Politics vs Policy and Wes Streeting's memoir
Does today's Labour Party understand what it means to rely on "sad, soulless" public services?
I’ve decided to write some reflections on Wes Streeting’s memoir. Rest-assured, this is not a review. What was it Orwell said? “Autobiography is only to be trusted when it reveals something disgraceful.” (Perhaps Eric slept better at night, knowing that he was only writing about being “down and out” for journalistic purposes?)1
This isn’t to suggest that Wes’ memoir, has anything particularly disgraceful in it. I mean for one thing he comes from a student politics tradition, where people will go to enormous lengths to conceal such dark histories as say, double-barreled surnames or worse, passing the eleven-plus.2
I argue in this essay (jokes), that it is no surprise that Wes has already put pen to paper at so tender an age, considering everything life has thrown at him. What struck me about his memoir - was not only the harshness of the poverty he grew up in (contrary to popular, ie Twitter opinion, it’s not something he tends to bring up in conversation) - but also, that thing so central to the Labour tradition; relationships.
Wes has always been clear that it is the relationships in his life that have gotten him to where he is today, and made him who he is too. After all, it’s his old headteacher that receives the glory in the epilogue (spoiler alert).
The envy of the world?
Whatever Mr Osborne thinks, I’m not convinced that Beveridge when he was drawing up ideas for a welfare state, thought that it would be good for morale if workers, employed by the state, told young single mums, “Do you know that we have to pay for your son, out of our taxes?” Which is what one particularly soulless member of staff at the DSS said to Wes’ mum one time.
His description of the “sad soulless” DSS continues to ring true. A friend of mine used to work for DWP. They told me of a story involving a young autistic man who had been sanctioned. The staff at the job centre were left in hysterics after he had applied for the “hardship fund” (which you can only apply for if you are sanctioned - again, not wasteful bureaucracy at all). Why were they laughing?
Turns out he had put “Andrex loo roll” as one of his essentials in his hardship fund application. Apparently “Andrex” is a luxury, which made him ineligible for any financial assistance. My friend said his colleagues were almost salivating as they rejected his application.
Then there’s the PIP assessments. Staff have sometimes purposefully switched off the power for the lifts, and include that as part of the “assessment”. (I can only assume Mr Osborne is a fan of the original UK (and superior) Office.
Of course, cultures ebb and flow, but I’m not convinced the culture at the DSS/DWP has ever flowed too far from the path. In fact, post-the-I’ll-cut-the-deficit-not-the-NHS-administration, it’s probably much worse.
Bad public services are part of the problem and the people they are supposed to help feel more like victims of the state rather than supported by it.
No, this is not a transcript of an argument between Tony and Gordon circa 2006, but a quote from Wes’ epilogue. I think it says a lot about the kind of person Wes is, that the epilogue is not about him but about the families currently in temporary accommodation (TA). (On that note, Our Friends in the North is still on iPlayer).
There’s MPs doing things on this, but really, what power do they have? I’m currently working with a (different) Labour MP on a situation, where the MP is trying to find out why a woman has been sent around five London boroughs, with each and every single council telling her and her daughter they are “non-priority” and have no “local connection”. (I mean it’s almost as if these housing officers don’t see these people as actual.. people. Then of course there’s the loopholes, which mean that living in TA “doesn’t count” as a local connection to a borough.)
Really, an MP can only do so much, the system is designed this way. A good performance by a housing officer is judged on whether they have “relieved” their employer, ie the council, of any duty (ie passed the buck).
And what more do we expect when their budgets have been sliced, oh there goes Mr Osborne again! Wes described the DSS as “soulless”, it seems these days public service workers have to detach their soul, to get through the day.
Our beloved NHS is not immune either. I know one woman who was rejected from an NHS-commissioned mental health service because she “wasn’t sufficiently suicidal”. Another, was rejected (she has cancer and her mental health was suffering as a result), because she had “had suicidal thoughts in the past year”. She was thus deemed “too high risk”. You what?
In our obsession with public management systems built on criteria around arbitrary outcomes set by budgets by Whitehall, it seems that Bevan’s fear that the NHS could become a bureacuracy has been realised.
Perhaps it’s time for more politicians who have lived through this, and for those that do, to talk about it more. I’m not sure we’re going to suddenly get people out of the job centre, and into PPC selections (but perhaps now is not that time for a debate on FPTP or on our so-called “strong government” party system). For me, and yes again, I am biased, Wes is a relational politician, in the tradition of many others before him. He’s someone who can connect with those who are struggling in a way in which, many others have tried, and failed.
In focusing on relationships, both in his memoirs and recent speeches, he also brings to mind the tradition some of us so hoped, might just help the party return to its roots. And no, I’m not speaking of roots; vis a vis that old “longest suicide note in history.”
Politics, not Policy
There’s not many modern day speeches that have stayed with me (I am sorry to say), but one of them was delivered by a Miliband, in Liverpool back in 2011. I still remember the speech very well, which says something in itself. The central theme; We talk too much about policy, we need to talk more about politics.
Yes you guessed it, I speak of David and Labour’s brief brush with community organising. It’s all by the by perhaps now, with Arnie Graf’s failed attempt to find a staff member at Party HQ who knew a working class person minimum wage worker (someone find me a speech by Bevan about his fears that the Party would become a bureaucracy?)
The Party seems to have moved swiftly on from community organising, but Miliband’s point remains, we’re still talking policy, the Labour Party has remained broadly the same in ever-shifting sands. Yet, has the Party really ever shied away from risking failure again?
What’s my point? I suppose there’s something in having representatives who understand what the welfare state is like - is really like - at its frayed edges, in its deepest depths. That “safety net” that is still somehow who we are as a nation, when the reality of being in it, especially these days, results in often the most cruel dehumanisation.
The Party is so far removed from people’s lives, seemingly devoid of a leadership who understand the relationship between the state and its “customers” (to quote DWP). Of course, we know there’s something distasteful in the, “the working class needs us” discourse. But we also know those reliant on the welfare state aren’t inclined to vote (why should they?), so really, does the party’s PR machine, even care?
Sure I’m biased, and far be it from me to use my blog to pen my own, “supposedly considered verdict”3, but I do think this memoir cuts to the heart of the problem with the Labour party at the moment. (I say “at the moment”, lol).
Relationships and stories
We know compelling stories are important, after all when people have left us, that’s really all we have. But in today’s Britain, how many compelling stories are there? It’s actually quite hard to find a recently selected MP (say within last ten years) who has not worked in PR. I know I’m being slightly flippant, and that working in PR doesn’t reflect the full story, Florence Eshalomi and Peter Mandelson4 being just two examples.
But we know there’s a few too many professional-class MPs in the house, with little else to say for themselves besides “well, I think it was when I was rejected in my fifth selection, that I realised; failure, the greatest teacher is” (I paraphrase; so I may include our little green friend).
Wes has a compelling story, and in truth, I’m not sure the left like that too much. (Can’t think why.) For all the “my dad was a teacher, my mum was a nurse” chat from other members, his story remains rare. The house should represent the country, and for all the rhetoric from others (and my own keyboard warriorship), it’s comforting to know that there are some honourable members who understand the demonization of those who rely on this country’s dysfunctional (and in truth very wasteful; both in terms of workers’ time and the public’s money) “welfare” state.
Wes cut to the heart of the problem with the welfare state when he quoted that “obnoxious” woman’s jibe at his mum. Beveridge tried to warn us that communities, and relationships must remain at the heart of public services, Bevan did too. It seems no-one has really listened. Public workers (particularly in mental health and homelessness), are all too busy signposting people to things they haven’t asked for, and recording it as an “outcome”.
Perhaps eventually the tide will turn, we’ll remember what the welfare state is for, who it should be serving. That we should be proud of it and not punish those who rely on it. Perhaps we should even organise alongside those let down by public services, to build better ones built around relationships (as we are currently doing in Tottenham with North Central London NHS, with those let down by mental health and homelessness services).
I feel history is repeating itself, the Labour Party needs to get organised again - and by that I mean organise to get the tabloids to suddenly become obsessed by public welfare bureaucracy. I’m not even joking, which tells me how cynical our politics is.
Perhaps that’s another sign we should speak about politics more, and less about policy.
(Besides, stop trying to make the the two-child benefit cap happen, people that support such a policy ain’t ever gonna vote for you).
Don’t know why I’m throwing shade at Orwell, I love the geezer!
I remember one particular episode, (circa 2010?) where a leader of one student politics faction endured one particularly horrible smear campaign from their rivals. What was the smear? That this person’s real name was in fact John Smith, (ie that he was a white Englishman.)
Some musings from Michael Foot, on the political diary/blog
Yes ok I thought this was funny