The current Conservative Party Conference marks the end of the round of political conferences as the last before a general election their pronouncements are more significant than usual. With the horror show of the Tory conference dominating the headlines it is easy to forget the Party that kicked the conference season off – the Co-operative Party. Mind the grim prospect of a Conservative Government with its attacks on the poor, the sick and the old does tend to concentrate the mind with its parade of ghastly injustice. To see Cameron and Osborne make the poor and weak pay for the sins of the rich and powerful is particularly sick.
The fact that the public sector is the only thing preventing the current recession turning into a depression seems to have escaped politicians from all the major parties who seem to be in an “who can beat up most on the public sector” contest.
So maybe in these grim circumstances it is understandable that we have forgotten all the good ideas that came out of the Co-op Party. I discussed the conference and the current state of the Co-op Party with Richard Bickle, Co-op Party NEC member and Secretary of the Society for Co-op Studies. For a young man Richard is something of a co-op treasure with his vast knowledge and enthusiasm for all things co-operative.
NM: Richard, the Co-op party started the current round of Party conferences north of the border in Edinburgh what was the mood?
RB: I found the mood generally upbeat and encouraging. Despite the challenging position that the Government finds itself in, there was a real sense that our time (as co-operators) has arrived. The manifesto [A Co-operative Agenda for a Fourth Term] is the most comprehensive statement of Co-operative Political Policy for many years, if ever, and Government ministers who spoke such as Douglas Alexander do appear to have 'got it' as far as the value of co-operation is concerned.
NM: With the Labour Party struggling in the polls and struggling for finance how many candidates will the Co-op Party be supporting at the forthcoming General Election?
RB: With a record number of MP’s standing down the Co-op Party list has been re-opened for a limited period of time. This is likely to result in a number of additional Co-op candidates in winnable seats. It’s too early to say exactly how many candidates we will be fielding in the election, but the objective is to maintain the current strength within parliament after the next election as far as possible.
NM: After a year-and-a-half long process and the input of hundreds of Party members, the Party has published its manifesto for the General Election. What do you consider to be the highlights?
RB: The most important thing for me is the comprehensiveness of the vision being offered. In terms of specific policies, I am encouraged by the practical and timely nature of the remutualisation campaign for the failed banks and by the new mutual model for domestic energy purchasing covered in detail in a pamphlet also published at the conference. This is a practical tool for changing the energy market which doesn't require Government action but is rooted in local collective self-help.
NM: If the Labour party only took up a couple of issues to include in their manifesto which would you like to see?
RB: Can I have three?
- The remutualisation of the failed banks;
- A serious commitment to prioritise the development of co-operative housing;
- Giving employees in failed firms a right of first refusal to take on ownership and management.
NM: The Co-op sector has had a new lease of life with the damage done to the global economy by the conventional shareholder business model why do you think some co-operators still do not see the Co-op Party as their political voice?
RB: The long-standing electoral agreement with the Labour Party tends to mean that the Co-operative Party is opposed by supporters of other parties. There is also a tradition of party neutrality that goes back to the Rochdale Pioneers ("Political and Religious neutrality" was amongst the original Rochdale Principles) which still has advocates today. This tradition worries about the potentially destructive effect of factionalism on boards and committees, and of the need for co-operative businesses to be able to serve the supporters of all parties and none.
NM: If Labour suffers defeat in the forthcoming general election, like Labour, the Co-op Party will be in for a period of rebuilding, is it up for it?
RB: Yes, definitely. I have been a member for the last 15 years and it has more life and vitality now than at any time I can remember.
NM: Clearly Richard these are your views and do not represent the Co-op Party or the Society for Co-op Studies but thanks for your time. Morning Star readers will find much they can agree with in the Co-op Manifesto, including the case for a land value tax, as well as some things they will be less supportive of. What is clear is that with new Labour running out of ideological steam there is much of substance in the Co-op Party manifesto for the Labour party to get its teeth into. Why not take a look at: www.party.coop
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Thursday, 1 October 2009
The Lessons of Longbridge
In 2000 on Regional TV I was asked what the prospects for MG Rover would be with the Phoenix Four. I said that British Aerospace, one of the world’s largest engineering businesses, could not make it work and BMW, one of the world’s best carmakers could not make it work. I saw little hope that four blokes from Birmingham with an overdraft could make it work.
As you might expect I was both right and wrong. Right about their chances of building a successful car maker but wrong about their need for an overdraft. BMW’s largesse meant they made a great success of the business for themselves taking, according to the recently published report, over £42 million out of the business without taking any risks whatsoever.
It is incredible that these men burned their way through some two and half billion pounds! To take an inheritance from BMW of around £1.2 billion in assets and cash and turn it into a loss of £1.3 billion really takes some doing. As a result around £5billion has left the Regional economy leaving it reeling. Add to this the closure of Peugeot near Coventry, the collapse of LDV in Washwood Heath and now the threat to one of Jaguar Land Rovers plants in the region and is it any wonder that the West Midlands is the national unemployment black spot.
It now seems unless there is a dramatic change in Government policy the West Midlands has little future in automotive manufacturing. This is the result of a whole series of calamitous decisions handing MG Rover on a plate to the Phoenix 4 being just one. The death sentence on Longbridge was announced in 1998 when the Rover Group was sold by the Thatcher Government to British Aerospace. BAe had no real interest in volume car manufacture but did have an interest in Land Rover. At least given Rovers engineering weaknesses it had the sense to form a partnership with Honda.
In 1994 they sold the business to BMW for £800 million in theory making a profit having bought Rover for just £150 million from HM Government but one suspects they were happy to be rid. BMW’s purchase was at the time a defensive action. With BMW threatened with takeover needing a strategic acquisition to be bigger.
The rest as they say is history. BMW could not make any money out of Longbridge. Despite investment in new models, the Mini at Cowley and the Range Rover at Solihull, at Longbridge the wrong product in the form of the Rover 75 came too late to save the plant. This too was partly due to Government policy. For many years cars of this type were bought as a perk for their employees by companies thanks to the structure of company car taxation. Older readers will remember our motorways being full of Vauxhall Cavaliers, Ford Cortina’s and big Rovers all looking much the same with reps jackets flapping on hangers in the back. When the tax benefits disappeared and individuals started making their own car choices the trickle of hot hatchbacks from mainland Europe became a flood. Leaving Dagenham, Luton and Longbridge tooled up to build cars no one wanted. Unlike Rover, Ford and GM could bring into the UK models from their plants elsewhere in Europe sentencing their UK plants to death.
So what are the lessons of this sorry tale?
1. There is no substitute for a Government with an active long term industrial strategy. Most economies of our size try to maintain a mixed economy, in terms of services, manufacturing, energy and agriculture. This requires more than supply side initiatives or high spending on science. It requires a fiscal policy that favours investment over short term speculation and ensuring access to markets that are large enough to support large scale enterprises.
It is not just since Gordon Brown gave the Bank of England its independence that the economy has been run in favour of the money lenders but the way the monetary policy committee operates does not help. They do not have to take into account the effect on investment or on the value of the pound of their decisons. High interest rates have made it harder for businesses to invest in the UK and an uncompetitive exchange rate has made it hard for firms to export. The strong pound has a double effect it is harder to export but easier for those based in euroland to sell us their products. I am not arguing for joining the euro (although it would help) but if we stay outside we need at the very least a more competitive currency.
2. Ownership matters. The government should never have dumped Rover onto BAe. The lasses faire approach to the ownership of major businesses in Britain will come back to haunt us. Compare for example the French Governments approach to Renault. Here was a company that made a successful small (car its mini being the Renault 5) and like Austin Rover it could not make money out of manufacturing it. When it got into financial difficulties the French Government stepped in nationalising it in 1984. After making a huge investment in Renault and in its suppliers, completely restructured it was returned it to private sector in 1996. But here is the telling point. The French Government still maintains a fifteen per cent stake in Renault and even more tellingly from the point of view of the Rouge Roberto’s who work on the tracks (members no doubt of the CGT) three members of the main board are elected by employees and another is elected by employee shareholders. Such a board structure means four directors could not have run off with the workers redundancy money and pensions. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating and so at year end 2008 Renault had produced 2,382,230 cars and employed 129,068 people whilst weeds were growing through the rubble of Longbridge.
3. Manufacturing can only survive as part of a more general technological economy. The UK prides itself on its excellence in science. Science of itself however does not make money. Scientific breakthroughs are easy to copy because they are published; so that even Iran can split an atom or put a satellite into orbit. No. Money is made from technology. There is little new science in mobile phones, computers or modern cars. The science is pretty much old hat. There have been developments in new materials and miniaturisation but much of the science in modern products is half a century old. What we need for a vibrant manufacturing economy is an undergrowth of small and medium sized technology businesses. These are the firms that exploit new materials and new technologies first. Government spends a lot of money on science but needs to support the development of small technology businesses.
4. We do not need any more engineers or more children doing more engineering or science in school. We do need more demand for engineers. A manufacturing economy is driven by investment, new investment drives the development of new products, and new product development drives R&D and the acquisition of new skills. Too many businesses have learned half the lesson of the Japanese lean manufacturing philosophy. The constant pressure on costs. Obviously if you have a successful product and want to maximise profits you must keep pressure on costs. But any long term successful business also needs a constant stream of new products. Too many UK engineering and manufacturing businesses are just too lean they have little or no new product development and as soon as their product base gets stale they then get taken over or close all together.
5. There is real need for changes in company law. Firstly on board structures. Although why the trade unions who had made such an effort to get MG Rover for the Phoenix Four did not demand at least a seat on the board is beyond me. There are also issues about insolvency law and the law about pensions. We need to take these issues seriously. In retrospect it would have been better to have closed Longbridge and used BMW’s dowry to pay off the suppliers and the workers. It can never be right for Directors to be able to walk away as millionaires at the expense of their suppliers and workers.
6. It is never too late. Korea and the other Asian tigers developed as manufacturing economies from next to nothing. We can be better at manufacturing which would do wonders for our trade balance and the economy generally. It would also be good for our society. The collapse of manufacturing has huge social consequences changing our society into a less equal more divided one.
So let us hope this is not just another chapter in the history of decline of British industry. Manufacturing does matter and an active government can make a real difference.
As you might expect I was both right and wrong. Right about their chances of building a successful car maker but wrong about their need for an overdraft. BMW’s largesse meant they made a great success of the business for themselves taking, according to the recently published report, over £42 million out of the business without taking any risks whatsoever.
It is incredible that these men burned their way through some two and half billion pounds! To take an inheritance from BMW of around £1.2 billion in assets and cash and turn it into a loss of £1.3 billion really takes some doing. As a result around £5billion has left the Regional economy leaving it reeling. Add to this the closure of Peugeot near Coventry, the collapse of LDV in Washwood Heath and now the threat to one of Jaguar Land Rovers plants in the region and is it any wonder that the West Midlands is the national unemployment black spot.
It now seems unless there is a dramatic change in Government policy the West Midlands has little future in automotive manufacturing. This is the result of a whole series of calamitous decisions handing MG Rover on a plate to the Phoenix 4 being just one. The death sentence on Longbridge was announced in 1998 when the Rover Group was sold by the Thatcher Government to British Aerospace. BAe had no real interest in volume car manufacture but did have an interest in Land Rover. At least given Rovers engineering weaknesses it had the sense to form a partnership with Honda.
In 1994 they sold the business to BMW for £800 million in theory making a profit having bought Rover for just £150 million from HM Government but one suspects they were happy to be rid. BMW’s purchase was at the time a defensive action. With BMW threatened with takeover needing a strategic acquisition to be bigger.
The rest as they say is history. BMW could not make any money out of Longbridge. Despite investment in new models, the Mini at Cowley and the Range Rover at Solihull, at Longbridge the wrong product in the form of the Rover 75 came too late to save the plant. This too was partly due to Government policy. For many years cars of this type were bought as a perk for their employees by companies thanks to the structure of company car taxation. Older readers will remember our motorways being full of Vauxhall Cavaliers, Ford Cortina’s and big Rovers all looking much the same with reps jackets flapping on hangers in the back. When the tax benefits disappeared and individuals started making their own car choices the trickle of hot hatchbacks from mainland Europe became a flood. Leaving Dagenham, Luton and Longbridge tooled up to build cars no one wanted. Unlike Rover, Ford and GM could bring into the UK models from their plants elsewhere in Europe sentencing their UK plants to death.
So what are the lessons of this sorry tale?
1. There is no substitute for a Government with an active long term industrial strategy. Most economies of our size try to maintain a mixed economy, in terms of services, manufacturing, energy and agriculture. This requires more than supply side initiatives or high spending on science. It requires a fiscal policy that favours investment over short term speculation and ensuring access to markets that are large enough to support large scale enterprises.
It is not just since Gordon Brown gave the Bank of England its independence that the economy has been run in favour of the money lenders but the way the monetary policy committee operates does not help. They do not have to take into account the effect on investment or on the value of the pound of their decisons. High interest rates have made it harder for businesses to invest in the UK and an uncompetitive exchange rate has made it hard for firms to export. The strong pound has a double effect it is harder to export but easier for those based in euroland to sell us their products. I am not arguing for joining the euro (although it would help) but if we stay outside we need at the very least a more competitive currency.
2. Ownership matters. The government should never have dumped Rover onto BAe. The lasses faire approach to the ownership of major businesses in Britain will come back to haunt us. Compare for example the French Governments approach to Renault. Here was a company that made a successful small (car its mini being the Renault 5) and like Austin Rover it could not make money out of manufacturing it. When it got into financial difficulties the French Government stepped in nationalising it in 1984. After making a huge investment in Renault and in its suppliers, completely restructured it was returned it to private sector in 1996. But here is the telling point. The French Government still maintains a fifteen per cent stake in Renault and even more tellingly from the point of view of the Rouge Roberto’s who work on the tracks (members no doubt of the CGT) three members of the main board are elected by employees and another is elected by employee shareholders. Such a board structure means four directors could not have run off with the workers redundancy money and pensions. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating and so at year end 2008 Renault had produced 2,382,230 cars and employed 129,068 people whilst weeds were growing through the rubble of Longbridge.
3. Manufacturing can only survive as part of a more general technological economy. The UK prides itself on its excellence in science. Science of itself however does not make money. Scientific breakthroughs are easy to copy because they are published; so that even Iran can split an atom or put a satellite into orbit. No. Money is made from technology. There is little new science in mobile phones, computers or modern cars. The science is pretty much old hat. There have been developments in new materials and miniaturisation but much of the science in modern products is half a century old. What we need for a vibrant manufacturing economy is an undergrowth of small and medium sized technology businesses. These are the firms that exploit new materials and new technologies first. Government spends a lot of money on science but needs to support the development of small technology businesses.
4. We do not need any more engineers or more children doing more engineering or science in school. We do need more demand for engineers. A manufacturing economy is driven by investment, new investment drives the development of new products, and new product development drives R&D and the acquisition of new skills. Too many businesses have learned half the lesson of the Japanese lean manufacturing philosophy. The constant pressure on costs. Obviously if you have a successful product and want to maximise profits you must keep pressure on costs. But any long term successful business also needs a constant stream of new products. Too many UK engineering and manufacturing businesses are just too lean they have little or no new product development and as soon as their product base gets stale they then get taken over or close all together.
5. There is real need for changes in company law. Firstly on board structures. Although why the trade unions who had made such an effort to get MG Rover for the Phoenix Four did not demand at least a seat on the board is beyond me. There are also issues about insolvency law and the law about pensions. We need to take these issues seriously. In retrospect it would have been better to have closed Longbridge and used BMW’s dowry to pay off the suppliers and the workers. It can never be right for Directors to be able to walk away as millionaires at the expense of their suppliers and workers.
6. It is never too late. Korea and the other Asian tigers developed as manufacturing economies from next to nothing. We can be better at manufacturing which would do wonders for our trade balance and the economy generally. It would also be good for our society. The collapse of manufacturing has huge social consequences changing our society into a less equal more divided one.
So let us hope this is not just another chapter in the history of decline of British industry. Manufacturing does matter and an active government can make a real difference.
Friday, 11 September 2009
Co-ops and the Battle Against Poverty in Venezuela
This year’s conference of the Society for Co-op Studies took place at its spiritual home of Ruskin College. Its model of working class education and spirit of enquiry fit closely with the society’s ethos. The conference theme was ‘Building a Co-operative Economy – Opportunities and Challenges’ and there is certainly a feeling amongst co-operators that the global capitalist crisis could be a huge co-operative opportunity.
One of the liveliest sessions was, ‘Empowerment through Co-operation in Venezuela’. Lead by Sabine Kienzl, “I am an Austrian by passport but a Venezuelan in my heart”, she said. Now at the LSE she first went to study micro-finance in Columbia and Bolivia supported by the Austrian Government but whilst there had witnessed the astonishing changes of the Bolivarian Revolution leading to her working with the Venezuelans to build links between the Social Economy sector in the United States and Venezuela and undertaking research in the Co-operative sector.
She pointed out that when Hugo Chavez came to power there had been only 910 co-op’s in Venezuela. Whilst just over 50% of the population lived in poverty and over 20% in extreme poverty. By 2007 there where 228,004 co-operative enterprises comprising 14 % of Venezuela’s GDP and 18 % of employment and poverty levels had been reduced to 33.6 % and those living in extreme poverty reduced to 9.6 %.
In sharing this vast increase in the number of co-op’s with the audience there was a collective gasp. UK co-op development bodies would be delighted with registering a single new co-op in a month. All this reduction in poverty cannot be put down to the rise of the co-op sector however it has made a significant contribution. How had this vast increase in co-op activity come about?
When in 2001, the “Special Law of Co-operative Associations” gave the State the responsibility for the promotion of co-op’s through education, improved access to finance, tax exemptions and their prioritization in public contracting. President Chávez argued that the social economy “brings together economic and social interests and gains strength from the dynamism in local communities and the participation of citizens and workers.” The rise began in earnest with actions to implement this law in 2003.
The key education role was taken up by the social missions. Misión Vuelvan Caras, renamed Misión Che Guevara in 2007 took technical education, in agriculture, tourism or construction, and classes on what the Social Economy was all about out to the people. Over 670,000 have been through these programs with their alumni creating over 10,000 new co-op’s.
Simultaneously a new co-op model was developed, the Social Production Enterprise (EPS), which reinvests a proportion of its profits back into the community. Today EPS’s have won some 30% of the value of supply contracts with state owned enterprises. Meanwhile the state-owned oil company, PDVSA took a key role by ensuring that 10% of its investment went into a social fund that is used for projects in education, health, infrastructure and the social missions.
PDVSA also made it a priority to “democratize” its supplier base. By opening up to small co-op’s, at the end of 2007, its suppliers included more than 3,000 EPS’s. It also introduced a program to identify supplier opportunities, a standardized EPS registration system, and an “EPS School” educating them how to do business with PDVSA and other government bodies. Once an EPS wins a contract it commits itself to contributing 3% of its profits to the Social Fund, providing yet further investment.
Alvaro Sanchez from the Venezuela Embassy explained how the development of participatory forms of democracy through the community councils had been a key driver in the development of the co-op sector. The people themselves had identified the needs of their own communities and had then set about creating the co-operative tools to tackle those problems.
It seemed appropriate that this discussion of bottom up decision making and grassroots democracy should have been taking place in the Raphael Samuel Room. Here was something that I would have hoped Raphael would whole heartedly approve, history being made from below. Mind as you would expect from co-operators some where sceptical of the role of the state in this exponential growth whilst others had reservations about Hugo Chavez.
Veteran Co-operator, Edgar Parnell, who many feel wrote the bible when it comes to the building of co-operative enterprises in the developing world made a particularly pertinent and measured contribution to the debate. He described the challenges of sustaining this astonishing level of co-operative development from his experiences in Botswana and Bangladesh. But his most telling comment was about the time he worked on the development of co-operatives on the sugar plantations of Jamaica during the Premiership of the charismatic Michael Manley.
He told delegates not to underestimate the challenges that the Venezuelans faced in building this alternative social and economic model and reminded them of the dirty tricks and destabilisation attempts that the CIA and the United States in collaboration with the large land owners had played in Jamaica to try and thwart their efforts at land reform and the building of a viable co-operative sector. In congratulating the Venezuelans on what they had achieved he said the challenges of sustaining such fast growth in the sector should not be underestimated.
Whilst a vibrant co-operative sector is not the only thing necessary for a more just society as President Chávez has said: “We must transcend capitalism [since] it is impossible, within the framework of the capitalist system to solve the serious problems of poverty of the majority of the world’s population.”
One of the liveliest sessions was, ‘Empowerment through Co-operation in Venezuela’. Lead by Sabine Kienzl, “I am an Austrian by passport but a Venezuelan in my heart”, she said. Now at the LSE she first went to study micro-finance in Columbia and Bolivia supported by the Austrian Government but whilst there had witnessed the astonishing changes of the Bolivarian Revolution leading to her working with the Venezuelans to build links between the Social Economy sector in the United States and Venezuela and undertaking research in the Co-operative sector.
She pointed out that when Hugo Chavez came to power there had been only 910 co-op’s in Venezuela. Whilst just over 50% of the population lived in poverty and over 20% in extreme poverty. By 2007 there where 228,004 co-operative enterprises comprising 14 % of Venezuela’s GDP and 18 % of employment and poverty levels had been reduced to 33.6 % and those living in extreme poverty reduced to 9.6 %.
In sharing this vast increase in the number of co-op’s with the audience there was a collective gasp. UK co-op development bodies would be delighted with registering a single new co-op in a month. All this reduction in poverty cannot be put down to the rise of the co-op sector however it has made a significant contribution. How had this vast increase in co-op activity come about?
When in 2001, the “Special Law of Co-operative Associations” gave the State the responsibility for the promotion of co-op’s through education, improved access to finance, tax exemptions and their prioritization in public contracting. President Chávez argued that the social economy “brings together economic and social interests and gains strength from the dynamism in local communities and the participation of citizens and workers.” The rise began in earnest with actions to implement this law in 2003.
The key education role was taken up by the social missions. Misión Vuelvan Caras, renamed Misión Che Guevara in 2007 took technical education, in agriculture, tourism or construction, and classes on what the Social Economy was all about out to the people. Over 670,000 have been through these programs with their alumni creating over 10,000 new co-op’s.
Simultaneously a new co-op model was developed, the Social Production Enterprise (EPS), which reinvests a proportion of its profits back into the community. Today EPS’s have won some 30% of the value of supply contracts with state owned enterprises. Meanwhile the state-owned oil company, PDVSA took a key role by ensuring that 10% of its investment went into a social fund that is used for projects in education, health, infrastructure and the social missions.
PDVSA also made it a priority to “democratize” its supplier base. By opening up to small co-op’s, at the end of 2007, its suppliers included more than 3,000 EPS’s. It also introduced a program to identify supplier opportunities, a standardized EPS registration system, and an “EPS School” educating them how to do business with PDVSA and other government bodies. Once an EPS wins a contract it commits itself to contributing 3% of its profits to the Social Fund, providing yet further investment.
Alvaro Sanchez from the Venezuela Embassy explained how the development of participatory forms of democracy through the community councils had been a key driver in the development of the co-op sector. The people themselves had identified the needs of their own communities and had then set about creating the co-operative tools to tackle those problems.
It seemed appropriate that this discussion of bottom up decision making and grassroots democracy should have been taking place in the Raphael Samuel Room. Here was something that I would have hoped Raphael would whole heartedly approve, history being made from below. Mind as you would expect from co-operators some where sceptical of the role of the state in this exponential growth whilst others had reservations about Hugo Chavez.
Veteran Co-operator, Edgar Parnell, who many feel wrote the bible when it comes to the building of co-operative enterprises in the developing world made a particularly pertinent and measured contribution to the debate. He described the challenges of sustaining this astonishing level of co-operative development from his experiences in Botswana and Bangladesh. But his most telling comment was about the time he worked on the development of co-operatives on the sugar plantations of Jamaica during the Premiership of the charismatic Michael Manley.
He told delegates not to underestimate the challenges that the Venezuelans faced in building this alternative social and economic model and reminded them of the dirty tricks and destabilisation attempts that the CIA and the United States in collaboration with the large land owners had played in Jamaica to try and thwart their efforts at land reform and the building of a viable co-operative sector. In congratulating the Venezuelans on what they had achieved he said the challenges of sustaining such fast growth in the sector should not be underestimated.
Whilst a vibrant co-operative sector is not the only thing necessary for a more just society as President Chávez has said: “We must transcend capitalism [since] it is impossible, within the framework of the capitalist system to solve the serious problems of poverty of the majority of the world’s population.”
Monday, 3 August 2009
The Co-op Making the News
Like many of its readers I have shares in the Society that publishes the Morning Star. I also have a share in, according to Bonner’s history of British Co-operation, the ‘oldest working class and democratically owned newspaper in existence.’
That paper, first published on September 2nd 1871, is the Co-operative News. Its early days marked with “turmoil and agitation” saw it constantly in debt to its printers, the Co-operative Printing Society, the first of its type (if you will excuse the pun) formed of printers mainly from what was the Manchester Guardian.
Despite its difficult early life it won some influential readers, the Cambridge economist, Alfred Marshall, described it as, “the best pennyworth of news in the United Kingdom”.
The News, has been one of the few constants in the Co-operative movement charting all its ups and downs. All specialist titles face a constant fight for revenue and readers yet, like the Morning Star, it has adapted to the modern age with a strong presence on the web.
Today Co-operative Press shareholders include consumer co-operative societies, trade unions and since July 2004 (for just a tenner) individuals. It made a small surplus in the year ended February 2009.
Bob Bowman the current managing editor is determined to ensure that the fortnightly Co-op News remains essential reading for those interested in the sector. Like Co-operatives UK, the umbrella body of the Co-op movement, he has widened the breath of its contributors from across the co-operative, mutual and social enterprise sectors.
It is important that there is a space for the movement to talk to itself, about new opportunities and challenges and to celebrate the co-operative and mutual advantage to a wider world.
With the Co-op movement having an estimated turnover of £29billion there is plenty of business for the News to talk about. Despite being the ‘industry’ paper it does not avoid the big co-op issues. In a recent editorial Bob took on two of the most controversial issues facing the movement, that of whether there should be a single co-op retail society and the question of whether the best way for the co-op movement to have political influence is by running its own political party.
To hear some co-operators talk of the need for single co-op retail society is like listening to Francis Fukuyama talk of the ‘end of history’. In a healthy co-operative economy new co-op’s will be formed and ones that no longer serve their customers will be die. The important thing is for the rate of creation to exceed the rate of extinction so that the sector grows. Even if we had a single retail society it would not be the end of ‘history’ merely the beginning of a new phase.
Some of today’s fastest growing and innovative co-op’s are in sectors we could not have imagined a few years ago way beyond traditional co-op activities like food retailing. They are in renewable energy and telecoms, organic foodstuffs and even in cycle retailing! A single co-op retail society could only ever be a proportion of co-op retailing and the beginning of a whole new set of co-operative relationships.
When it comes to co-op politics, at its September conference, the Co-op Party will have to show there is life after New Labour. As the obvious weaknesses and contradictions in shareholder capitalism have become apparent the Co-op movement has had a new lease of life resulting in it being courted by the Liberals and the Tories.
Ideological renewal is vital as deregulated capital takes New Labour down with it. In a booming economy New Labour could both satisfy the rich and redistribute a modest amount to the poor. But as an ideological formation it can now be seen as a child of the boom. Now we face the inevitable bust the Co-op Party must show it has the ideological resources to survive as an independent force?
With the co-op sector in robust health these questions and more will be debated in Co-op News. Let us hope that as back in 1883 when the Co-op Woman’s Guild, grew from a column (Alice Ackland’s ‘The Women’s Corner’) in the paper, new activities and opportunities will grow from the voices, ideas and arguments within its pages for many years to come.
To subscribe to the Co-operative News go to: www.thenews.coop
That paper, first published on September 2nd 1871, is the Co-operative News. Its early days marked with “turmoil and agitation” saw it constantly in debt to its printers, the Co-operative Printing Society, the first of its type (if you will excuse the pun) formed of printers mainly from what was the Manchester Guardian.
Despite its difficult early life it won some influential readers, the Cambridge economist, Alfred Marshall, described it as, “the best pennyworth of news in the United Kingdom”.
The News, has been one of the few constants in the Co-operative movement charting all its ups and downs. All specialist titles face a constant fight for revenue and readers yet, like the Morning Star, it has adapted to the modern age with a strong presence on the web.
Today Co-operative Press shareholders include consumer co-operative societies, trade unions and since July 2004 (for just a tenner) individuals. It made a small surplus in the year ended February 2009.
Bob Bowman the current managing editor is determined to ensure that the fortnightly Co-op News remains essential reading for those interested in the sector. Like Co-operatives UK, the umbrella body of the Co-op movement, he has widened the breath of its contributors from across the co-operative, mutual and social enterprise sectors.
It is important that there is a space for the movement to talk to itself, about new opportunities and challenges and to celebrate the co-operative and mutual advantage to a wider world.
With the Co-op movement having an estimated turnover of £29billion there is plenty of business for the News to talk about. Despite being the ‘industry’ paper it does not avoid the big co-op issues. In a recent editorial Bob took on two of the most controversial issues facing the movement, that of whether there should be a single co-op retail society and the question of whether the best way for the co-op movement to have political influence is by running its own political party.
To hear some co-operators talk of the need for single co-op retail society is like listening to Francis Fukuyama talk of the ‘end of history’. In a healthy co-operative economy new co-op’s will be formed and ones that no longer serve their customers will be die. The important thing is for the rate of creation to exceed the rate of extinction so that the sector grows. Even if we had a single retail society it would not be the end of ‘history’ merely the beginning of a new phase.
Some of today’s fastest growing and innovative co-op’s are in sectors we could not have imagined a few years ago way beyond traditional co-op activities like food retailing. They are in renewable energy and telecoms, organic foodstuffs and even in cycle retailing! A single co-op retail society could only ever be a proportion of co-op retailing and the beginning of a whole new set of co-operative relationships.
When it comes to co-op politics, at its September conference, the Co-op Party will have to show there is life after New Labour. As the obvious weaknesses and contradictions in shareholder capitalism have become apparent the Co-op movement has had a new lease of life resulting in it being courted by the Liberals and the Tories.
Ideological renewal is vital as deregulated capital takes New Labour down with it. In a booming economy New Labour could both satisfy the rich and redistribute a modest amount to the poor. But as an ideological formation it can now be seen as a child of the boom. Now we face the inevitable bust the Co-op Party must show it has the ideological resources to survive as an independent force?
With the co-op sector in robust health these questions and more will be debated in Co-op News. Let us hope that as back in 1883 when the Co-op Woman’s Guild, grew from a column (Alice Ackland’s ‘The Women’s Corner’) in the paper, new activities and opportunities will grow from the voices, ideas and arguments within its pages for many years to come.
To subscribe to the Co-operative News go to: www.thenews.coop
Monday, 13 July 2009
Management and Motivation @ Co-ops 2009
A great debate at Co-operatives 2009 ran through the whole day starting in the Employee Participation and Engagement Workshop, continued into the Co-op Studies fringe meeting, rattled around the coffee bar and exhibition space and was still going at dinner.
It was whether the Suma Wholefoods flat pay structure could be a model for the movement. Bob Cannel of Suma explained that,
“We operate a democratic system of management that isn’t tied to a conventional hierarchy. Using an elected Management Committee to implement decisions and business plans, decisions that need the consent of every co-op member given at general meetings – there’s no chief executive, no managing director and no company chairman.”
“Working at Suma the workers must show initiative and be self-motivated, supporting one other in collective teams. Fulfilling regular daily tasks and being part of the management is a new skill which new members have to learn, whether their previous experience is on the shopfloor or in management”.
Having grown consistently for 30 years Suma believes that their success is based on all the members sharing responsibility. But the rub is all workers are paid the same net daily wage.
This flat pay scale is a good annual wage of around £25,000 for manual warehouse workers but is less attractive for conventional management grades. For Suma workers this pay reflects the collective management element and overall wage costs are industry average.
Bob says, “Multiskilling and equal pay underpins our operations; it allows us to use labour more efficiently to cope with the troughs and peaks, keeps people fresh and enthusiastic and it allows recuperation from stress. You can spend time throwing sacks in the warehouse after leaving a high responsibility position and then re-enter the fray in a different job.”
With employee anger at the huge rewards for failure in the banking collapse many find merit in the Suma model. But this is a recurring theme in management theory.
Is organisational efficiency driven by processes or people? If by process you need very smart (and expensive) people to design the processes, if by people you need highly skilled and motivated staff.
The idea that free individuals are more productive than slaves is not new. Indeed when Napoleon ruled most of Europe he argued it was because every one of his soldiers carried a marshal’s baton in his knapsack.
Suma workers are certainly free individuals, well educated and highly motivated. Their business model is one in which decisions are taken close to the point where issues arise and intelligence is evenly distributed across the system. Job variety means everyone has an awareness of the issues others face. With this business culture imposing any kind of ‘chief’ would be like trying to herd cats.
This raises questions for other co-ops. I find the term Human Resource Management makes me think of robots as a lot of HRM business thinking has come from Japanese manufacturing where process is paramount. Shorthand for this is the term ‘lean’ based on keeping constant pressure on costs.
A crude version of lean has been imported into Britain by our Business Schools, with all its subsets like, Just in Time, Total Quality Management or World Class Manufacturing attempting to guarantee success by a focus on process design.
Businesses that copy these methods almost always fail to achieve Japanese results because they only copy half the process. The other side of lean is about a continuous improvement, new product development and innovation. In the Japanese case hard to copy as this takes place in faraway Japan.
It is this creative side of the process which needs the anarchic atmosphere of a Suma. New ideas and radical innovation do not come from robots, from slaves to a system.
Also workers who just do what they are told when faced with a shock to the system are incapable of doing anything about it.
In the co-op sector we know that individual initiative in the workplace makes a huge impact to the bottom line. Having intelligence distributed across a system encouraging flexibility and problem solving close to the shop floor is good for business. No matter how talented a senior management team or effective a board of directors they would be swamped if they had to make every decision. Even the best designed business systems are abstractions of reality which means that ‘stuff happens’ and people have to deal with that ‘stuff’.
A balance has to be struck between people and process but importing corporate attitudes into co-ops is not the way. When new technology was driving industrial success Robert Owen saw the most important part of the business was the human behind the machine. “If due care as to the state of your inanimate machines can produce such beneficial results, what may not be expected if you devote equal attention to your vital machines, which are far more wonderfully constructed.”
The new buzz in management education is leadership but as Napoleons story shows without a well motivated and highly skilled army even the greatest leaders cannot guarantee victory.
It was whether the Suma Wholefoods flat pay structure could be a model for the movement. Bob Cannel of Suma explained that,
“We operate a democratic system of management that isn’t tied to a conventional hierarchy. Using an elected Management Committee to implement decisions and business plans, decisions that need the consent of every co-op member given at general meetings – there’s no chief executive, no managing director and no company chairman.”
“Working at Suma the workers must show initiative and be self-motivated, supporting one other in collective teams. Fulfilling regular daily tasks and being part of the management is a new skill which new members have to learn, whether their previous experience is on the shopfloor or in management”.
Having grown consistently for 30 years Suma believes that their success is based on all the members sharing responsibility. But the rub is all workers are paid the same net daily wage.
This flat pay scale is a good annual wage of around £25,000 for manual warehouse workers but is less attractive for conventional management grades. For Suma workers this pay reflects the collective management element and overall wage costs are industry average.
Bob says, “Multiskilling and equal pay underpins our operations; it allows us to use labour more efficiently to cope with the troughs and peaks, keeps people fresh and enthusiastic and it allows recuperation from stress. You can spend time throwing sacks in the warehouse after leaving a high responsibility position and then re-enter the fray in a different job.”
With employee anger at the huge rewards for failure in the banking collapse many find merit in the Suma model. But this is a recurring theme in management theory.
Is organisational efficiency driven by processes or people? If by process you need very smart (and expensive) people to design the processes, if by people you need highly skilled and motivated staff.
The idea that free individuals are more productive than slaves is not new. Indeed when Napoleon ruled most of Europe he argued it was because every one of his soldiers carried a marshal’s baton in his knapsack.
Suma workers are certainly free individuals, well educated and highly motivated. Their business model is one in which decisions are taken close to the point where issues arise and intelligence is evenly distributed across the system. Job variety means everyone has an awareness of the issues others face. With this business culture imposing any kind of ‘chief’ would be like trying to herd cats.
This raises questions for other co-ops. I find the term Human Resource Management makes me think of robots as a lot of HRM business thinking has come from Japanese manufacturing where process is paramount. Shorthand for this is the term ‘lean’ based on keeping constant pressure on costs.
A crude version of lean has been imported into Britain by our Business Schools, with all its subsets like, Just in Time, Total Quality Management or World Class Manufacturing attempting to guarantee success by a focus on process design.
Businesses that copy these methods almost always fail to achieve Japanese results because they only copy half the process. The other side of lean is about a continuous improvement, new product development and innovation. In the Japanese case hard to copy as this takes place in faraway Japan.
It is this creative side of the process which needs the anarchic atmosphere of a Suma. New ideas and radical innovation do not come from robots, from slaves to a system.
Also workers who just do what they are told when faced with a shock to the system are incapable of doing anything about it.
In the co-op sector we know that individual initiative in the workplace makes a huge impact to the bottom line. Having intelligence distributed across a system encouraging flexibility and problem solving close to the shop floor is good for business. No matter how talented a senior management team or effective a board of directors they would be swamped if they had to make every decision. Even the best designed business systems are abstractions of reality which means that ‘stuff happens’ and people have to deal with that ‘stuff’.
A balance has to be struck between people and process but importing corporate attitudes into co-ops is not the way. When new technology was driving industrial success Robert Owen saw the most important part of the business was the human behind the machine. “If due care as to the state of your inanimate machines can produce such beneficial results, what may not be expected if you devote equal attention to your vital machines, which are far more wonderfully constructed.”
The new buzz in management education is leadership but as Napoleons story shows without a well motivated and highly skilled army even the greatest leaders cannot guarantee victory.
The Answer is Blowing in the Wind
Roy Bailey and Tony Benn performed their, “Writing on the Wall” show, at this years Levellers day in Burford and if there is an issue where the writing is on the wall it is in the subject for discussion that day - the coming energy poverty crisis.
In a fit of free-market zealotry, when energy appeared to be plentiful, the UK pursued an everything must go privatisation policy - from electricity, gas, coal, nuclear and oil nothing was safe even the wires and pipelines went with the promise of low prices from competition.
Now we can see where this deluded strategy has lead us as we face the twin crises of energy security and climate change. New Labour Ministers often tell us ‘ownership does not matter’, seeing the powerless PM last summer, begging for hand outs from these global megacorps to pay for lagging for pensioners shows the nonsense of this view. Not only are we paying more for our energy we are also suffering from underinvestment in all forms of energy generation.
As for renewables forget it! The global giants refuse to invest in UK renewables as they seek higher short term profits from investments overseas. No wonder the UK is facing a looming energy gap.
Compare us to Portugal, with no indigenous carbon energy sources, it now obtains over half its energy from renewables. Having invested in wave power – technology developed here in Scotland – renewable energy that you can set your watch by.
Locked into free-market dogma progress on renewables in the UK is pitiful. It is not just the investment strike by the energy giants we have failed to give a lift to small scale renewables development with preferential feed in tariffs giving them the certainty they need for investment.
The lack of investment in our privatised energy infrastructure has prevented what some say is the rational development away from large scale, wasteful industrial scale energy production, towards a decentralised model producing energy closer to where it is needed using new technologies.
Despite the challenges to small scale energy projects there are today some exciting co-operative developments in renewables. One does not have to travel far across the countryside nowadays to see campaign posters against wind turbines
This resistance to private sector wind development can be overcome if the wind farms are owned by the communities in which they sit. Energy4All represented at Burford by John Malone was formed by Bay wind Energy Co-operative to promote community owned energy co-operatives.
Bay wind an Industrial & Provident Society, was formed in 1996 to allow a Cumbrian community to invest in a local wind farm. The original board of directors included 7 members of the community from Ulverston and Barrow. The first share offer in 1996/97 raised 1.2 million to buy two turbines at the Harlock Hill wind farm. In 1998/99 the second share offer raised a further £670,000 to buy one turbine at the Haverigg II wind farm site. Preference was shown for local investors, so that the community shares the economic benefits from their local wind farm. Around 40% of existing Baywind shareholders live either in Cumbria or North Lancashire with a wider number from the Northwest Region.
To date Energy4All has promoted seven community owned energy co-ops in England and another seven in Scotland. Speaking at Burford, John Malone said “Energy4All was created due to daily enquiries received by Baywind Co-operative from people looking to replicate the success of Baywind, the UK's first community-owned wind farm. Baywind co-op has generated enough green electricity to power 1,300 homes a year whilst paying an attractive return to its 1,350 members (averaging 7% per annum), and supporting local initiatives, such as the Baywind Energy Conservation Trust. Owning a wind farm increases awareness of and involvement in renewable energy developments, maximises financial returns from local resources, and mobilises environmental concern.”
No one thinks that wind of itself is the solution to our all our energy needs but anything that gets us out of the clutches of the global power giants and contributes to tackling the crisis we face is important. The largest Energy4All co-operative is Westmill Wind Farm in Oxfordshire. Officially opened by Jonathan Porritt of Friends of the Earth in May 2008, Westmill consists of five 1.3MW turbines, capable of generating sufficient electricity to power the equivalent of 2,500 homes. Over £4.4 million of share capital was raised from its 2,382 members, through community investment, who collectively own and control it.
The scale of the challenge is such we need to maximise all of our indigenous energy options. We need therefore to go much further. When oil was discovered in the North Sea, there was a realisation that it was going to be a long term risky business bringing it to shore, we established a public sector business to undertake this challenge -The British National Oil Corporation.
If we are to take on the challenge of developing a renewables industry particularly in the capital intensive wave and tide power arena we will need a similar public sector champion. We need a British National Renewables Corporation.
Unlike the wind you can set your watch by the tides around Britain’s coast and if the Portuguese can do it so can we. With a global shortage of credit we cannot wait for the private sector to come to the rescue.
If we want a significant renewables sector we need co-operatives but we also need a large scale public sector engagement.
If your community wants to investigate its own renewable energy scheme visit: www.energy4all.co.uk
In a fit of free-market zealotry, when energy appeared to be plentiful, the UK pursued an everything must go privatisation policy - from electricity, gas, coal, nuclear and oil nothing was safe even the wires and pipelines went with the promise of low prices from competition.
Now we can see where this deluded strategy has lead us as we face the twin crises of energy security and climate change. New Labour Ministers often tell us ‘ownership does not matter’, seeing the powerless PM last summer, begging for hand outs from these global megacorps to pay for lagging for pensioners shows the nonsense of this view. Not only are we paying more for our energy we are also suffering from underinvestment in all forms of energy generation.
As for renewables forget it! The global giants refuse to invest in UK renewables as they seek higher short term profits from investments overseas. No wonder the UK is facing a looming energy gap.
Compare us to Portugal, with no indigenous carbon energy sources, it now obtains over half its energy from renewables. Having invested in wave power – technology developed here in Scotland – renewable energy that you can set your watch by.
Locked into free-market dogma progress on renewables in the UK is pitiful. It is not just the investment strike by the energy giants we have failed to give a lift to small scale renewables development with preferential feed in tariffs giving them the certainty they need for investment.
The lack of investment in our privatised energy infrastructure has prevented what some say is the rational development away from large scale, wasteful industrial scale energy production, towards a decentralised model producing energy closer to where it is needed using new technologies.
Despite the challenges to small scale energy projects there are today some exciting co-operative developments in renewables. One does not have to travel far across the countryside nowadays to see campaign posters against wind turbines
This resistance to private sector wind development can be overcome if the wind farms are owned by the communities in which they sit. Energy4All represented at Burford by John Malone was formed by Bay wind Energy Co-operative to promote community owned energy co-operatives.
Bay wind an Industrial & Provident Society, was formed in 1996 to allow a Cumbrian community to invest in a local wind farm. The original board of directors included 7 members of the community from Ulverston and Barrow. The first share offer in 1996/97 raised 1.2 million to buy two turbines at the Harlock Hill wind farm. In 1998/99 the second share offer raised a further £670,000 to buy one turbine at the Haverigg II wind farm site. Preference was shown for local investors, so that the community shares the economic benefits from their local wind farm. Around 40% of existing Baywind shareholders live either in Cumbria or North Lancashire with a wider number from the Northwest Region.
To date Energy4All has promoted seven community owned energy co-ops in England and another seven in Scotland. Speaking at Burford, John Malone said “Energy4All was created due to daily enquiries received by Baywind Co-operative from people looking to replicate the success of Baywind, the UK's first community-owned wind farm. Baywind co-op has generated enough green electricity to power 1,300 homes a year whilst paying an attractive return to its 1,350 members (averaging 7% per annum), and supporting local initiatives, such as the Baywind Energy Conservation Trust. Owning a wind farm increases awareness of and involvement in renewable energy developments, maximises financial returns from local resources, and mobilises environmental concern.”
No one thinks that wind of itself is the solution to our all our energy needs but anything that gets us out of the clutches of the global power giants and contributes to tackling the crisis we face is important. The largest Energy4All co-operative is Westmill Wind Farm in Oxfordshire. Officially opened by Jonathan Porritt of Friends of the Earth in May 2008, Westmill consists of five 1.3MW turbines, capable of generating sufficient electricity to power the equivalent of 2,500 homes. Over £4.4 million of share capital was raised from its 2,382 members, through community investment, who collectively own and control it.
The scale of the challenge is such we need to maximise all of our indigenous energy options. We need therefore to go much further. When oil was discovered in the North Sea, there was a realisation that it was going to be a long term risky business bringing it to shore, we established a public sector business to undertake this challenge -The British National Oil Corporation.
If we are to take on the challenge of developing a renewables industry particularly in the capital intensive wave and tide power arena we will need a similar public sector champion. We need a British National Renewables Corporation.
Unlike the wind you can set your watch by the tides around Britain’s coast and if the Portuguese can do it so can we. With a global shortage of credit we cannot wait for the private sector to come to the rescue.
If we want a significant renewables sector we need co-operatives but we also need a large scale public sector engagement.
If your community wants to investigate its own renewable energy scheme visit: www.energy4all.co.uk
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Nothing too good for the workers!
It is not everyday you get the chance to become a shareholder in a stately home! On the May Day Bank Holiday I was with friends at the wonderful Chesterfield TUC May Day festival with its combination of a march, speeches, first class entertainment and solidarity market stalls.
One stall caught my eye. I had first been to Wortley Hall longer ago than I like to admit it was the venue for the weekend schools of the old Midland Section of the Co-op Party. So I was delighted to see a stall for the upgraded Wortley Hall.
Wortley Hall, between Sheffield and Huddersfield, set in 26 acres of formal gardens and woodlands, is the Workers Stately Home having belonged to the labour movement for over fifty years. Originally the ancestral home of the Earls of Wharncliffe, we cannot be exact about when the hall was built but we know that Sir Thomas Wortley, born in 1440, lived at the Manor Wortley until 1510.
Sir Thomas, on the wrong side during the English Civil War, was taken by Parliamentary forces to the Tower of London. The hall fell into decay until the mid eighteenth century when Edmund Wortley commissioned its rebuilding. The family’s new wealth coming from coal mining in the South Yorkshire area, during the war the Hall was occupied by the Army, but after 1945 the hall once again fell into decline.
This all changed at a meeting in May 1950. Vin Williams, a former miner, proposed to local labour movement activists that Wortley Hall should become an education and recreation home for workers who would be the owners and on whose behalf the Hall would be run.
It was in semi-derelict condition and it took a great deal of voluntary work of South Yorkshire supporters to carry out repairs and restoration but on May 5th 1951 it was opened as an education and holiday centre for the trade union, labour and co-operative movement.
For over fifty odd years, successive generations have maintained the commitment and built on the sacrifices of those workers to keep Wortley Hall as the Workers Stately Home. Support has been drawn from across the labour movement, no one person or organisation can have overall control of the Hall, a member of the Co-op Union and registered as a Friendly Society. Wortley Hall has always been run on co-operative principles.
Today, with four stars from the English Tourist Board, the Hall is looking better than ever. The effort that has gone into bringing the accommodation and grounds up to the very highest standards has really paid off. The grounds laid out in an Italinate style on an eastward facing slope enjoy magnificent views over the vale of Worsborough are absolutely glorious.
The Hall can host conferences for up to 150 delegates, with seven conference rooms and 49 en-suite bedrooms, all equipped with direct telephone lines and internet connections. The most recent to be upgraded is the ballroom, paid for mainly by Unite branches, will be formerly re-opened as the Unite Ballroom later in the year.
Another recent development has been the creation of two holiday cottages set in the old stable yard. The area has some excellent cycling and walking as the Hall is not far from the Peak District and for those wishing to travel further afield there is the ‘last of the summer wine country’ of Holmfirth.
The grounds are also the home of the South Yorkshire Festival, celebrating workers worldwide, which takes place on Saturday 4th July this year, an excellent day out, in a delightful setting. If you are a member of a Trade Union, Labour or Co-operative organisation you are eligible to become an individual shareholder. This entitles you to participate in the running of Wortley Hall, attending the AGM, voting for the Management Board or standing for election having been nominated by your organisation or another shareholder.
Organisations and individuals can apply for shares which are in £5 units. So for a small sum you can have a share in the Workers Stately Home! For more information go to: www.wortleyhall.org.uk
One stall caught my eye. I had first been to Wortley Hall longer ago than I like to admit it was the venue for the weekend schools of the old Midland Section of the Co-op Party. So I was delighted to see a stall for the upgraded Wortley Hall.
Wortley Hall, between Sheffield and Huddersfield, set in 26 acres of formal gardens and woodlands, is the Workers Stately Home having belonged to the labour movement for over fifty years. Originally the ancestral home of the Earls of Wharncliffe, we cannot be exact about when the hall was built but we know that Sir Thomas Wortley, born in 1440, lived at the Manor Wortley until 1510.
Sir Thomas, on the wrong side during the English Civil War, was taken by Parliamentary forces to the Tower of London. The hall fell into decay until the mid eighteenth century when Edmund Wortley commissioned its rebuilding. The family’s new wealth coming from coal mining in the South Yorkshire area, during the war the Hall was occupied by the Army, but after 1945 the hall once again fell into decline.
This all changed at a meeting in May 1950. Vin Williams, a former miner, proposed to local labour movement activists that Wortley Hall should become an education and recreation home for workers who would be the owners and on whose behalf the Hall would be run.
It was in semi-derelict condition and it took a great deal of voluntary work of South Yorkshire supporters to carry out repairs and restoration but on May 5th 1951 it was opened as an education and holiday centre for the trade union, labour and co-operative movement.
For over fifty odd years, successive generations have maintained the commitment and built on the sacrifices of those workers to keep Wortley Hall as the Workers Stately Home. Support has been drawn from across the labour movement, no one person or organisation can have overall control of the Hall, a member of the Co-op Union and registered as a Friendly Society. Wortley Hall has always been run on co-operative principles.
Today, with four stars from the English Tourist Board, the Hall is looking better than ever. The effort that has gone into bringing the accommodation and grounds up to the very highest standards has really paid off. The grounds laid out in an Italinate style on an eastward facing slope enjoy magnificent views over the vale of Worsborough are absolutely glorious.
The Hall can host conferences for up to 150 delegates, with seven conference rooms and 49 en-suite bedrooms, all equipped with direct telephone lines and internet connections. The most recent to be upgraded is the ballroom, paid for mainly by Unite branches, will be formerly re-opened as the Unite Ballroom later in the year.
Another recent development has been the creation of two holiday cottages set in the old stable yard. The area has some excellent cycling and walking as the Hall is not far from the Peak District and for those wishing to travel further afield there is the ‘last of the summer wine country’ of Holmfirth.
The grounds are also the home of the South Yorkshire Festival, celebrating workers worldwide, which takes place on Saturday 4th July this year, an excellent day out, in a delightful setting. If you are a member of a Trade Union, Labour or Co-operative organisation you are eligible to become an individual shareholder. This entitles you to participate in the running of Wortley Hall, attending the AGM, voting for the Management Board or standing for election having been nominated by your organisation or another shareholder.
Organisations and individuals can apply for shares which are in £5 units. So for a small sum you can have a share in the Workers Stately Home! For more information go to: www.wortleyhall.org.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
