Talk:British co-operative movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Cooperatives
Cooperatives Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, which collaborates on articles related to cooperatives.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within the cooperative movement.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British co-operative movement article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Yorkshire Co-op

As the Yorkshire society is now part of Unitied Co-operatives and uses the United website I have delted it from the list of external links Penrithguy 21:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality

I've tagged this article with a generalize tag because it proports to be about the UK Movement, but mistakes the Co-operative Group and its affiliates as being the entire movement, with a few mention of other consumer co-ops. The movement doesn't largely operate under the Group's logo, and nor are there only around 50 societies remaining in operation - the Co-operatives UK article has a verifiable source showing that organisation alone has 470+ members. The operation of a dividend is also not a standard feature of co-operatives in the UK, and there's no mention of the wide variety of forms and functions within the UK movement that aren't supermarkets - the Phone Coop gets a mention, but Baywind Energy, the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative, Football Supporter's Trusts and the very large Agricultural Co-operative sector get no mention.

Will rewrite when I get a chance, although I'm unsure at the moment whether this should just be a redirect to the Co-op Group as an article about their logo and its use, or a move to something like Co-operative Movement (UK) as an article about the whole movement. JonStrines 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've started a complete rewrite of the article to address the concerns raised by JonStrines. It is now more about the wider UK Co-op movement but, at the moment, is drastically in need of further information about types of Co-ops other than Consumers' and Credit Unions. I've reduced much of the information about The Co-operative Group as this has its own article and tried to balance out what is said TCG with other Consumers' Co-ops.
Richard ( T | C ) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
A good start - cheers for looking at it. I'll take the context tag off and replace it with a references tag. As I get round to it, I will help with the expanding of the article to include more information about the co-ops listed, but I don't think you've missed any types off that I can think of. Good work. JonStrines (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title - move to UK co-operative movement ?

The title of this article does not seem to fit well with Wikipedia style. If the purpose is to summarise and signpost the UK co-operative movement, perhaps it should be called UK co-operative movement instead of Co-op UK. Shall we move it? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that. JonStrines (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The current title is not helpful and a more general overview of the UK movement is welcome. My only issue is that many of the pages that point here are doing so as 'the Co-op', a catch-all for the consumer retail sector. Many of those links could be more specific, but it would be wrong for them to point to the Group if they are actually referring to the store of a regional society, or the brand in general. Perhaps a Co-operative Retail Trading Group article would be a more appropriate page for general Co-op supermarket issues?? Martín (saying/doing) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this page needs to redirect to a CRTG article that explains how the psuedo-organisation everyone thinks is "The Co-op" actually works and then if they wanted something else they can use a relevant links section. I did try starting a CRTG article on my sandbox, but there aren't that many online resources to quote. If you want to use it as a start point, feel free. JonStrines (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Replying to myself, I'd forgotten I'd started a The Co-operative (brand) article on my sandbox to try and explain what "the Co-op" actually is. I've made the article live for expansion - perhaps Co-op (UK) should redirect there? JonStrines (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Great new article, Jon! I am doing the move and redirect now. I picked British co-operative movement. Please add it to your watchlists. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a standard: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). It is not universally followed, and I regret to admit that I was not aware of it before I made the earlier move.

Having read it, I propose another move: from British co-operative movement to Co-operatives of the United Kingdom (keeping the redirects).

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure if it maybe shouldn't be Co-operation in the United Kingdom - both are similar, but it might keep the focus on the Movement as a whole rather that the individual co-ops. Is that too pedantic? JonStrines (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure there is a movement as a whole, just national and local expressions of an international movement. Anyway, it is a good point, but I plumped for co-operatives as being the better known word for the enterprises that the movement is about, rather than the multi-faceted word 'co-operation' which is just waiting for the fatuous opening sentence 'co-operation in its broadest sense is working together ...'. With my pedantic hat on, Co-operatives UK, the Co-op Party and the Co-op College are themselves co-operatives, so they are in the scope of the title I proposed. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Right you are: I'll agree with you then. JonStrines (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Lewis Partnership?

I was surprised to see the John Lewis Partnership listed here as a worker co-operative, though I knew it is owned by its employees. So I did some reading, then asked about it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Why (and when) did Britain's John Lewis Partnership start calling itself a co-operative?. No responses yet, so if you have any suggestions, please post. Maybe we can include it in the article! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

JLP is not a co-op. I do sometimes myself say it is, and Co-ops UK have started to include it in publicity materials, for the purposes of outlining the movement's breadth, success and position in a wider group of mutual and engaging organisational forms. But in terms of Rochdale/ICA definitions, John Lewis is not a co-op, does not claim to be and this should not say so.
What we could say however is that in recent years, co-operatives have begun to work more closely together, redoubled with the merger between the Co-op Union and ICOM. Moreover the movement has started closer relations with other forms of mutuals and mutual-like organisations, such as building societies, mutual insurers, friendly societies and employee-owned businesses like JLP. Organisations like Mutuo and the Co-operative Union and been able to forge links and work on common issues in legislation and lobbying. A Co-op Party MP is the chair of the Parliamentary APPG for employee ownership. The Welsh Co-operative Centre has been at the forefront of creating many new employee-owned businesses, not least Tower Colliery. Finally, it's worth mentioning that the co-op movement has been more flexible about its own basic tenets in terms of embracing new organisations based on co-op principles. Football supporters trusts are IPSs but arose separately. NHS Foundation Hospital Trusts are based on mutual principles, drawn up by people within the traditional co-op movement and some even have Rochdale principles in their constitutions. The Co-op College and Group are supporting co-op schools, with the first in Reddish Vale, which themselves have co-op constitutions. And while Greenwich Leisure, as a BenCom, might not see itself as a co-op, the co-op movement embraces and champions it and other democratic trust forms.
I haven't written the above encyclopaedically, it's just a stream of consciousness for a new section in due course. Martín (saying/doing) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the JLP doesn't style itself as a co-operative, but it does have a number of the key features of one. The problem is there isn't a perfect definition of what a co-operative is in the UK, mostly because there's no central registrar or registration legislation. The ICA Statement of Identity is a good starting point, but its a rare co-op that meets all of the 7 points without wiggling a little. I'd personally take the Co-opsUK line about the JLP: they're clearly a relative, but it should be made clear that "co-operative" is not a term that they use about themselves, and there are significant differences with the classic co-op model. JonStrines (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Good proposal, Martín. Your paragraph also answers the 'meta' question behind the one I posed at WP:RD/H
To respond to JonStrines:
"co-operative" is not a term that they use about themselves
probably should be:
"co-operative" is a term they occasionally use about themselves
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)