Has Balfe gone bonkers?

Today's Independent on Sunday reports that Cameron has recruited Labour defector Richard Balfe to woo the "trade union and co-operative movement". A quick heads-up to Messrs. Balfe and Cameron: this is not a single movement. The unions don't really understand co-operatives, and indeed are very wary of worker co-operatives, often perceiving them to undermine the role and power of the unions. And while there are undoubtedly plenty of unionistas within the Co-operative movement there are equally a good number of us that view the trade unions as not being up to speed on a whole range of issues, and as so focused on their own survival that they can't see the bigger picture on employee engagement, ownership and control.

While Cameron's tactics are undoubtedly interesting - and there are many people within the co-operative movement who are not natural Labour supporters, and who may view his approach as attractive, I really can't see it having any major impact, other than perhaps contributing to a polarisation within the co-operative movement.

The article goes on to report that Balfe said "...under David Cameron's leadership the Conservative Party has shown that it has the ideas and vision to harness the co-operative movement in a way that can really benefit society." Wow. That sort of language is certainly not going to get him too far. It is the co-operative movement that has the ideas and vision, not the Conservative Party. It is the co-operative movement that for at least the last twenty years has been making the running about how co-operative approaches can provide solutions to many of the socio-economic problems we seem to struggle with in the UK, and more widely. And as for the Tories "harnessing" the co-operative movement - how I laughed!

In general I welcome the trend towards an ongoing and constructive dialogue between the co-operative movement and all of the major parties. The old-school approach of being wedded to Labour is no longer relevant or helpful, and has held the co-operative movement back in the UK. In the US for example, co-operatives are far more apolitical in their nature (with some exceptions). But if Cameron and Balfe really want to engage with the co-operative movement, they need to listen to us, listen to what we have been saying for decades now about how to do things properly, and provide us with the resources to enable us to put our vision into practice. The notion of a parallel conservative co-operative movement run by the Tory party is daft, and simply won't deliver any significant outcomes quickly enough.

Cooperation, our best friend

That headline was originally going to be the title of this blog, but I found I was writing loads of stuff that wasn't about cooperation or cooperatives, so I changed the title to something more apt. Looking back I find that haven't actually written anything about cooperatives, which is surprising. So here goes:

I've spent the last 17 years working in or for cooperatives. Why? Cooperative structures offer a clear and viable alternative to the non-functional hierarchical pyramids of traditional business (anyone who works in a hierarchical business structure will know what I mean). Why is it that we in the west espouse democracy, to the point that we are willing to go to war to defend it, but when it comes to business, the concept of a democratic approach simply does not get any airplay? I find this dichotomy pretty weird. In fact it's often worse than this. It's not just that cooperatives don't get coverage, it is often the case that on the rare occasions when cooperatives get into the news, they are actively denigrated by the media. What are they afraid of?

Cooperatives are radical organisations. They could be considered anti-capitalist, even revolutionary. They turn the norms of business and commerce on their heads, and yet they go almost un-noticed. Why is that?

There is clearly increasing unease with the way conventional business does its thing. A growing awareness that if we support a model of business that places the creation of profit (shareholder value) above all else, we reap the rewards from that in terms of the social and environmental damage that such a single minded approach causes.

At the same time issues of sustainability, social responsibility, and ethics are increasingly at the forefront of the minds of consumers. We hear more and more about fair trade, trade justice, global poverty, climate change, and the need to radically change how we do most things in the west if we are not to destroy the very things that we rely on for our existence.

Cooperative enterprise joins up all this single-issue thinking into a sensible coherent whole. And yet most people simply don't get it (or or don't appear to). Some of the most socially and politically aware types appear to miss the point about how the systems and structures we use to trade with others are fundamentally important.
If my business is owned by a bunch of investors who want solely to maximise their return, then how can I, as a business person, be socially and environmnetally responsible about how I operate. It's difficult, if not impossible, to justify any investyment I might want to make in those areas to my shareholders.

The answer is clear: choose to operate under a different structure, where the return-hungry investor is not even in the picture.

You want to invest in a cooperative business? Sure, just sign here. But please note that it's a democratic organisation. If it's worker owned the chances are that as an investor you won't get any say whatever. In other forms of cooperative investors do get a say, but it's unlikely their voice will be in proportion to the size of their investment, rather a more straightforward one person one vote approach. Cooperatives are about social justice, giving interested parties a fair shake regardless of their economic power.

Perhaps it is simply human greed that drives conventional business forward, to the detriment of pretty much everything, and which forces more sensible business models to the margins.
There is a real sense now that co-operative ways forward are coming to the fore as we increasingly look for something with some depth, some humanity, something offering broader benefits than simply hard cash. Money is important, but on its own it's of limited benefit.

Many people wrongly characterise co-operatives as 'not-for-profit' (or non-profit, depending on where you are from). This is not the case. Cooperatives are "more than profit" businesses. Making money is just a part of the picture. Doing business as if people, and the planet, matter. That's what it is about. That's what it has been about for the last 160 or so years.

And now, as we plough as recklessly as ever into the 21st century in amongst devastating political and climatic change. caused largely by our own huge errors over the last 50 or 100 years, perhaps it is time to take stock and look for a different way, rather than just contiunue to repeat the gross mistakes of our forebears.

More on this subject later, no doubt...

Meanwhile, check out http://www.ica.coop for more information and contacts about the global cooperative movement.

UK Govt anti terrorist measures

Blair's announcement of further measures to act against those who may have ill intentions has further raised the temperature of debate. Yesterday two MPs - George Galloway (as one might expect), and the Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews, were on the radio talking about how the British Government needs to acknowledge the long history of western foreign policy regarding the Middle East, and take responsibility for it, if the risk of further terrorist atrocities in the UK is to be significantly reduced. UK and US involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq (including the so-called 'first Gulf war' in the nineties), and the whole 50+ year history of the occupation of Palestine, are increasingly coming to the forefront of the debate, which has to be a good thing.
If Blair and Bush were to take steps to acknowledge that much of this history was not necessarily in the best interests of the local population in the region, and redouble their efforts to progress towards a peaceful settlement, especially in Palestine, they would surely ease the threat. Not that I'm suggesting any sort of climb down in the face of the threat - rather a pragmatic approach to the problems created in the past, and an honest effort to improve the situation now and for the future.
Some years back I was lucky enough to visit Jordan for a week or so. A large chunk of the population in Jordan comprises Palestinian refugees. The economic situation in the country is not good, with many people living in pretty poor conditions. The contrast with Israel (funded by the west) is stark. No suprise then that some of those displaced, disenfranchised, poverty stricken refugees are sufficiently unhappy with their lot that they choose to take up arms against what they perceive as an agressor.
Marshall-Andrews made the argument, to which I subscribe, that by announcing further repressive measures in the UK, Blair will almost certainly add further strength to the cause of those angry young men (and it is always angry young men) who disagree with UK foreign policy, and so swell the numbers of those extreme few who may be willing to take more drastic action.
We all want the authorities to catch and try those who have ill intent towards us, and we all support the outstanding efforts of the police and the security services to date in this regard. But do we not already give sufficient powers to our police and others to do what they need to do, without fuelling the flames by introducing yet another package of draconian measures. It reminds me very much of Thatcher's government in the days when she was struggling with the problems in Northern Ireland.