oborne do we need to ask if Labour tackled the problems that were on their doorstep for so long ?   Hindsight is a wonderful thing indeed…  

It is right that Ed Miliband is not retreating from accusations and is facing them head on -  even suggesting that the riots may be linked to various scandals – MP’s expenses, phonehacking and the banking industry  http://is.gd/48c3iv.  There are some who disagree but we have seen Ed in the midst of all the troubles with Labour MPs in their constituencies.  He has been meeting people from around the country and I believe that he has recognised a repeated thread which has led him to reach several conclusions.

Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron to hold an inquiry, stating that if he wouldn’t, then he would !   We shall have to see how in depth this will be.   Labour’s Inquiry would least involve those in the ivory towers of Whitehall,  but involve the residents and leaders who are at the heart of those troubled communities  http://is.gd/fFdlQb.  Let’s see what form the government’s inquiry takes. 

To tackle the issues will cost us heavily.  But riots cost us heavily too. More people are now jobless due to fires and will require financial support.  People have lost their homes, so we are faced with re-accommodating them.  Businesses have been ruined. Businesses, homeowners and tenants will claim for damages and as a result insurance premiums will rise.  If not insured the state will assist, basically falling to us to pay.  Yes the riots have been about behaviour and responsibility but also about much more.  This costs in financial terms but in so many other ways too.

We have heard voices state that young people feel there is no hope, they lack jobs and opportunity the haves and the have not’s.   We are a county of grafters and we must be allowed to graft !  Morally, I would rather that we faced up to our responsibilities as a nation – we need to show consideration and provide jobs for all sections of our society. To ignore is to turn our heads away from the truth and we know what happens then ! 

Rather than concentrate on the City - the matriarch of capitalism, we must look at new forms of manufacturing, new industry - training and skills need to be acquired.  For those who do not achieve required grades for University, or may not wish to be saddled with huge debts, we have to find alternative forms of employment.  Rather than pursue a purely academic curriculum, we should explore other avenues for young people in their later years at school, maybe introducing forms of vocational training with work experience on the agenda.  Surely this has to be the way forward.  Everyone benefits !

The Government front bench has little understanding of the lives of people in the communities we have seen so much of recently.   I hope Labour keeps this government on its toes, ensuring that the issues that need to be addressed, are addressed.  We cannot afford to ignore – this would be futile and uncaring.  People are depending on us… we cannot let them down this time.  Is this too tall an order ?

SUGGESTED POLICY FOR LONG TERM CARE OF ELDERLY PEOPLE..

SUGGESTED POLICY FOR LONG TERM CARE OF ELDERLY PEOPLE IN THE UK

INTRODUCTION  (appeared on other website in July 2011) 

Long term care of elderly people has become very high on the national agenda. This document sets out some of the issues concerned with long term social care within the UK. It also addresses some suggestions as to how standards can be improved and how we might assist our elderly population.

1         Priority - Living with dignity & desired standards

2        Care plans

3        Type of care available

4       Staff training

5        Funding

6       Elderly people in society – the concept

1   Priority

Elderly people and all those in care should live with dignity whether it be in their own homes or at the appropriate time within  a hospital, nursing home,  care home or supported living setting.  How we care for people as a society is intrinsic  and conveys much about us as a society.  There are examples of living with dignity in old age:

Key factors:

Research shows there are eight main factors that promote dignity, all of which contribute to a person's sense of self-respect.

• Choice and control - Enabling people to make choices about the way they live and the care they receive.
• Communication - Speaking to people respectfully and listening to what they say; ensuring clear dialogue between workers and services.
• Pain management - Ensuring that people living with pain have the right help and medication to reduce suffering and improve their quality of life.
• Personal hygiene - Enabling people to maintain their usual standards of personal hygiene.
• Eating and nutritional care - Providing a choice of nutritious, appetising meals that meet the needs and choices of individuals, and support with eating where needed.
• Practical assistance - Enabling people to maintain their independence by providing  "that little bit of help".
• Privacy - Respecting people's personal space, privacy in personal care and confidentiality of personal information.
• Social inclusion - Supporting people to keep in contact with family and friends, and to participate in social activities  (1)  http://is.gd/YSKr1T

2 A CARE PLAN

Care plans should be prepared by a key professional who has links to the caring professions/support networks. The person requiring care should be involved in any care plan whenever possible, along with a close family member or registered carer if family member is unavailable.  The key professional should be decided by the GP and the local Social Care Manager.  This will encourage a joint working relationship to the benefit of the patient/client.

3 TYPE OF CARE AVAILABLE

At present the care available is either or a mix of support at home, supported living in sheltered housing, care home, respite care and nursing home provision. Unfortunately many elderly people have extended hospital stays for various reasons but mainly due to lack of facilities/funding negotiation.  This prevents acute hospitals/wards from admitting acute patients resulting in the term commonly known as bed-blocking.  This can be a distressing situation for both the patient and their relatives and adds to the problem of waiting lists.

Clearly long term care is now very much on the national agenda, unfortunately very much due to bad press in recent weeks.  The recent broadcast of the Panorama programme caused us all to re-examine the issue of long term care  (2)  http://is.gd/Jtkqey.

There are various guides online that can help relatives or indeed the person requiring long term care to seek a good care home. Checklists are available but how often are the checklists ticked?  Some online guides:

(3) http://is.gd/xVqoPT  (4) http://is.gd/ShPWcG 

Spot checks should be undertaken by local authorities at private care homes.  I would like long term care to be provided by the state but accept that this requires planning. 

4. TRAINING OF CARE STAFF

Whilst we are examining the issues about standards of care for those we love, and indeed for ourselves as we grow older, perhaps we should also consider the standards of those who will be caring and what their qualifications might be. 

Trained/qualified nurses are often employed in Nursing Homes where residents require specialist/nursing care but what about care homes?  What qualifications can be expected in care homes and from those who provide care in the community by staff sometimes known as ‘care assistants’?   On undertaking some minor research I gather that little training is often given, sometimes as little as one week’s training.  I really question this as being sufficient and must be worrying for those receiving care and also for those providing it.  How confident are these people that they are doing a ‘good job’?

Long term care is here to stay and I believe that we have reached the stage, indeed many of us reached this stage decades ago, where quality of care should be provided for those requiring it.

I would like to suggest that a proper career structure in the caring services is provided by a formal training course.   I strongly believe that this would raise standards of care and also raise morale within the caring profession.

This could be introduced into the sixth form apprentice curriculum.  All provision of adult care would be covered – for young adults through to elderly people.  Such a course would ensure that good standards of care are provided and maintained to anyone receiving care whether it be at home, in a day care setting, residential care, at home etc.  This would cover all types of care for different ages with different module options for various disciplines e.g.  people  with various conditions e.g. severe autism,  young people with disability,  adults with special needs and elderly people requiring support and maximum care. Some understanding of chronic conditions should also be part of a module, e.g. diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, so that specific awareness and care can be given to those residents.  The course should also cover some minor nursing care e.g. changing dressings, bathing & hygiene, etc.

On completion of training for perhaps a one year full time or two years part-time study,  a qualification would be given – The Care Diploma.  This would be accepted in all areas of adult care including a hospital setting where nursing assistants are employed. Maybe this should be the minimum requirement for anyone entering into the caring arena.  Mature students should also be accepted onto the course.

Private care home operators could enter into a contract with their employees to provide training  perhaps one day per week plus online training for a period of two years.  I’m sure some care home owners will dislike this suggestion but if they wish to reap the benefits of providing such a service, they should also accept responsibility for staff and residents.  Training fees could be shared by the employer & the employee.  If training is undertaken in the sixth form then this would be covered by the state.

The course would cover all types of adult care with different module options for various disciplines -  people  with various conditions e.g. severe autism,  young people with disability,  adults with special needs and elderly people requiring minimum support, and those who require maximum  care. Some understanding of chronic conditions should also be part of a module, e.g. diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, so that specific awareness of and care can be given to those residents.

How refreshing would it be to give credibility to staff working in this area where such standards are required?  Staff would also attain knowledge, confidence and pride in their work and hopefully be valued by society at large.  The days of casual labour working in our care homes would no longer be acceptable - indeed it is unacceptable by many of us now! 

5.  FUNDING OF LONG TERM CARE

As I write this article the Dilnot Report has been published (5) http://is.gd/4zhmVx and here is a guide to that report (6) http://is.gd/5KfVIk

Recently we have witnessed the business ethos that is behind several care home organisations e.g.  Southern Cross, leaving many of us feeling uncomfortable. As that business appears to be in trouble, that model cannot be deemed sustainable.  The Private Care Industry needs to be re-examined and certain clauses placed into contracts of care with the priority focussing on care.   The average salary at Southern Cross is just over £13,000.  I wonder how much the salaries are at other care establishments and how much of the residents’ money is spent on salaries, residents’ food etc. and how much goes into the bank accounts of those big corporate companies who so often are supposed to be providing the care for our loved  one’s ? 

Although The Dilnot Commission has provided some answers that will now be debated, there are many other questions outstanding… as outlined above and which leads me to…

6. ELDERLY PEOPLE IN SOCIETY – THE CONCEPT

The elderly population in the UK is growing and we are told every day that we are all living longer.  That, of course, does not apply to everyone – we do not all live into our 90s and beyond – but many more of us can expect a longer healthier life. 

When we are young adults we often move away from our parentsto study. We then set up home, start a family, have careers – very busy lifestyles.  By middle-age some of us have more time and maybe moved back nearer to our loved one’s as our own children came onto the scene.  Also by middle-age we have parents in their 70s/80s that require and, indeed, should be able to expect our attention.  None of us like to think that we are cast onto one side just because we become less able.  

However, when people do become less able It is at this time that we need to examine our lifestyles. Sometimes caring for our relatives can be the easiest solution especially when respite care is now available - perhaps that provision needs to be extended.  Surely this is the way it has to go?  When we were young and perhaps not so young, who was there for us?  Isn’t it time to examine our own attitudes as a society, re-adopt the values that we once had and that we often witness in other cultures – pay-back time?!

Perhaps as part of a building programme, more bungalow-type accommodation could be considered in neighbourhood areas. 

I know that many of us do care for elderly relatives but there are many who do not.  We can’t always leave it to others… only when it’s really necessary, surely, should we do so.  

This document is merely a suggested way forward in addressing some of the problems that we currently witness and encounter in the provision of long term care.

Bibliography

(1)     Community Care

(2)    The Guardian

(3)    Age UK

(4)   Revera

(5)    The Dilnot Commission

(6)   The Guardian