It is a fact that fewer and fewer people in the UK are participating in political parties, preferring to take part in single-issue campaigns. The Co-op Party is not exempt from this trend. Its ageing membership is around 8000, many of whom hold dual membership with the Labour Party. In a population of over 50+ million, the total membership is insignificant and is likely to become even more so. The purpose of this paper is to suggest ways in which this decline might be reversed. With aims that should enthuse altruistic young people, it should be possible for the Party to develop despite the general widespread disenchantment with party politics.
In Britain, political parties are expected to carry out a number of functions. Among these are:
This list is not exhaustive but it is sufficient for present purposes.
The blunt answer is almost not at all. The Party is almost unknown, despite the fact that its name appears on ballot papers, that it claims to have 28 MPs and seven hundred councillors. Indeed, despite its parliamentary representation exceeding that of the nationalist parties and being on a par with the Lib Dems, its views are never sought by the media. Its leaders rarely, if ever, make statements on issues of the day. Its national conference is not reported nationally. Even fringe parties, such as the Greens and the SWP, make a bigger impact on the public conscience. Little wonder, therefore, that the Co-op Party is one of the best-kept secrets in British politics. Such being the case, it is perhaps surprising that the Party membership is as large as it is. If the Co-op Party is a political party, it certainly does not accord with the general expectations of the British public.
In many cases, the simple answer is ‘not at all’. Some units of the party exist in name only, with few or no officers, and do not meet. Many that do meet confine themselves almost entirely to organisational matters, generally associated with membership records and elections, with scarcely any political discussion. There is little public campaigning and those campaigns that are envisaged are often not those of the Co-op Party. This is a disastrous situation, since any new member is likely to be quickly disillusioned. How has it come about? The primary cause is the Party’s Agreement with the Labour Party. This agreement, requiring all Co-op MPs and councillors to accept the Labour whip, effectively means that the Party is unable to establish independent policy. Even if it did, members holding dual affiliation would be unable to campaign for it, if it conflicted with Labour policy. This would certainly be true of Co-op MPs and councillors who, under the terms of the agreement, must be members of the Labour Party.
This adherence to Labour policy is reflected at our national conferences, the notional policy-making body of the Party. Resolutions potentially inimical with Labour policy are either relegated to positions in the conference agenda where they are unlikely to be discussed or they are removed from the agenda altogether. In accepting the present electoral agreement, the Party has relinquished its right to determine policy. As a result, it has no policy other than Labour policy and therefore has nothing to campaign for which would establish it in the minds of the public as an independent political party with a co-operative agenda.
The Agreement with Labour has other deleterious effects. While the Party professes to have a record number of MPs, the reality is that it has none. They are all Labour MPs and the same applies to all so-called Co-op councillors. If it were otherwise, then the Party would be guilty of electoral deceit, whereby voters have been induced to elect Co-op MPs in the firm belief that they were voting Labour. In reality, we are only deceiving ourselves.
A very large proportion of our funds is used to pay Labour election expenses. For this the Party receives almost nothing in return - an annual membership fee from all Co-op supported candidates, acknowledgement of Co-op Party membership in their election address and a commitment to attend one branch meeting per year. Co-op supported district councillors have admitted that their Co-op Party membership has no influence on their council activities. In Hertfordshire - and no doubt elsewhere in the country - Co-op supported county councillors do not hold group meetings indicating that their Co-op Party affiliation is of little or no significance to their council work. It has been suggested that the Co-op Party is a mechanism for transferring money from co-operative societies into Labour election coffers - a charge that would be hard to refute.
Furthermore, the Agreement effectively creates two classes of member; those who also hold Labour Party cards and those who do not. Those who are not Labour members are excluded from many of the activities of the Co-op Party and are unable to become Co-op Party candidates. For a party which professes to favour equal opportunity, this situation is unacceptable, unprincipled and a deterrent to membership.
There are other aspects to this lack of internal democracy. The National Executive Committee is a committee of the Co-operative Union Ltd. As such, it is responsible to the Central Executive of the Union and through it to the Co-operative Congress. The NEC is not responsible to the members, a truly astonishing situation. Decisions relating to the Party can be and are taken without reference to Party members. Even long-standing members of the Party are often unaware of the procedures whereby decisions relating to the functioning of the party are arrived at. For example, St.Albans branch was recently been made aware, informally, that a decision has been taken to alter the relationship between the NEC and the Co-op Union, but exactly what those changes are and how and why they are being implemented has not been made known to the Party at large.
Co-operatives, like trade unions, are open to everyone. As the political wing of the co-operative movement in the UK, membership of the Co-op Party should be open to anyone who has an interest in or who wishes to promote a co-operative agenda. If a Tory Party member can be a member of a co-op, he/she should be able to join the party that claims to promote co-operatives. However, under our rules, membership of a political party other than Labour is a bar to membership.
Outsiders might reasonably assume that we would concentrate recruitment on co-operatives and mutual societies but this is not the case. Our attentions are principally focused on Labour Party members who are then required to join a co-op. This reticence to approach those uncommitted to Labour and/or supporters of other parties reflects an unwillingness to accept the challenge of unorthodox views within the Party and/or to accept new ideas.
As well as failing to make an impact on the public, the Party has largely failed to make progress its constitutional objective of achieving a ‘Co-operative Commonwealth’. Indeed, quite the reverse is the case. The activities of the retail co-ops have declined and over large areas of the country are almost non-existent. Retail co-ops have retreated before the onslaught of the supermarket chains and, as a matter of policy, the movement has decided to concentrate on small ‘convenience’ stores. Unfortunately, the supermarket chains are also intent on expanding into this sector and it remains to be seen whether the Co-op convenience stores can compete with the likes of Tesco Metro.
It is also the case that the managements of some retail societies consider the Co-op Party an embarrassment. They feel that the close association of the Co-op Party with Labour, rather than winning them custom, could lose it; hence, their reticence to support the Party’s activities. This feeling is probably strongest in t hose areas whether the retail co-ops have been traditionally weak and where, in theory, there should be scope for expansion.
The establishment of Mutuo, is a positive step and much to be applauded because it brings together mutual organisations not previously associated with the traditional co-operative movement. These mutual organisations, fearing further de-mutualisation campaigns, welcome the added clout which an alliance with Co-op can give. But it has to be recognised that while the Party took a leading role in establishing Mutuo, the mutual organisations could not enter into a direct association with the Party, precisely because it is a political party.
Bearing in mind the sharply divided social class structure in the first half of the twentieth century, a political party was possibly the only realistic format for an organisation set on furthering the co-operative movement. However, this is no longer the case. Class structure and allegiances have become diffuse and far from advancing the cause of co-ops, the political party structure and the alliance with the Labour Party has become a barrier to its making an impact on economic life and social attitudes.
One of the Party’s constitutional objects is the establishment of a ‘Co-operative Commonwealth’. While the phrase has something of a nineteenth century ring about it, it does reflect our aspiration for an expansion of co-operative and mutual organisations into all areas of economic and social life. However, most would accept that co-operatives are not suited to all economic activities and that a ‘Co-operative Commonwealth’ in which all major enterprises are co-operatives is not realistic. Society has developed in a way that the early pioneers could not have envisaged and our aims need to be modified to reflect this new reality. What we can realistically aim for is the extension of retail and industrial co-operatives and the development of co-operatives into other areas such as health care, housing, transport, recreational activities and so on. And the purpose of this would be to create an ethos in public life based on mutual respect, democratic accountability and social responsibility. Were we able to achieve a large expansion of co-operative ventures then it is likely that this would have a restraining influence on the individualistic, profit driven culture that now dominates public and private life.
Times have changed and so must our Party if it is to survive as an organisation capable of stimulating the growth of co-ops. What then need we to change into? First, it is clear that the mere abandoning of the electoral agreement with Labour will not achieve much. Indeed, this step alone would, in all likelihood, reduce rather than increase our influence. The opposition within the Party to breaking the Labour link is, no doubt, sustained by the thought that an independent Co-op Party would lose even the little influence that it now has. An independent Co-op Party would not have sufficient electoral strength even to gather in a protest vote, let alone equal or supplant any of the parties presently represented in local government or at Westminster. To do that would require resources that we do not possess and a broad slate of policies far beyond our limited objectives – the expansion of the co-operative movement. And because of what would be our negligible electoral strength, it is highly unlikely that our membership would increase.
Second, it is obvious that an independent Co-op Party would not overcome the reticence which some of the retail societies and other mutuals not affiliated to the Co-op Union have for association with political parties of whatever persuasion.
Third, we need to recognise that the Co-op Party has limited objectives. We have not aspired to win public office except in so far as to advance a co-operative agenda. We are an affiliate of a movement established by the industrial working class in the nineteenth century. We are proud of our roots but to thrive in the twenty-first century we have to adopt a form and practice appropriate to our times. We need to abandon all pretence to be a political party. We should become a pressure group for co-ops. We need to organise and act like any other pressure group, seeking support from all sectors of society, open to all and not limiting ourselves to the traditional Left. We want everyone to be co-operators and for that we need an organisation capable of drawing support from the widest spectrum. Far from being a dilution of our aims, it would add greatly enhance them. The co-op movement came into existence without the support of a political party and it does not need a political party to sustain it. What it needs is widespread public understanding of the benefits of co-operative organisation and this could be best implanted by a lively, committed pressure group.
One only has to consider the impact that Greenpeace, CND, UNA, Friends of the Earth, Liberty, Oxfam, Shelter, the women’s liberation movement and the like have made on all political parties and society in general to appreciate what a pressure group devoted to extending co-operatives might achieve. No one in public life today dares to be “anti-green” or “anti-development aid”. All pay lip service to human rights, gender equality and disarmament. A co-op pressure group could exert a similar influence. It could lobby support from all the political parties, gather supporters from members of all parties and none, receive the backing of a wide spectrum of charitable and community organisation as well as backing from all retail societies and mutuals. It would have the funds that now go on election expenses devoted directly to promoting co-operative policies. It would be in a position to receive additional financial support from individuals and organisations including, possibly, the National Lottery. It could put co-operation on everyone’s agenda. We could force governments into thinking of welfare reforms in terms of co-ops and not public/private partnerships.
The Co-operative Party is not a political party in the eyes of the British public. It is largely moribund and presently sustained by a small body of members whose motivation largely derives from a loyalty to the aims and aspirations of the traditional Labour movement. That loyalty should not blind us to the need for change. Without an influx of young members the organisation’s ability to influence social and economic developments will be negligible. The Party needs to transform itself into an organisation suited to the modern world and capable of pursuing a limited objective – the widespread development of co-operatives in all areas of social and economic life. To do this it must drop all pretence to being a political party and remove the barriers which prevent it from drawing in wider sections of the population. This paper proposes that the form of organisation required is that of a pressure group. As such it would be able to extend its influence across the political spectrum, draw support from mutuals not affiliated to the Co-operative Union and from the general public. It would have funds available to promote a co-operative agenda for society at large and thus begin the social transformation that was the objective of movement’s pioneers.
Herts and Home Counties Co-op Party Council January 2006
COMMENTS ON THIS PAPER SHOULD BE SENT TO HERTS and HOME COUNTIES PARTY COUNCIL,
c/o DAVID LEIGH,
9 GIBBONS CLOSE, ST.ALBANS AL4 9EP OR EMAILED TO: dave6637@aol.com