By Just over two years ago, amid much fanfare, David Cameron launched the Conservative Co-operative Movement.
Today, he and George Osborne are once again proclaiming their attachment to mutual values and saying they'll let public sector workers take over their organisations and run them as co-operatives.
This announcement would have a little more credibility if the Tories gave any indication at all that they understood what co-operative values mean. But clearly they don't.
Two years after it was founded, indeed, the Conservative Co-operative Movement remains a movement without members, which has never held an AGM. Completely contrary to the democratic values which rest at the heart of co-operation, the two chairs of the movement have been appointed by the Party leader, rather than elected by its members.
If they can't get the small things right, it doesn't fill one with hope that the Tories would have any idea how to bring the principles of co-operation and mutualism – the idea that organisations should be owned and run by their members – into our public services.
By contrast, Labour has been doing just that. Look at the 1.3 million members – staff, patients and local people – of foundation hospital trusts. Or the primary care staff who, since last year, have been able to take over the running of the services they deliver. And then there are the parents and teachers who are running the new co-operative trust schools – of which there will be 200 by the end of the year – which my colleague Ed Balls launched in 2008.
Co-operative trust schools are, in fact, a case study of how skin deep the Tories' commitment to mutualism really is. When he launched the Conservative Co-operative Movement, Davic Cameron announced that he wanted to "explore how we can create a new generation of co-operative schools in Britain – funded by the taxpayer but owned by parents and the local community." But when parliament debated co-operative trust schools in 2008, not a single Conservative MP was in the chamber at the time.
As I announced in December, we now want to go further, which is why I will shortly be meeting with Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and John Healey to examine how we can encourage the further development of mutuals and co-ops in areas like Sure Start, social care, and housing. In each of these areas, Labour's allies in the Co-operative Party have been setting out an exciting agenda for change.
But there is a more fundamental problem with the Tories' supposed commitment to mutuals and co-ops. While we are seeking to learn lessons from mutual companies like the Co-operative and John Lewis – owned, respectively, by their customers and their staff – Tory local authorities, which Cameron offers as a model for how the Tories would govern, have decided that their model of public service delivery is the budget airline.
Under the Tories the principle this appears to encapsulate is that ability to pay should determine the level and quality of the service. But this is not how most people think care of the elderly or
children's services should be delivered.
It is also far removed from the principles of mutualism – of collective action as a means to fulfill individual aspiration, of equity, democracy and accountability. The reason is a simple one: the values of mutualism are inherently Labour values.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I hope to get around to joining...
By the way- do you know Dave Postles, or his whereabouts on LL?
He used to talk a lot about the Co Op movement, and I'm wondering where he got to.
Good luck- sorry this is another flying visit,
Jo.
'Just a last minute reminder that tomorrow is the day of our AGM and to let you know that two of our members won seats in byelections in Mansfield yesterday - Chris Winterton for the County Council and Julia Yemm for the District Council.'
Good night!
Jo
Take care
Danny
I too would like to see more of the "traditional" Labour people, rather than those in the middle ground.I like Dianne Abbott,Jon Cruddas, Alan Johnson, Peter Hain, Tessa Jowell(!)-and really liked Oonagh King.But I wish we had a few more like Tony Benn!
I want to see integrity and principles in action,pragmatism, and a lot less spin and rhetoric. Also- radicalism and idealism!
But I think Tessa Jowell here, for example, has done some excellent work on mutualism that is meaningful and inspiring.It makes a lot of sense.I'm just very impatient this hasn't happened much sooner.We are hearing so many good ideas, but it seems so late in the day.
One can only hope we have chance of regaining trust, and that things are not going to get dramatically worse under the Tories.
Sorry this is bit rushed as late, but must say good night now, and take care.
Jo.
It is becoming a bit "circus" like, and hard to take seriously.
Good night for now,
Jo.
Nighty night. We'll sort it, the Labour Party has been in much worse starights before now ;)
Am ok (having internet probs) , Policy and people are 2 different things , Mr Cruddas was very engaging and abmitted there where right wingers in the leadership .
hope you are well
Danny
There are always exceptions to that; I do like William Hague, Michaeal Portillo and Anne Widecomebe! Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke are OK..although I hate Tory policy.
But generally in my opinion appear a little out of touch with the "common" man and woman.
Whereas, glancing across the Labour/Liberal side of the House- people do tend to appear more representative of what I consider to be "normal" or "modern."
Maybe many feel like this- but daren't say it!
It just struck me watching that Newsnight interview!
Ralph mentioned you'd met Jon Cruddas, Danny- was he helpful?
Hope all is well with you?
Sorry this is yet again another flying visit,
Jo.
"Have just seen a little of Sunder Katwala and a very strange looking and sounding Conservative- didn't catch his name...on Newsnight tonight.(They mostly look a bit strange to me.)"
all Politicons or torys ?
Danny
Discussion about the Tories claiming the co op/mutual movement as their own- and applying to public services workers?
Are they blatantly trying to steal Labour's clothes?
Has DC been reading LL?!
Maybe that's where his team are stealing all the ideas from!
Hope the electorate don't buy this- it all looks a bit desperate and clumsy.
Followed by an article about Dr Who and a "Thatcherite" monster/ghost in the cupboard(?)- maybe not far away!
The Tories use Demos too so they will be competely wired into any developments that pass through there, including mutuals.
Ralph, wished I was in London to follow this through with you !
seriously you are so right, we have to reinvent, show the public we really have changed, change the rules to make it bloody difficult for any cheats to operate.
Be the party that allows local deselction if the petitions is large enough, be the party that abandons central lists for candidates.
For example, up here you may know Sion Simon gave up his Erdington seat. Now what has happened we get Jack Dromey on the candidate list for what should be a safe seat.
Hate that and discredits us all, OK all parties do it but we should stop it and NOW
A mutual/co-op policy is not for me a left or right wing thing but the obvious way for any society to act and labour should be the political party pushing this and let the Tories be the party of the (failed) market. in fact many 'one nation' tories I suspect would support whole heartily a co-op policy and hence I wonder if Cameron is playing a very dangerous game with his own future.
I wonder if the Blairtes are sensing this now and hence out comes Purnell ?
No the Blairites are not that smart. They need a solid position, hence the use of mutuals (the one good idea they have had) which of course originates from the Left and the Co-op movement.
These people have very little creative skill and spend their days stealing ideas.
Purnell is just a head banger. I do not think has any ideas that span beyond a Soho nightclub and bottle of wine. Any thing associated with this guy will be dressed up by media suck-ups who will try and launch him as something he will never be.
The Labour Party needs fundamental development to do what it should do, flatten the Tories effortlessly. To do this the Party has to be fit for these difficult times. To reform the Constitution, to address political corruption and MP Apathy, to address the problems of the economy all require a solid and reputable platform that does not exist currently in our democracy in the main three parties.
Therefore we should be leading on this. I for one will do all I can to see this objective completed and as I am discovering fast, I will not be alone.
If Jowell and labour are seeing this then maybe a brighter future under labour is coming
There is certainly truth in what you say.
If I remember right, the education reform especially was carried by Conservative votes because Labour rebels didn't back it.
So it's not the sudden conversion after all is it? Also, they clearly understood the importance of the reforms to actually vote for them.
Whatever flavour of mutualism or co-operative is chosen, the ethos of bottom-up decision-making and an empowered workforce is entirely compatible with Conservative thinking on the power of the individual and personal responsibility.
All of the world's most successful organisation organise and treat their workforce in this manner, they are more productive and achieve better outcomes as a result. The public sector should be no different, the idea of self-managed workgroups, quality circles, kaizan practices etc, etc, are decades old, proven to work and again completely compatible with mutualisation.
I think the problem here is that whilst it seems to me the Labour grassroots still have a long way to go to convince their own MPs and leadership of its value. Cameron and Osborne from the top has shown clear leadership and are pushing this into policy.
OECD also suggests that if the UK could afford to adopt the Swedish Welfare model child poverty could be reduced by around half again.
Another cunning ploy the OECD suggests is reducing taxes on this group when they find work and no penalising of a second earner in the same home to any extent.
For example that spouses / partners with joint care of their children are tax exempt for the first year or until a certain joint threshold of earnings are exceeded, then considered as a single earner until the partner's combined income exceeds 70% of the national average wage.
So instead of paying a complex set of means tested benefits or tax credits you create a real reward for seeking employment.
The question is would this cost the Treasury more or less than they are paying for the privilege of keeping people unemployed.
Yes, those are interesting ideas, indeed.
If we can do this for African nations surely our richest 5% could afford the same for us 'third world' members of the UK populace?
After all - if Gordon's hero Adam Smith is right it will still end up to their long term advantage and will be in their best interests. (not holding my breath over this though :-)
I do not like bankers, but BROWN made them what they are. Labour sat by as the rich got richer and did nothing about it. Instead Brown drove up salaries in the elite of the public sector at the expense of ordinary people. You have no argument Dave.
I guess folk living in large cities will be far more sceptical about the impact of 'common good' because usually things of importance to city communities are automatically hijacked by local parties for their own ends. BNP over immigration, New Labour over Tory Council service cuts, Tories over the impact of inefficient Labour councils on the cost of service delivery...
That is not common good - that is self interest and the blame game, sold as common good.
Common Good is a moniker which is applied to particular activities, in order to apply a level of respectability.
But what advantages one group, could disadvantage another.
Unfortunatley I see this as another angle of the "I know better than you, therefore I will define how you live your life" brigade.
Cynical political opportunism and exploitation!
To have a small focus group drive forward a community on the basis of a common good, is neither common nor good.
Peter, I agree, political parties hijacking common good on the basis of ideology, drive forward there own concepts on what is good for a community, irrespective of whether those actions are in fact desired, or otherwise by that community.
In fact, the latter is normally always the case, and we only have to look to the East of 15 years ago i norder to understand what the common good actually means.
Where 'common good' does exist is where groups of people get together, ignoring their political 'allegiance' to ensure the best outcome for their community, for example, in questioning the closure of a local hospital or size of a new build PFI primary school or looking to help men and women made redundant when their profitable factory is closed down because the company gets a better government grant to set up somewhere else.
When political parties start hijacking the concept of the 'common good' it is usually because they are bereft of ideas.........
What? Do you mean subjectively?
Disagree.
'Common Good' may not be definable in absolute terms, but it is definable by communities of interest, in relative terms, and by consensus.
Actions taken by such communities, that are considered to be for the Common Good, should only have an impact that can be felt within that community. If there is an adverse impact outside that community then immediately the common good argument fails.
There are already many forms of mutualism, including straight forward co-ops, jointly owned practices, employee-shareholder companies, and indeed joint-stock companies.
If Osborne wants to extend that principle, good luck to him.
What has Labour done to promote co-ops and mutualism in its thirteen years?
Within a year, Jowell had done Ecclestone a favour, but not co-ops. Now she tells us she "will be meeting colleagues soon".
Wow! Put the flags out.
It's good to see the Labour party once again at least talking about the Common Good, but they need to put their money where their mouth is, which is not easy when they've swallowed hook, line and sinker, the neo-conservative economic narrative.
As the guy said, you can't solve 21st century problems with 20th century solutions, and still less with genetically modified 19th century (or earlier) legal and financial structures.
Also where is the mutualism at state owned RBS and Northern Rock and why does the New Labour support the most anti collectivist trade union laws in Europe?
Equally it could be claimed that Labour are the Party of failed economics and they simply do not do real jobs. Pathetic playground point scoring waste of space.
Who mentioned aristocrats? We've gone way beyond the landed gentry you know - or perhaps you haven't caught up.
In the US 1% of individuals now own over two thirds of income/gains, both earned and unearned. In the UK it's probably not gone quite that far, but I would bet that less than 5% own or control that proportion of UK income: I'm sure Peter Barnard can rustle up the stats.
There's nothing playground about this: it's deadly serious.
The absence of taxation of unearned rents from privileged property rights is one of the principal reasons why our economy has reached this unsustainable position where there are simply too many debt claims on the productive economy - public and private.
The solution does not - as is the conventional wisdom - consist of 'austerity'.
This is weasel speak for the more than 90% bailing out the less than 10% in respect of the mathematically unsustainable compounding debt owed by the many to the few.
You are being rather disingenuous, and raising a straw man in the finest tradition of LL Tory guests.
Squeezing the pips does not come into it. Tax on earned income would be drastically cut - as it should be - and tax on unearned income from privileged property rights commensurately raised.
Hong Kong has always raised getting on for 35% of its income from land rentals. This income would otherwise have to come from earned income. I think that Hong Kong entrepreneurial people have benefited hugely from the relative absence of rentier landlords draining their earned income.
My strategy to create real jobs is to extend QE massively, and using this public credit - since private credit is unavailable because the private sector either cannot or will not create it - to invest in affordable housing, renewable energy and energy savings, and public infrastructure.
There is nothing whatever wrong with creating public credit aka QE - it is in fact LESS inflationary than the private credit creation which has been the convention for 300 years.
Pension investment in the completed productive assets will then enable the public credit to be redeemed/recycled. The QE issuing and allocation process would of course be managed by those service providers best able to do so, who may be found in both the public and private sectors.
The simple re-distribution would create greater demand in the economy rather than (a) sucking in luxury imports or (b) removing credit from the economic system by hoarding surplus income.
"The simple re-distribution would create greater demand in the economy rather than (a) sucking in luxury imports or (b) removing credit from the economic system by hoarding surplus income."
...... and the British economy would collapse to a level of depression that would make the 30s look like losing your pocket money. No confidence = no economy.
Well, it was a hypothetical question and a hypothetical answer. OTOH, what is the precise mechanism for your assumption? The OECD report, to which I drew attention, reveals the extent of the issue of reintroducing some equality of opportunity.