Get a life

Every year 100,000 Britons seek the services of a life coach. Do you need one, too? Viv Groskop doub

"Don't jump on the bandwagon." This is the advice that life-coach guru Fiona Harrold has been giving to the hundreds of former counsellors and psychotherapists who have come knocking on her door, hoping to rebrand themselves as life coaches. "I refuse them," she declares. "I say, 'You're a psychologist and that's a great thing.' I see so many book jackets now where five years ago the authors called themselves a psychologist and now they are a coach. It makes me laugh."

Life coaching is the biggest growth area in the self-help world. As dysfunctional coaching- convert Warren crowed recently in This Life Plus Ten, the industry is worth an estimated £50m a year and rising. Life coaching is "where it's at".

The concept is largely accredited to Thomas J Leonard, who founded a training centre called Coach U in Arizona in 1992. Two years later he set up the International Coach Federation and the idea went global. The London-based Coaching Academy, the UK's biggest coaching school, has trained 10,000 new coaches over the past seven years, and the Association for Coaching, also based in London, aims to pull in 2,000 members by the end of the year.

Becoming a coach or, as some prefer to be known an "agent of change" is, in fact, a doddle. The industry is unregulated and no genuine qualification is needed, so anyone can decide to become a life coach, quite literally, overnight. And the incentive to do so is there. "Agents" can charge anything from £30 an hour to thousands of pounds a day. "Of course, some people will come to it thinking that it is an easy way to make money," says Harrold, whose own book on the subject, Be Your Own Life Coach, has sold millions of copies.

One estimate puts the number of life coaches currently practising in the UK at between 80,000 and 100,000. Oddly enough, another figure is bandied about, too: that 100,000 Britons used a life coach in 2005. This works out as one life coach per client, which sounds about right. Many online testimonials reveal that many only decide to become coaches after having been coached themselves. But none of these statistics are official. Because there is no official life coaching body, the numbers are impossible to verify.

January is life coaching's busiest time of the year, with thousands of recruits signing up for help with their New Year resolutions. But the executive and corporate sector is still the most lucrative. Specialised coaches offering mentoring services to top-level execs can earn as much as £10,000 a day. Last year, it was reported that Patricia Hewitt and other cabinet ministers use £250-an-hour life coaches to "cope with the pressures of government". No 10, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Transport and the Treasury have all used coaches, or "critical friends" as they preferred to be known in this particular case.

"What you realise talking to senior business people and executives is that everybody has them but no one wants to talk about it," says one high-profile London-based businesswoman, who keeps in touch with her American coach by phone. "I've had a number of lunches where I've mentioned it. People lower their voice and admit they have one, too."

A small group of charismatic life-coach gurus including Harrold, now practically a household name thanks to her book and appearances on Channel 4's Faking It, are skilled at inspiring others. She started out as a "self-esteem consultant" more than 20 years ago. This group would do what they do whatever it was called and regardless of whether it was trendy and there was money to be made from it. But then there are all the rest. "Coaching is unregulated so you are at the mercy of whether it's crap or not," says the businesswoman. "A lot of it relies on you using y0ur own skills and judgement."

Why do they do it?

Which begs the question: why do people need to visit a life coach? According to the "experts", people who need coaches are those who are not satisfied with the status quo or who want to feel differently about their future. They might be seeking clarity and resolution, evaluating their career options or facing difficult choices. Almost all will have some sort of anxieties or relationship concerns. Most will want to gain deeper self-understanding and acceptance. So, that's pretty much everyone, in one way or another.

Getting a helping hand with public speaking to boost your chances of climbing the next rung on the corporate ladder is one thing. But experts in psychology are concerned that vulnerable people are not receiving the treatment they need. Phillip Hodson, fellow of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, believes that coaching can never be effective unless coaches train in some form of therapy. "Life coaching uses a model that is contradictory to most established psychotherapies. It is goal-focused not client-centred. It addresses symptoms rather than causes." This creates not only a risk for the patient but a public risk as well. "After all," he argues, "there is the issue of personality disorder. How on earth are you going to recognise one if you don't know what it is?" Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at the University of Kent, has also spoken out against life coaching as intrusive and a waste of money, observing that: "There's a growing idea that human beings lack the competence and resources to cope with everyday life."

All this won't stop it from growing, however, says Hodson. "As a society we are now ready to address the question of our alienation but we don't really want the answers to hurt. It's like wanting to do your bit for climate change but keeping the 4 x 4." He adds the killer blow: "If the power of positive thinking could solve all our problems we wouldn't have any."

Harrold dismisses this out of hand. "People want results and why shouldn't they be given the tools to get them?" she says. "People don't want navel-gazing. They want to be able to walk into the office tomorrow and get a promotion."

Life coaching explained

So what is it?

"A collaborative solution-focused, results-orientated and systematic process in which the coach facilitates the enhancement of work performance, life experience, self-directed learning and personal growth of the coachee." Anthony Grant, University of Sydney, 2000.

How is this different from traditional therapy?

Life coaching looks to find solutions to the problems rather than to solve the causes. Coaches encourage their clients to use "cognitive techniques" - aka, thinking - to unlock the key to success.

What qualifications do life coaches have to have?

None. Anyone can become a life coach. But many reassuringly cite their years of experience in "human potential".

Who needs a life coach?

According to the experts themselves, just about anyone who is cheesed off with any part of their life.

With no professional body to regulate, how do you know which coach to choose?

London-based life coach Sally Ann Law, one of the first coaches listed on Google, has sound advice. "Absorb all the information available to you," she says on her website, "then listen to your heart and your head about whether you think this person appears credible and empathetic." So as long as decision-making isn't your problem, you should be OK.

How can I find out more about life coaching?

Another pearl from Law. Try an internet search, she suggests. "Enter 'life coach' and you'll be inundated with options."

How much does it cost to become a life coach myself?

Anywhere between £700 and £3,000

How much does a life coach earn?

Well, logic suggests success. Top earnings are thought to be £10k a day.

Sohani Crockett

Jeremy Corbyn. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lexit: the EU is a neoliberal project, so let's do something different when we leave it

Brexit affords the British left a historic opportunity for a decisive break with EU market liberalism.

The Brexit vote to leave the European Union has many parents, but "Lexit" – the argument for exiting the EU from the left – remains an orphan. A third of Labour voters backed Leave, but they did so without any significant leadership from the Labour Party. Left-of-centre votes proved decisive in determining the outcome of a referendum that was otherwise framed, shaped, and presented almost exclusively by the right. A proper left discussion of the issues has been, if not entirely absent, then decidedly marginal – part of a more general malaise when it comes to developing left alternatives that has begun to be corrected only recently, under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

Ceding Brexit to the right was very nearly the most serious strategic mistake by the British left since the ‘70s. Under successive leaders Labour became so incorporated into the ideology of Europeanism as to preclude any clear-eyed critical analysis of the actually existing EU as a regulatory and trade regime pursuing deep economic integration. The same political journey that carried Labour into its technocratic embrace of the EU also resulted in the abandonment of any form of distinctive economics separate from the orthodoxies of market liberalism.

It’s been astounding to witness so many left-wingers, in meltdown over Brexit, resort to parroting liberal economics. Thus we hear that factor mobility isn’t about labour arbitrage, that public services aren’t under pressure, that we must prioritise foreign direct investment and trade. It’s little wonder Labour became so detached from its base. Such claims do not match the lived experience of ordinary people in regions of the country devastated by deindustrialisation and disinvestment.

Nor should concerns about wage stagnation and bargaining power be met with finger-wagging accusations of racism, as if the manner in which capitalism pits workers against each other hasn’t long been understood. Instead, we should be offering real solutions – including a willingness to rethink capital mobility and trade. This places us in direct conflict with the constitutionalised neoliberalism of the EU.

Only the political savvy of the leadership has enabled Labour to recover from its disastrous positioning post-referendum. Incredibly, what seemed an unbeatable electoral bloc around Theresa May has been deftly prized apart in the course of an extraordinary General Election campaign. To consolidate the political project they have initiated, Corbyn and McDonnell must now follow through with a truly radical economic programme. The place to look for inspiration is precisely the range of instruments and policy options discouraged or outright forbidden by the EU.

A neoliberal project

The fact that right-wing arguments for Leave predominated during the referendum says far more about today’s left than it does about the European Union. There has been a great deal of myth-making concerning the latter –much of it funded, directly or indirectly, by the EU itself.

From its inception, the EU has been a top-down project driven by political and administrative elites, "a protected sphere", in the judgment of the late Peter Mair, "in which policy-making can evade the constraints imposed by representative democracy". To complain about the EU’s "democratic deficit" is to have misunderstood its purpose. The main thrust of European economic policy has been to extend and deepen the market through liberalisation, privatisation, and flexiblisation, subordinating employment and social protection to goals of low inflation, debt reduction, and increased competitiveness.

Prospects for Keynesian reflationary policies, or even for pan-European economic planning – never great – soon gave way to more Hayekian conceptions. Hayek’s original insight, in The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism, was that free movement of capital, goods, and labour – a "single market" – among a federation of nations would severely and necessarily restrict the economic policy space available to individual members. Pro-European socialists, whose aim had been to acquire new supranational options for the regulation of capital, found themselves surrendering the tools they already possessed at home. The national road to socialism, or even to social democracy, was closed.

The direction of travel has been singular and unrelenting. To take one example, workers’ rights – a supposed EU strength – are steadily being eroded, as can be seen in landmark judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Viking and Laval cases, among others. In both instances, workers attempting to strike in protest at plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-wage workers from another, were told their right to strike could not infringe upon the "four freedoms" – free movement of capital, labour, goods, and services – established by the treaties.

More broadly, on trade, financial regulation, state aid, government purchasing, public service delivery, and more, any attempt to create a different kind of economy from inside the EU has largely been forestalled by competition policy or single market regulation.

A new political economy

Given that the UK will soon be escaping the EU, what opportunities might this afford? Three policy directions immediately stand out: public ownership, industrial strategy, and procurement. In each case, EU regulation previously stood in the way of promising left strategies. In each case, the political and economic returns from bold departures from neoliberal orthodoxy after Brexit could be substantial.

While not banned outright by EU law, public ownership is severely discouraged and disadvantaged by it. ECJ interpretation of Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has steadily eroded public ownership options. "The ECJ", argues law professor Danny Nicol, "appears to have constructed a one-way street in favour of private-sector provision: nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed for their necessity". Sure enough, the EU has been a significant driver of privatisation, functioning like a ratchet. It’s much easier for a member state to pursue the liberalisation of sectors than to secure their (re)nationalisation. Article 59 (TFEU) specifically allows the European Council and Parliament to liberalise services. Since the ‘80s, there have been single market programmes in energy, transport, postal services, telecommunications, education, and health.

Britain has long been an extreme outlier on privatisation, responsible for 40 per cent of the total assets privatised across the OECD between 1980 and 1996. Today, however, increasing inequality, poverty, environmental degradation and the general sense of an impoverished public sphere are leading to growing calls for renewed public ownership (albeit in new, more democratic forms). Soon to be free of EU constraints, it’s time to explore an expanded and fundamentally reimagined UK public sector.

Next, Britain’s industrial production has been virtually flat since the late 1990s, with a yawning trade deficit in industrial goods. Any serious industrial strategy to address the structural weaknesses of UK manufacturing will rely on "state aid" – the nurturing of a next generation of companies through grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, government holdings, and the provision of goods and services on a preferential basis.

Article 107 TFEU allows for state aid only if it is compatible with the internal market and does not distort competition, laying out the specific circumstances in which it could be lawful. Whether or not state aid meets these criteria is at the sole discretion of the Commission – and courts in member states are obligated to enforce the commission’s decisions. The Commission has adopted an approach that considers, among other things, the existence of market failure, the effectiveness of other options, and the impact on the market and competition, thereby allowing state aid only in exceptional circumstances.

For many parts of the UK, the challenges of industrial decline remain starkly present – entire communities are thrown on the scrap heap, with all the associated capital and carbon costs and wasted lives. It’s high time the left returned to the possibilities inherent in a proactive industrial strategy. A true community-sustaining industrial strategy would consist of the deliberate direction of capital to sectors, localities, and regions, so as to balance out market trends and prevent communities from falling into decay, while also ensuring the investment in research and development necessary to maintain a highly productive economy. Policy, in this vision, would function to re-deploy infrastructure, production facilities, and workers left unemployed because of a shutdown or increased automation.

In some cases, this might mean assistance to workers or localities to buy up facilities and keep them running under worker or community ownership. In other cases it might involve re-training workers for new skills and re-fitting facilities. A regional approach might help launch new enterprises that would eventually be spun off as worker or local community-owned firms, supporting the development of strong and vibrant network economies, perhaps on the basis of a Green New Deal. All of this will be possible post-Brexit, under a Corbyn government.

Lastly, there is procurement. Under EU law, explicitly linking public procurement to local entities or social needs is difficult. The ECJ has ruled that, even if there is no specific legislation, procurement activity must "comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality". This means that all procurement contracts must be open to all bidders across the EU, and public authorities must advertise contracts widely in other EU countries. In 2004, the European Parliament and Council issued two directives establishing the criteria governing such contracts: "lowest price only" and "most economically advantageous tender".

Unleashed from EU constraints, there are major opportunities for targeting large-scale public procurement to rebuild and transform communities, cities, and regions. The vision behind the celebrated Preston Model of community wealth building – inspired by the work of our own organisation, The Democracy Collaborative, in Cleveland, Ohio – leverages public procurement and the stabilising power of place-based anchor institutions (governments, hospitals, universities) to support rooted, participatory, democratic local economies built around multipliers. In this way, public funds can be made to do "double duty"; anchoring jobs and building community wealth, reversing long-term economic decline. This suggests the viability of a very different economic approach and potential for a winning political coalition, building support for a new socialist economics from the ground up.

With the prospect of a Corbyn government now tantalisingly close, it’s imperative that Labour reconciles its policy objectives in the Brexit negotiations with its plans for a radical economic transformation and redistribution of power and wealth. Only by pursuing strategies capable of re-establishing broad control over the national economy can Labour hope to manage the coming period of pain and dislocation following Brexit. Based on new institutions and approaches and the centrality of ownership and control, democracy, and participation, we should be busy assembling the tools and strategies that will allow departure from the EU to open up new political-economic horizons in Britain and bring about the profound transformation the country so desperately wants and needs.

Joe Guinan is executive director of the Next System Project at The Democracy Collaborative. Thomas M. Hanna is research director at The Democracy Collaborative.

This is an extract from a longer essay which appears in the inaugural edition of the IPPR Progressive Review.

 

 

0800 7318496