Opinion: The feeling’s mutual, isn’t it?

The Coalition are feeling mutual love at the moment. A love for public service mutuals that is. A multiplicity of support programmes, funds and policy initiatives have been initiated since 2010 (although the process was technically kickstarted under New Labour), in the hope that a ‘mutual revolution’ will envelope public services and unleash a wave of latent entrepreneurialism from frontline workers. Francis Maude has expressed the rather utopian aspiration that by 2015, 1 million public sector workers will be working in one of these new public service mutuals.

On the face of it, what’s not to like about a ‘mutual revolution’ in public services? A growing body of evidence indicates that properly constituted public service mutuals increase employee engagement, reduce levels of absenteeism, and encourage the ‘co-production’ of services with input from end users of services. Seen in this light, public service mutuals possess a distinctly liberal flavour, encouraging as they do workplace democracy and the empowerment of individuals; be they patients, staff or even the commissioners of services.

Surely as Liberal Democrats then, this is one Coalition policy we should be shouting about? Actually, let’s not. It seems that when the Coalition says ‘mutual’ it doesn’t mean it in the traditional sense.

As Ed Mayo (the head of Co-operatives UK) has recently pointed out, many of these newly created entities struggle to meet the traditional definition of a mutual: ‘…the government’s entry definition of mutual ownership, with a paltry 25% for staff and no rights for service users, gives no guarantee of member control and leaves investors in charge.’

Given this, the reality of the Coalition’s enthusiasm for mutuals begins to look less like a revolution of worker democracy and empowerment, and more like an opportunity for keen-eyed private investors to work their way into the very infrastructure of public services.

Indeed, with such a loose interpretation of what constitutes a ‘mutual’, the Coalition is adding weight to the arguments of those who claim that the creation of these mutuals or social enterprises is merely ‘privatisation by the back door’.

Questioned on this point during Saturday’s Social Liberal Forum conference, Norman Lamb – a keen advocate for the creation of mutuals within the NHS – tended to agree with the thrust of the argument that more needed to be done to ensure that these new organisations are ‘genuine mutuals’.

If an attempt were made to create genuine mutuals then the policy would have the potential to inject a dose of radical liberalism into public workplaces and services across the country. But without safeguards to stop the creation of ‘mutuals in name only’, this much-vaunted ‘revolution’ will continue to feel less than mutual.

* Matthew Donnelly is a Liberal Democrat member in Wirral South.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

6 Comments

  • Matthew Donnelly 16th Jul '13 - 7:25pm

    Thanks Prateek, and thank you for putting on what turned out to be a very enjoyable and thought provoking conference.

  • Good article Matthew and Ed Mayo’s comments are worth reading in the full.

    Obviously, the Coalitions enthusiasm for public service mutuals only extends so far, as I note the word ‘mutual’ didn’t pass Cable’s lips when he announced the privatisation of the Post Office.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 31st May - 11:34am
    @Glenn “The lockdowns have not saved lives”. What kind of planet are you on, man? It’s blindingly obvious that lockdowns have saved lives. Whether they...
  • User AvatarPeter Chambers 31st May - 11:33am
    If anyone wants background reading on the evolution of the political entrepreneur, and how money is efficiently converted to opinion, they could try ISBN-13: 978-1925228847,...
  • User AvatarGlenn 31st May - 11:31am
    Peter Martin You can joke about Ethiopia, but it has had very low death rates. And we based what we did on the police state...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 31st May - 11:27am
    Peter, thank you for your useful contributions. On Cummings, I do think he broke the guidance rules with impunity (it's never yet mentioned that he...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 31st May - 11:26am
    @ George Kendall, If neoliberals had an explanation for the "productivity puzzle", why would they call it a 'puzzle' in the first place? It's really...
  • User AvatarGlenn 31st May - 11:16am
    The lockdowns have not saved lives. In fact the old and the vulnerable they were supposed to protect were turfed out of hospitals to clear...