The Tories don’t understand the philosophy behind public sector mutualism, or the 150 years of the cooperative movement that underpins it, writes Robbie Erbmann

Veteran stalwarts of the co-operative movement may not have been able to stifle a wry smile when they saw the Conservative pledge to give public sector employees the right to form worker co-operatives. They would quite rightly remember that when in government the Tories abolished the National Co-operative Development Agency, which over 10 years created almost 2,000 worker co-operatives in the private sector.

But to be generous, we should judge Conservative proposals on their merits, rather than their past record. Yet another hastily improvised policy on the hoof has shown the Conservatives to be completely clueless on co-operatives. They don’t understand the great strides that have already been taken in public services, nor the underlying philosophy behind public sector mutualism.

Worker co-operatives and employee ownership do certainly have something to offer. Firms where members of staff have a big ownership stake and a say in decisions do not just cre¬ate happier workers, they also make more productive businesses. These organisations thrive across a range of sectors, and can provide a better and more stable future for our economy.

But public sector mutualism is not just about giving workers power – but all of us, not just as employees, but also as parents, patients, pupils and service users.

This is where the government’s trackrecord on mutualism speaks for itself. As a result of partnership between the Labour and Co-operative parties over the last 12 years, there are more than 1.5 million members of new mutuals across public services. Largely, these are not just run by employees – but allow everyone involved in the organisation, be they parents, patients, workers or pupils – a real say over how they are run.

There are now 126 foundation trust hospitals with over a million members drawn from patients, employees, carers and the wider community. There are over 25 co-operative trust schools, with a target of more than 200 by September, which give parents, pupils and staff real control over the school and its ethos.

All of us want to see services built on the experiences of frontline staff, but they should be built on our experiences as service users as well – as they are at UCLH, my local hospital.

Moving to the mutual model has changed the way that the hospital is run, making it more responsive to the community that I live in and more focused on the needs of its patients. It resulted in the creation of a working group that draws on the experiences of employees and users to tackle issues like the quality of food and time spent waiting on the phone – all of which had been traditional sources of discontent, yet often too low down in managerial priorities to be tackled effectively.

One may want to ask David Cameron what he is going to do about these public sector mutuals that already exist. Does his new announcement mean that he is going to take our rights as patients and parents away from us and place them solely in the hand of workers? Is he really going to tell more than 1.3 million members of NHS foundation trusts that their services are no longer required?

Essentially when we’re talking about public money, it’s important that the public have a real say over how their services are run – and can make sure that public sector organisations are run in all of our interests, rather than the narrow sectional interests of one stakeholder against the other.

For over 80 years the Labour and Co-operative parties have stood for giving economic and political power to everyone in our society, and employee ownership is an important part of that. But the mutual solutions that we proposed are based on the experience of a movement that has been around for 150 years, rather than the need for something to say to decontaminate our brand. If mutualism is going to be one of the key battlegrounds of the next election, progressives from the Labour movement will have nothing to fear.

This article first appeared on Progress Online
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=5447