Setting the narrative for the future

Tweet

One of the problems with any action taken by large numbers of people is that it is difficult to know whether, or to what extent, there is a common underlying motivation.  And one of the results of that is that people looking at the same events from different perspectives can and do project their own interpretation on those events, to suit their own ends.  We saw it with Brexit, which some chose to claim was all about immigration, some blamed on xenophobia whilst yet others saw it as about ‘taking back control’.  There’s been something of a parallel this week.

The response to the English government’s appeal for volunteers (and in this context, it is an England-only scheme, set up by the English Health Minister to assist the English NHS, although one wouldn’t know that from news reports) has been staggering, and encouraging for those of us who believe in people’s better nature, especially at a time when we are seeing incidents which might cause one to doubt that.  We cannot know the motivations of all those involved, but it does seem to me to be a desire to help other people, and fill gaps in service provision.  It’s not the only possible interpretation, though – the Prime Minister’s language seems to suggest that he sees it as a great outpouring of (British) patriotism, as people are influenced by what he, no doubt, sees as his stirring Churchillian words (although others might see them as anything but).

For the time being it matters not what the actual motivation is nor the way that motivation is interpreted; the key thing is that as many gaps as possible get plugged and that help gets to those who need it.  The hows and the whys are questions for a later date. They will be important, though.  Many are already arguing that when the current crisis is over, things can’t go back to the old normal.  We can be certain, however, that some will want to take us back to that point – there are plenty of vested interests in ensuring that happens.  The outcome if this week’s surge of volunteers is interpreted as an expression of social solidarity and a desire to help others will be very different from the outcome if it is seen as a patriotic effort to overcome a short term crisis – an interpretation which could even lead some to conclude that austerity cuts to public services can continue, because volunteers will fill the gaps in an emergency.

In the longer term, it matters a great deal who does the interpreting and who sets the narrative.

Charities at risk

Tweet The Tories started the trend towards greater use of charities and volunteers in the provision of services, and Labour have accelerated it. It's a trend which has always left me a little uneasy, however.

It's not that I want to knock the work of the charities concerned, nor to belittle the excellent work done by volunteers. They make a valuable contribution, and they both give and get a great deal of satisfaction out of the work which they do. 'Extra' services have long been a part of the work of charities. Nor is there anything wrong at all with central and local government giving grants to charities to help them fund the valuable work they do.

But what leaves me uneasy is the feeling that, increasingly, 'core' services are effectively being contracted out to charities and volunteers because the government can get the services cheaper that way, largely because of lower staff costs. What are often called 'partnerships' (don't government agencies just love that word?) seem often to be ways by which 'efficiency savings' can be made by simply moving the provision of some services from the public sector to the 'third sector'. The movement is only ever one way of course.

The services provided by charities are more and more subject to service level agreements which have to be met to justify the 'grants' which they are given. They're still called grants, but they look awfully like 'payments for services supplied' to me.

Today's story about the CAB seems to be taking this trend even further, as the organisation has been told it will have to bid for funding in competition with other organisations in future. This looks a lot like 'tendering for work' to me; with the charity competing directly against private companies providing the same services. Having tried to introduce private sector disciplines and practices into the public sector, it almost seems as though they are forcing charities to go the same way as well.

The government spokesperson said "The most important thing is to ensure equity of access to good quality advice services, coherency, cohesion and value for money". Well, yes, indeed. But that brings me back to the main point. If those are the criteria, should such services really be dependent on charities and volunteers in the first place?