Only when someone's job or promotion or public reputation is on the line will anyone with half-a-chance of making a difference raise an eyebrow &, at a stretch, wonder what the fuss is about. They're not in positions of power because they give a crap; its because they *DON'T* give a crap. They're teflon.
The cobbler, lammy, the invisible woman, young ewan mcgregor (or whoever it is)... they're all invested in tech & prisons - probation staff are merely cannon fodder. Ask yourselves: why would they be interested in reversing all of the PR & vested interest & public cash spent building cosy relationships with the tech & incarceration industries? What is the biggest risk they take?
1. Pissing off powerful people with excellent corporate entertainment & razor-sharp lawyers? ORAs of December 2025, resident doctors (formerly known as junior doctors) in England have staged 14 separate rounds of strike action since the dispute began in March 2023. They've voted again in favour of a further 6 months of action if required:
2. Stuffing up a handful of whiny bastards who they've been treating like shit with impunity for a decade or two? Less than a third are in a frail union led by a hapless wannabe, and even fewer are in a union that says "yes" to every govt proposal.
Number entitled to vote in the ballot: 54,432
Number of votes cast in the ballot: 28,598 = 52.54%
Number of spoilt/invalid voting papers returned: 17
Result of voting:
Yes: 26,696 (93.40%)
No: 1,885 (6.60%)
27,000 of the most committed & critical workers in the country have not yet achieved their aim because the teflon-coated, cloth-eared ideologues in Westminster & Whitehall feel able to ignore them for the past 3 years. The most recent ballot *might* just have twisted Streeting's lugs BUT... I suspect it's more likely he's positioning himself as Starmer's successor & making himself out to be the resolver of the issue.
Probation staff do not have the same leverage & will not have the same effect upon lammy, a deputy pm desperate to step-up, because he's already laid out his tag'em & bag'em agenda.
*******
I understand the frustration behind this, but I don’t think it’s as simple as “they don’t care.” It’s worse than that. Probation doesn’t move votes. Hospitals collapsing move votes. Trains not running move votes. Doctors striking move votes. When 27,000 resident doctors vote 93% for industrial action, it makes front-page news and creates immediate political risk.
Probation? We operate in the shadows. When it fails, it’s framed as individual practitioner failure, not systemic collapse. When it holds things together, no one notices. That’s the difference. It’s not personal malice. It’s political calculus.
And right now the political calculus favours:
• prisons (because visible custody reassures the public),
• tagging (because tech looks modern and decisive),
• “tough community sentences” (because it sounds robust).
What doesn’t generate headlines?
Workload ratios.
Case quality.
Professional discretion.
Emotional strain.
Retention.
You’re right about leverage. Doctors can withdraw labour and the NHS feels it immediately. Teachers can strike and parents feel it within hours. Probation withdrawing labour would cause disruption, but it’s slower, more diffuse, easier to spin as irresponsibility. That doesn’t mean we’re powerless. It means influence won’t come from outrage alone. It comes from unity, turnout, credibility and sustained pressure.
If less than a third of staff are union members, and turnout is patchy, decision-makers will calculate that the noise is containable. The uncomfortable truth is this: power responds to risk. Until probation creates political risk (reputational, operational, electoral) it will remain a lower priority than prisons and headline management. That’s not because staff are “whiny.” It’s because we’re structurally easy to ignore. The question isn’t whether they care, the question is how we make it cost them not to.
I understand the frustration behind this, but I don’t think it’s as simple as “they don’t care.” It’s worse than that. Probation doesn’t move votes. Hospitals collapsing move votes. Trains not running move votes. Doctors striking move votes. When 27,000 resident doctors vote 93% for industrial action, it makes front-page news and creates immediate political risk.
Probation? We operate in the shadows. When it fails, it’s framed as individual practitioner failure, not systemic collapse. When it holds things together, no one notices. That’s the difference. It’s not personal malice. It’s political calculus.
And right now the political calculus favours:
• prisons (because visible custody reassures the public),
• tagging (because tech looks modern and decisive),
• “tough community sentences” (because it sounds robust).
What doesn’t generate headlines?
Workload ratios.
Case quality.
Professional discretion.
Emotional strain.
Retention.
You’re right about leverage. Doctors can withdraw labour and the NHS feels it immediately. Teachers can strike and parents feel it within hours. Probation withdrawing labour would cause disruption, but it’s slower, more diffuse, easier to spin as irresponsibility. That doesn’t mean we’re powerless. It means influence won’t come from outrage alone. It comes from unity, turnout, credibility and sustained pressure.
If less than a third of staff are union members, and turnout is patchy, decision-makers will calculate that the noise is containable. The uncomfortable truth is this: power responds to risk. Until probation creates political risk (reputational, operational, electoral) it will remain a lower priority than prisons and headline management. That’s not because staff are “whiny.” It’s because we’re structurally easy to ignore. The question isn’t whether they care, the question is how we make it cost them not to.
Hi Jim, as this was posted at 03:20 I hope you have just returned from a pleasant night out rather than having sleepless nights over the current probation position……first rule of probation survival is to look after yourself !
ReplyDeleteAnon 05:15 I find I can think better early morning and my sleep pattern is all over the place in recent times. I returned to bed!
DeleteEvery little bit helps but the only way to achieve real and lasting change is to organise. That means building an effective union opposition focused on a manifesto of change that provides a roadmap towards a credible vision of what Probation could and should be. This vision and manifesto for reform needs to be a viable alternative that includes a transition plan. Current union leaders need to come together with experts to produce this and then get behind it. Their current efforts are uncoordinated disjointed and ineffective. Anything else is a distraction. We should rejoin the unions and make sure this is the priority and nothing else. Not one minute at conferences should be spent talking about anything else. If leaders do not support it then democratic processes can be used to remove them.
ReplyDeleteExperts come together that's the point of having a GS to do this work from the begining but looks at this mess. The Napo leader has hidden and pacified the officers group who don't have the knowledge to instruct the following order you have listed.
DeleteJoin the unions with a single purpose but we need that purpose to be clearly articulated as rebuilding Probation. A service that is free from the civil service, devolved from central government, locally responsive, local government officers, well funded, free from political interference etc
ReplyDeleteWhile the union is dominated by the blow hard whale of no intellect for the intelligent persuasion we are done for. There has not been any discussion papers from him. No briefings on strategic goals no data sought for writing policy position or design overall that suits the ethos of our original role or how to return to professional standings in the justice system. Should he write anything it's always basic and lacks any testable reasoning. His role is superfluous with him in it we need a real fighting intelligent trade unionist. Mr Lawrence betrays his paymasters with rubbish smoke and mirrors while actually has no talent for the role.
DeleteEveryone can keep saying the union leadership is useless and while some of that criticism is fair, here’s the harder truth: it’s the only vehicle we currently have, and it’s running on half a tank because too many staff aren’t in it or don’t vote when it matters.
ReplyDeleteIt isn’t just Napo, there's Unison, some in Unite or GMB. But that fragmentation weakens us. Employers don’t look at blog traffic or angry threads. They look at membership density and ballot turnout. If union coverage across the service hovers around a minority of staff and strike ballots scrape low participation, decision-makers don’t panic. They calculate. And right now, they calculate that probation noise is containable.
Doctors can shut down hospitals because they mobilise in huge numbers behind one organisation. Teachers can shut schools because turnout is strong and unified. Probation? We argue online, then half the workforce shrugs at ballots.
You don’t have to like the leadership. You don’t have to agree with every stance. But opting out doesn’t create a stronger alternative, it guarantees irrelevance. Power responds to risk. If we don’t create collective risk, nothing changes.
The uncomfortable reality is this: if you’re not in a union, or you don’t vote, you’re not neutral. You’re contributing to the calculation that we’re safe to ignore.
And until that changes, they will continue to ignore us.
Very well said and absolutely on the money 09:51
DeleteCompletely agree,
ReplyDeleteLast 3 comments your all blind by something. The leader of Napo has no intention of spending your money in protecting your roles. Napo draws in subs it's annual spend and for the life of us all it covers their excessive wages and costs. They have no office it's a virtual union these days and as stated above there is no professional group producing policy. Signing up to Napo is a lost cause while the current leader has a role it's as simple as that. We either break Napo in finances by resigning for a few months in protest at the fool in role or we get the top tables to deliver some real plans in conjunction with proper working parties. As they have not done the job we pay them for the don't pay them option is the only best choice. Anyone mislead enough to continue to support Napo is deluding themselves .
ReplyDelete