In a day long workshop at Bromley-by-Bow Centre Simon Duffy worked with a range of community activists to explore whether a pro-community welfare state was possible - and if so under what conditions. Lively discussions and important ideas emerged - although we may have to do a little more work before declaring success. Thanks to Power to Change for supporting this event.

1. Pro-Community Welfare State
Exploring common ground to identify collective action

2. Who’s here
Clare Wightman • Vinesh Kumar • Brian Fisher • Mervyn Eastman •
Mark Brown • Kathy Evans • Susan Harrison • David Floyd • Maff
Potts • John Dalrymple • Rob Trimble • Thomas Allan • Steve Wyler
• Tricia Nichol • Ian Scholes • Ian McPherson • Anna Merryfield •
Bob Thust • Alan Dootson •
Who’d have liked to have been
Chris Yapp • Clare Jones • Bob Rhodes • Chris Howells • David
Towell • Vidhya Alakeson • Wendy Lowder • Stephen Sloss • Ralph
Broad • Nick Dixon • Kelly Hicks • Charlotte Hollins • Su Maddock •
Cheryl Barrott • Dennis O’Rourke • Steven Rose • Richard Lee

3. Dream outcomes…
1. A policy manifesto outlining the changes
necessary to promote citizenship and community
2. A leadership community willing to communicate
these ideas locally and nationally
3. Local leaders, local authorities or others willing to
test and develop these new models

4. My personal nightmare…
lots of disagreement, fear and mistrust between
people I like and admire (and bad time management)

5. ‘plan’
1. Simon will facilitate a discussion to explore
common ground.
2. Simon will write a paper, in consultation with you,
to outline possible next steps.
3. The real goal is to try and identify shared positions
around which we might see ourselves organising
for change in the future.

6. A word from
our sponsors…
Community business provides one important strategy for
increasing social justice, advancing citizenship and
strengthening the fabric of our community life. It gives
people new opportunities to get involved in their community
and to create new forms of collective good for those
communities.
Many do not need direct funding from the welfare state in
order to survive, but they do exist in relationship with local
democratic systems, commissioning arrangements and local
services.
They are an important part of a bigger picture.

7. a bigger community picture
Looked at from the perspective of the welfare state,
community businesses are just one strand in a fabric
of grassroots initiatives that have always been
present, but which have become increasingly active
as austerity has eroded older service models.
Arguably many of these community initiatives could
be woven into a more positive and engaging future
version of the welfare state, not just as a response to
cuts.

8. Citizenship & community
• Cooperatives and
shared care
• Women-centred work
• Peer support
• Local Area
Coordination
• Place-based
commissioning
• Neighbourhood
leadership (C2)
• Personal budgets
• Relationship-based
work
• Volunteering
• Microenterprise &
community catalysts
• Voluntary sector
leadership
• Community circles
• Community businesses
• Time banks & local
currencies
• Citizen and
independent advocacy
• Faith communities
• Associations (youth,
arts, sports etc.)
• Centres for
independent living
• Unions
• Buurtzorg
• Community budgeting
• Charities, local
businesses et al…

9. £
Brian - community development & health - SHA
Clare - relationships, citizen advocacy, social movement
Vinny - IT, questions are enlightening, entrepreneurship
John - social work, neighbourhood networks, personal budgets
Susan - local government & homelessnessKathy - children & charities & asset lock
Thomas - commons
Tricia - power of the ordinary
Bob - arts, accountancy, charities
Anna - social spider, refugees, community foundations
Mervyn - coops, social work, older people, charities
Mark - mental health, 1:4, digital
David - community development
Ian - mental health, it’s people, IIMH
David - social investment market, commissioning, newspapers
Steve - locality, a better way, homelessness
Alan - coops, seeking a movement
Maff - homelessness, friends + purpose
Ian - Spacious Place, business, church, work, sustainable businesses
introductions

10. 1. There are multiple positive forms of community life that
are essential to our welfare
2. We need the security of the welfare state (we can’t go
back to before 1945)
3. We do not need a welfare state that is more than state
control and professional service delivery (we can’t go
back to 1945)
4. Most of the ‘reforms’ of the welfare state since 1945 have
been more toxic than the problem they were supposedly
trying to solve (we don’t need more internal markets, PFIs,
or austerity…)
5. We need a different approach…
These are the hypotheses that framed the day (the narrative)

11. OR is it possible to design
a (welfare) state that
promotes citizen and
community activity but
does not become
corrupted and turned into
Big Society Bullshit?

12. Can we come together and redesign that reflects what
we’ve learned from past success (and failure)?

13. Perhaps it would be useful to distinguish policy from
constitutional measures.
Policies are the directions set by our leaders. Of course, we
want good policy and we may be able to recommend ‘better
policies’. This may be worthwhile when those leaders are
acting with integrity. However recommending policy to
leaders without integrity can be damaging.
Constitutional measures provide the structure of norms,
incentives and disciplines within which all citizens must
operate. They constrain and discipline action to try and limit
the risk of injustice. History suggests constitutional measures
are essential to harmonise democratic control and justice.

14. If our task is to seek constitutional
(defined broadly) reform of the
welfare state (defined broadly) then
we are operating at the edges of
what is known. This is largely
uncharted territory, but here are a
couple of very different examples to
provoke thought…

15. 1. Shifting the production of social care delivery from government to democratically structured civil
institutions, with government retaining its role as prime funder to these services.
2. Government funding should flow direct to people who need support who would then select services
they need from a choice of accredited organisations. Independent consumer cooperatives should be
funded to assist people (e.g. without mental capacity) and their families in the identification, evaluation
and contracting of care services.
3. Social care organisations must have the legal ability to raise capital from members and civil society
more generally on the basis of social investing.
4. Surpluses generated by these social care organisations with public funding would need to be held as
social assets and a reserve held for the expansion and development of that organisation and its
services.
5. The primary role of government would be to continue to provide funding for social care and establish
the rules of the game, in partnership with service providers, caregivers and people who need support
6. Service design and the assessment of need would take place at the community and regional level of
delivery. This decentralisation must include the democratisation of decision making through the
sharing of control rights with people who need support and care givers.
John Restakis on Fondazione del Monte di Bologna e Ravenna (thanks to Thomas Allan)
http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/by-az/beyond-efficiency.html
this model is drawn from care provision in a region of Italy

16. We can also learn much
from Ancient Athens.

17. Pynx - where the
assembly met
Lots used to give
people jobs
Ostracism
to limit the
powerful
The Agora -
where most
public life
was lived

18. The boundary of the
agora was marked by
sacred stones - that
could not be moved.
Inside the agora all
private land ownership
was banned. All was in
common.

19. • Democratic decision-making, religious life, the
courts and the public life in the agora were all
separate and given separate places.
• The agora was where business, government,
education and every kind different activity was
carried on.
• Measures like ostracism, the civic duty to take on
public offices, time limits, lots for public roles,
decentralisation of decisions (to the deme or
neighbourhood) all served to limit corruption and
ensure the welfare of citizens.

20. So what are the destructive forces that
we need to attend to if we are going to
design a better welfare state?

21. • Elitist thinking that focuses on deficits of citizens
(not their gifts)
• Intrusive behaviour by the state (thinking they
know best and must control what happens).
• Delusions of competence and control
• New public management - technocratic, goals
orientated management that leads to
dysfunctional behaviour
• The goal of economic growth, with no respect for
the real economy or human values.
• Year Zero approaches that simply disregard
expertise
• Patronage which gives undue power to
politicians and public officials.
• Resources stuck in the wrong place, but with no
capacity to re-invest.
• Lack of transparency about resources and roles.
• Lack of awareness at the power of IT solutions
• The ability of private corporations to buy
influence and take-over parts of the welfare
state.
• The view that taxation entitles us to imposes
conditions on those who receive benefits.
• Short-termism - politicians eager to look like they
are doing something - end up doing harm
• No respect for human rights
• Them and Us - elitist rhetoric and thinking and
the ‘othering’ of folk at the margins.
• Lack of meaningful accountability
• Monopoly/monopsony in provision and
commissioning.
• Mad measurement corrupting purpose.
• Artificial personality - disguising personal
accountability (e.g. companies)
• Institutional self-interest.

22. [I can’t stop myself offering
some additional destructive
forces… sorry]

23. • Inequality of income (including extreme
inequalities inside the welfare state, e.g.
CEO/Dr pay vs frontline workers)
• Taxing the poor - the poorest pay the most
tax but these burdens are hidden by
indirect taxes
• Stigmatising provision (e.g. DWP) and
others systems that are designed to
divide us.
• Means-testing and non-universal provision
(e.g social care)
• Compliant charities and media - there are
no major institutions with the integrity to
challenge injustice.
• Medianocracy - swing voters (middle
earners) are targeted for subsidy at the
expense of the poorest.
• Welfare state as a middle-class industry.
(Long-term trend has been to shift public
spending from redistribution to paying
salaries for some).
• Think tanks purchased by corporations;
universities sharing information behind
paywalls etc.
• Meritocracy - belief that the best, the
richest and the powerful are all the same
group (or should be).
• The most centralised welfare state in the
world.
• Constitutional incoherence of UK and
local government.
• Media that is centred on London and
Westminster.
• House of Lords where charity chiefs can
be rewarded for compliance
• That’s enough for now…

24. What would our sacred
stones or “interim
demands” be?

25. • Fixed % of GDP set aside for welfare (make it
difficult for hypothecation to be watered
down).
• Human rights (from state and corporate
abuse) strengthened.
• Value = whole/true value not just money
• Relationship-in-community e.g. community
development is critical to service (cf. recent
LGA guidance)
• Basic income
• Local by default as principle for delivery
• State run on ABCD principles for community
engagement (ethical audit)
• Shared account - mutual accountability &
transparency around community and
business and state endeavours (connected to
community budgeting?)
• Lanyard free zone
• Electoral reform to advance long-term thinking
• Commons copyright
• Back success
• Investment not commissioning (decentralised)
• Respect the human nature of expertise (back
talent?)
• Return to grants - promote trust
• Freedom to make and learn from mistakes
• Equal status (undiluted by capacity, passport)
• Anchors organisations in every community
• End to no win no fee - create a pro-risk
strategy (i.e. reduce fear of litigation).
• Means/intentions matter
• Profit is not acceptable when dealing with the
distress of a child

26. • Value of ABCD - its logic can drive
the pattern of state investment
(invest in what works etc.)
• Investment and stimulation of
valuable activity - the social fabric
(not outcome-based
commissioning)
• State role should be enabling
citizenship activity
• Still need to have a clear regulatory
control
• Safeguard individuals from witch-
hunting
• Remember it’s coproduction and a
partnership between state and
citizen
• Local action + state support
• State’s role defined so as to protect
citizens from corporate predatory
activity
• Expand commons ownership,
ethical trading + investment (not
commissioning)
• ‘Banishment’ of those who
transgress (putting bad business
people out of business for real).
• Transparency re the commons
duties of candour and transparency
(cf. B-Corps - only responsible
private bodies can enter the public
realm).
• Ban private profiteering in public
endeavour
• [Fear that localism will disadvantage
the marginal and miss key issues]

27. • Transparency of information
• End copyright restrictions on all
information produced with any public
support.
• Platonic inequality restriction on salaries
(1:5)
• Democratic second chamber
• Electoral reform - PR
• Radically localise boundaries - return
older more meaningful identities and
make boundary changes very very
difficult.
• Community asset locks made easier, -
and more transparent
• Basic income and wider money reform
• Hypothecation of % GDP for welfare
spending (e.g 3% social care)
• End means-testing of services
• Social care reform
• Radical devolution - create primary locus
of decision-making at the
neighbourhood level
• Direct democracy at the local level.
• Create system of public civic duties
• Neighbourhood
• Tax reform and charity law reform
Simon’s (extra) list

28. Next steps

29. • Suggest practical things we
could have a go at…
• Proto-typing - recognising the
dynamic environment
• …build on our own working
models… what could be done
that would advance…
• focus on opportunities
emerging within NHS England
• Check out our assumptions
• Help define the broader
narrative
• Take some time - before scope
& shaping
• What about the people who
did not come today…
• What about area-based
accounting…
• Does this link to the post-Brexit
challenge?
• cf. Declaration of
Interdependence