Co-operation, Cricket and Class

The perception of co-ops in Britain has changed tremendously over the last few years. There is a clear generational demarcation in the perception of co-ops particularly as a retailer. For my grandparents they fed and clothed them through the war and they could, until they became customers of Co-op Funeralcare remember their divi-numbers, for my parents they where old fashioned and closing down, yet now for the young people I teach in the University they have in some cases like the Co-op Bank, John Lewis and some of the funky new co-ops become sexy.

Not a term many of us in the movement have had applied to us very often, if at all.

As well as this generational difference in attitudes towards Co-op’s and co-operation there also seems to be a class difference. I was thinking about this because the Government of posh boys is always going on about the John Lewis model or employee ownership but rarely use the term’s co-op or co-operative.

This is ironic because often it is the better off that nowadays seek to co-operate to improve their lot whereas it is much more difficult to get those who really need the benefits of co-operation lower down the social and economic pile to do so.

Internationally co-operative housing, for example, is a common form of tenure yet in the UK housing co-ops have failed to take off often because they are lumped into the social housing space and have historically gone into battle, as a more complex form of tenure, for investment with housing associations, which at least to outsiders appear to be doing similar work.

The truth is that for investors and tenants the co-operative housing model is a terrific way of taking the risk out of housing for many people who for whatever reason cannot engage in, or do not want, the hassle of owner occupation.

Compare this with the situation in the United States where some of the world’s most exclusive housing is in co-operative ownership.

Indeed some of the famous New York Co-op Boards that select tenants are notoriously picky. Well known figures such as Madonna, Carly Simon and Calvin Klein have in recent years been turned down for membership of some of New York’s more exclusive housing co-operatives.

This class issue once again came to mind when I read that the Marylebone Cricket Club was consulting its members on a new structure. This follows an acrimonious debate within the MCC about the redevelopment of the ground. The project was called “A Vision for Lords” and it involved the building of luxury flats at the nursery end of the ground.

This however was not a vision shared by the membership of the club who rejected it. As a result of this row one prominent member of the project committee, Sir John Major, resigned complaining about the way the decision had been taken.

One thing the potential development highlighted was the sheer precariousness of the club’s existing legal structure. As an unincorporated association the club is not a corporate entity and cannot therefore own property, including the ground itself, and the members are joint a severally liable if they ever get sued!

The club have put forward a solution to this legal weakness and have decided that they should ask the Queen for a royal charter of incorporation a bit like the way Universities are established. A rather complicated and rather long winded solution you might think.

Of course there is another way forward, one that does not require any grovelling to Buck House, and that is taken by virtually all of the other county cricket clubs in the country.

That is to form an "industrial and provident society", or a co-op in a letter to members they say, "Although some first-class county cricket clubs have chosen this method to incorporate," they add somewhat sniffily, "the working party thought that such a method would not appeal to members of the club. Traditionally, this route was used to incorporate working men's clubs."

Well this method is also the one that is the legal basis across the river of Sir John Major’s beloved Surrey County Cricket Club, one of the UK’s top one hundred co-op’s. So I would like to think this is why Sir John fell out with the clubs management, although I doubt it.

The Industrial and Provident Society , the co-operative model, is the legal form of the Club I am a member of, Leicestershire, and a quick check tells me it is the legal form too of the following County Cricket Clubs, Kent, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Glamorgan, Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Essex, Yorkshire, Somerset, Derbyshire, Sussex ,Hampshire and Nottinghamshire.

To add insult to injury for MCC members it is the legal basis of Middlesex County Cricket Club. Many MCC members are also members of Middlesex who have the privilege of sharing Lords with the MCC.

If the members of the MCC have any brains and really want to protect the club from the toffs who think they own everything in this country they should vote for the co-op option. Importantly it protects the club’s democratic nature, maintaining member control and ownership. After all it has served many businesses well over the years some of which have been around almost as long as the MCC.

Oh and yes it is also the legal basis for many Working Men’s Clubs and if it helps for many Conservative Clubs too!