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 .
ReplyDeleteThe unions are not a single voice GMB stupidly tells us to accept the pay offers suggesting best that can be achieved. Amazing without testing resolve they can go jump. Napo are asking ok good having rejected and unison get good pressure by calling for restorations and removing probation from civil service while not sharing the platform with Napo says a lot to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above. Three “probation” unions has always been a mess and we’re divided even at union level.
ReplyDeleteUnison and GMB shouldn’t be treated as probation unions, and Napo has allowed them to take too much of the space over the last 20–30 years. People should be free to join any union, but probation is too small to be fragmented. We need one clear probation voice and one probation union.
What we’re seeing now is the result of years of weak, complacent leadership. Until that changes, we’ll keep being pressured by HMPPS while the unions look on. The all-staff calls selling the pay offer as “the best we can get” with little visible challenge say it all.
I actually think probation is in a position at the moment to weild considerable power.
ReplyDeleteAll the governments recent reforms about reducing the prison population and the sentencing bill itself is dependent on the probation service. Timpson himself has publicly aired his concerns about what damage these reforms might have on the probation service.
Probation are holding some heavy weight cards at the moment, they're just not playing them properly.
Annon @09:51 is completely right.
'Getafix
In theory, yes probation should be holding strong cards right now. The sentencing reforms and prison reduction plans are completely dependent on probation capacity and credibility.
DeleteBut leverage only exists if someone is willing and able to use it. If the unions don’t properly understand or champion what probation practice is (and should be), or the role of the probation officer as a profession, then those “cards” might as well not exist.
This takes us back to the core problem above, fractured, divided probation unions. Napo claims to be “the voice” of probation, Unison chips away at that authority through sheer numbers, and GMB’s courting of senior grades helped entrench the very managerial culture that led probation into the mess it’s in now.
Structural power without unity and credible leadership isn’t power at all.
1223 has it right getafix your wrong mate. Ian Lawrence is coward a fool and he could have all the support from members but time and again he blows it off. Last pay deal offered no advice run scared. The transfer agreement he agreed mass redundancies in a policy agreement shafting all staff he should have been sacked for it. Before that he has courted controversy by his personal antics in house and during his time has achieved nothing. Id we had rid Napo could redirect how we fight back out terms our pay our statutory leadership and regain our socially recognised professional status. You hear jack shit from the tub thumper. He is hanging around for pay not the glory. He is useless and won't play this right it'll go down the tubes like the judicial review . Readers need to toughen up in this guy's record of non achievement not put faith in the lame.
DeleteWhat’s striking about this thread isn’t the anger. It’s the self-inflicted paralysis.
ReplyDeleteWe say probation holds the heavy cards because sentencing reform and prison capacity now depend on us. We say this is the moment of leverage.
And then the proposed solution is… withdraw from unions, starve them of funds, fragment further, and hope something magically improves.
That isn’t resistance. That’s handing away the only collective mechanism that exists to create pressure.
You don’t have to admire current leadership to understand basic power dynamics. I’m not blind to the frustration. People are angry. Some think nothing will change while certain individuals are in place. Maybe that’s true.
But here’s the uncomfortable reality: a union isn’t a subscription service you cancel when you’re annoyed. It’s a democratic body. If you’re not in it, you don’t shape it. If you’re in it but silent, someone else does. If you want it stronger, smarter or braver, that only happens from inside. Leaving doesn’t reform it. Sitting out ballots doesn’t strengthen it. Complaining about leadership while turnout stays low doesn’t scare anyone in Whitehall.
If probation is serious about leverage, it starts with numbers, turnout and unity. Everything else is background noise.
Government negotiates with organised blocs, turnout percentages and credible threats not anonymous blog comments.
Doctors didn’t create leverage by complaining well. They created leverage because tens of thousands voted, repeatedly, and were prepared to act. That created political, operational and reputational risk.
What risk does probation currently create?
Low union density. Divided representation. Patchy turnout. Public invisibility.
That’s not leverage. That’s containment.
If probation really is pivotal to government reforms, weakening collective organisation right now isn’t sticking it to anyone at the top. It’s confirming that the workforce can be managed.
You don’t get power by withdrawing from it. You don’t get influence by splintering it.
And you don’t get taken seriously by proving you won’t organise.
Frustration is understandable. But frustration without structure achieves nothing.
If we want to stop being easy to ignore, we have to stop acting like we are.
Absolutely not.
DeleteCollective leverage works when there’s a credible, unified vehicle to organise it through. That’s why doctors, rail and refuse workers can move governments, they have recognised leadership, coherent strategy and a track record of wins.
Probation doesn’t.
We’re split across three unions pulling in different directions. The one meant to speak for probation has failed for two-three decades to clearly articulate what probation is, secure meaningful wins, or command confidence. It’s riddled with baggage, disconnected from frontline reality, and increasingly remote, literally and figuratively from the workforce it claims to represent.
So yes, leverage needs numbers. But numbers follow credibility, not the other way round. You don’t build turnout and unity on a structure people no longer trust.
Telling staff “a union is only as good as its members” starts to sound like the same gaslighting as “you don’t do this job for the money.” Structure and leadership matter. Without reform there first, calls for unity are just abstract.
Yes, people are disillusioned. Yes, membership has fallen. Yes, there have been fights that didn’t land. No one is denying that.
DeleteBut withdrawing, starving unions of subs, or sitting out ballots isn’t strategy. It’s surrender dressed up as protest.
If probation is politically invisible, fragmented and easy to ignore (which many of us agree it is) then shrinking the only collective vehicle we have doesn’t weaken leadership. It weakens leverage.
Power responds to numbers.
It responds to turnout.
It responds to credible operational risk. It does not respond to anonymous anger on a blog.
If you think leadership is weak, remove it. Stand against it. Demand policy. Force debate. Build mandate. That only happens from inside.
Low membership doesn’t punish anyone at the top. It reassures them. It signals containment. It confirms that probation staff will vent but won’t organise.
And here’s the part people don’t like hearing: you don’t get better leadership without weight behind you. Credibility doesn’t appear first and then attract numbers. Numbers create credibility.
Right now probation has frustration. It doesn’t have organised power.
If you want leverage over sentencing reform, over governance, over pay, over workload you need density. You need turnout. You need unity.
I’m genuinely curious what the alternative is meant to be.
ReplyDeleteIf the answer is “leave Napo” — then what?
Join GMB? Join Unison? Create a fourth probation union? Build one from scratch while vacancy rates sit at 21% and workloads are running at 120–140%?
Fragmentation is already one of the problems. More fragmentation doesn’t create leverage, it just dilutes it.
If people believe leadership is failing, that’s a democratic issue. Change it. Stand against it. Force policy debate. Demand accountability. That’s how unions evolve.
But stepping away without a viable structure ready to replace it doesn’t create power. It reduces it.
So yes, tell me what’s the practical alternative? Because “don’t pay subs” isn’t a strategy. It’s just smaller numbers on the negotiating table.
I don’t think this conversation is really about “leaving Napo”. It’s about how Napo becomes what it’s meant to be.
DeleteUnder the current GS, exec and structure, it hasn’t just struggled it’s been failing for over a decade. That’s been said quietly in branches and publicly in offices and elsewhere for years. Many nowadays do not even know what Napo is, or the difference to Unison.
The uncomfortable truth is this, renewal won’t happen without real change at the top. That likely means the GS and much of the exec stepping aside so Napo can reset and rebuild credibility. But it starts with Ian Lawrence.
Most people want a real National Association of Probation Officers. Membership and unity won’t follow a structure people no longer trust. Credibility has to come first.