Divvying it up
41 sitting Labour MPs in the House of Commons are currently also Co-operative MPs - aren't they missing a trick?
In the more-than-usually febrile political atmosphere of Westminster the discussion around the pros and cons of introducing price controls on basic food items - such as eggs, bread and milk - to help tackle the cost of living crisis has inevitably descended into extreme positions: freedom of the markets versus a command and control economy. Neither extreme is being seriously discussed for implementation as government policy and neither is advisable or likely. That, though, hasn't prevented the debate descending into the usual partisan mud-slinging.
The lessons of history are rarely learned but I'm old enough to remember very well Shirley Williams' time as Labour Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection from 1974 to 1976. Her policies focused on combating inflation through statutory price controls, profit margin caps on manufacturers, and taxpayer-funded food subsidies on essential items like bread and milk, the latter earning her the soubriquet the 'Housewife's Friend' (well, it was the 1970s!). She expanded the powers of the Price Commission, established under the Counter-Inflation Act, to scrutinise company profits and block unjustified price increases as part of the Labour government's broader 'social contract' with trades unions, aimed at moderating wage demands in exchange for state control over the cost of living.
Suffice to say, it didn't end well. While the food subsidies may have offered immediate relief at the till, the broader statutory price controls were highly controversial. Critics and economists argued that rigid price caps squeezed corporate profit margins, discouraged business investment, and ultimately contributed to supply shortages. At the General Election in 1979 Margaret Thatcher swept the Conservatives to power on a manifesto of privatisation and unfettered market forces. By 1981, Shirley Williams had resigned from the Labour Party and, as one of the 'Gang of Four', gone on to found the Social Democratic Party.
Today, even after almost fifty years of neoliberal economics leaving the majority of people feeling markedly worse off, the idea of direct state control is unpopular. However, there is significantly more consumer interest in cooperative and worker-owned models with polling indicating that 59% of British shoppers trust co-operatives, compared to just 35% for traditional public limited companies (PLCs), while only a small percentage backs the concept of direct state-run shops. Rather than proposing nationalising retail, the UK government is focusing on collaborative approaches through the UK Government Food Strategy. Fair enough, but given these polling results it seems odd that only 10% of the Parliamentary Labour Party are also Co-operative MPs. Labour MPs are not required to be Co-operative MPs but doesn't that beg the question, shouldn't they be?
The Co-operative Party is a distinct political entity from the Labour Party, but the two organisations have maintained an electoral agreement since 1927, often being spoken of as sister parties. This partnership allows eligible politicians to run for Parliament as joint Labour & Co-operative candidates, yet the vast majority of Labour MPs are not members of the Co-operative Party. It is hard to see why a movement focusing on policies like community ownership, cooperative businesses, and local wealth-building would not be popular with anyone interested in standing for Parliament as a Labour MP. What's not to like?
Maybe 402 Labour & Co-operative MPs could empower Co-operative retail to spearhead their campaign for price controls on the high street?