Born to Fail?

50 years ago, in 1973, a small report was published which was to shape my life for the next 16 years. It was ”Born to Fail?” and exposed the intensity and scale of poverty affecting children – particularly in the West of Scotland.

I had spent the previous 5 years as a councillor in a shipbuilding town - working with tenants to help improve their housing and educational conditions. And had just been elected to one of the leadership positions of a Regional Council covering half of Scotland.

The main political leadership was, unusually, shared between its “Convener” (the public face) who was a community Minister, Geoff Shaw and, briefly, the Leader of Glasgow Corporation and the leader of the Labour group which formed the majority of councillors – Dick Stewart, previously a coal miner. The dual leadership may have been unusual, certainly led to the occasional tension (and was discontinued after Geoff’s tragically early death 4 years later), but offered the possibility for one man to focus on developing policy priorities and the other on the mechanics of implementation and discipline. Geoff shared my outrage at the conditions of marginalised people – so we were half of what jocularly became known as the “Gang of Four” who led the Region and therefore able to shape the Region’s priorities – not least because we had a year’s breathing space before assuming full and final responsibility in May 1975 for its public services (which employed 100,000 staff such as teachers, social workers, engineers and police)

I’ve written before about the strategy we developed in response to the “Born to Fail?” report (the full story is here – and a short version here) but focusing, understandably, on a description of the steps taken and an exploration of some of the dilemmas we faced. What I want to do here is instead to look in more detail at how exactly we framed the issue – and at what seemed to be the choices and constraints on offer.

We’ve only recently learned about the Overton Window – a strange term used to describe how perceptions of what is politically acceptable suddenly shift and can be exploited by reformers. I’m fascinated by this concept of “turning points” or “critical junctures” brilliantly dissected in Anthony Barnett’s extended essay Out of the Belly of Hell (2020)

What, by 1982, had become the “Social Strategy for the Eighties” was quite unique at the time – no other government body had dared contemplate anything so bold. It was to be another 2 decades before New Labour made a similar attempt – this time with the discourse about “inner cities” and “social exclusion” rather than "deprivation". Jules Feiffer nailed it perfectly when he had his little cartoon character say

I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn't poor, I was needy. They told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me underprivileged was overused. I was disadvantaged. I still don't have a dime. But I have a great vocabulary.

 Basically we suggested four principles of action which had not been attempted before

• Positive Discrimination : the scope for allocating welfare State resources on a more equitable basis had been part of the "New Left" critique since the late 1950s (Townsend). Being a new organisation meant that it was to no-one's shame to admit that they did not know how exactly the money was being allocated. Studies were carried out which confirmed our suspicions that it was the richer areas which, arguably, needed certain services least (eg "pre-school" services for children) which, in fact, had the most of them! And, once discovered, this was certainly an area we considered we had a duty to engage in redistribution of resources - notwithstanding those who considered this was not for local government to attempt.

• Community Development : one of the major beliefs shared by some of us driving the new Council (borne of our own experience) was that the energies and ideas of residents and local officials in these "marginalised" areas were being frustrated by the hierarchical structures of departments whose professionals were too often prejudiced against local initiatives. Our desire was to find more creative organisational forms which would release these ideas and energies - of residents and professionals alike. This approach meant experimentation

• Inter-Agency Cooperation : there needed to be a focussed priority of all departments and agencies on these areas. Educational performance and health were affected more by housing and income than by teachers and doctors! One agency - even as large as Strathclyde - could not do much on its own. An intensive round of dialogues was therefore held in 1976/77 with District Councils, Central Government, Health Boards, Universities and Voluntary Organisations: from which 8 experimental area initiatives emerged, followed in the 1980s with larger ones in Glasgow eventually with central government and private sector support.

• Information and Income-Maximisation : the Region could certainly use its muscle to ensure that people were getting their entitlements : ie the information and advice to receive the welfare benefits many were missing out on. The campaigns mounted in the late 1970s were soon pulling millions of pounds into these areas: and served as a national model which attracted the active interest of the Conservative Minister at the time.

Now strategies are now ten a penny – and we have become cynical of those who attempt them. One of our many current besetting sins! There is actually nothing better for a man’s soul than coming together with others in a spirit of fellowship to explore how the lot of one’s fellows might be improved.

I was so pleased, some 18 months ago, to find a small book (from a Canadian) celebrating the need for “strategies for governing” For 40 years we have been regaled with the ideology of the small state and the time for a new conception of the State is long overdue.

This series of posts will set the Strathclyde strategy in the wider context of the modernisation efforts set in train by the Labour government of 1964-70 – which rarely gets the credit it is due for what it both did and what it attempted. Because the story is told in more detail elsewhere, I will try to compress the basic story in bullet points…..