“If people in 1844 could form the co-operative movement… to lower the price of food, then why can’t we now…?”
This is an extract from Andy Burnham’s speech at the People’s History Museum in Manchester, in which he partially laid out his economic vision for Britain, focused on social democracy and cooperativism, or more specifically, “Manchesterism“.
Now, I’m not going to do a deep dive into Burnham’s achievements and drawbacks as Mayor, as I’m sure someone else can do a much better job than me on that. But what I do want to draw attention to is how Andy Burnham managed to introduce an idea, supported by a bastion of British liberalism and former Liberal Party leader Jo Grimond, much more effectively than we have for a long while: the transition from discussing power in terms of public and private ownership to social ownership.
Among other things, Grimond was a strong advocate for worker cooperatives and employee co-ownership, championing them as a sort of “third-way” between state socialism and unregulated free-market capitalism. And while the Liberal Democrats aren’t necessarily against these ideas, we have allowed our vocal support for them to fall by the wayside over the last few years. I, myself, like to talk a lot about the need for more cooperatives, mutuals and social enterprises in our society, so to hear Andy Burnham talk about the movement in such a positive light did bring a smile to my face, even more so that it seems he plans on making cooperativism a big part of his governing style.
With all that said, I have to ask: what about us? Aside from cooperatives, Burnham also spoke about the need for federalism, something we also believe in, and in his book “Head North”, he discusses the need for proportional representation and replacing the House of Lords with a Senate of Nations and Regions, not too dissimilar to our stance, either. Granted, he didn’t speak about these issues, which does raise the question as to whether he’s actually going to go through with them once in power, but it’s interesting nonetheless to notice the overlap between us and Burnham; there’s arguably more in common between us than there is between him and the current Labour Party.
So, with Andy Burnham all but set to become the next Prime Minister, there’s one thought that has been going around in my mind: are we going to see “Liberal/Liberal Democrat” ideas implemented in government, by a Prime Minister who is the leader of a party that has, on many occasions, been known for its social conservatism? Where does that leave us? No doubt we’ll support policies that make sense and be critical of those that don’t, but it does feel like all we’ll have left to claim as distinctly ours are social care, LGBT+ rights and Europe; all important causes, but not enough to feel like anything more than a large pressure group.
I don’t have the answer on this one. Maybe a coalition will form in the future between the Liberal Democrats and Burnham’s Labour; maybe he’ll turn out to be another leader who’s just managing decline; or maybe he’s a flash in the pan who will head back to his mayoralship if the going gets too tough.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Winston and David" on stage
The Joy of Six 1551
Reform MP starts digging her own Standards hole
Labour councillor joins Lib Dems in Portsmouth
Andy Burnham's Big Promises - Now Comes the Difficult Part
After the murder of Ann Widdecombe, we must all be more careful of the language we use in political life
John Reed
Alex Macfie
Peter Davies
5 Comments
Thank you Jack for exposing in your very first paragraph the inanity of another part of Andy Burnham’s short lived and not thought out slogan/strategy of “Manchesterism.” How any Mayor of Manchester could be so totally unaware of the History of the Co-Operative movement as to ask “If people in 1844 could form the co-operative movement… to lower the price of food, then why can’t we now…?” is astonishing.
Back in the early 2010s, I spent several years as a member of our locally elected CoOp Area Members Committee (sadly now cast into oblivion in typical Labour centralising fashion) to represent our local community, and the founding history of the CoOp was something that was embedded into the whole team (mainly old school Labour and a couple of Lib Dems).
Burnham either doesn’t know or even worse ignores the huge differences between 1844 and 2026 which make establishing a CoOp a futile exercise. In 1844, food costs were very high, simply because shops and local markets were small privately owned businesses with very inefficient supply chains, high overheads and too often dodgy practices (food adulteration etc).
Nowadays food supply is a massive integrated system, dominated by huge corporations with phenomenal economies of scale and huge purchasing power. What remains of the old CoOp is a minor player.
Asking “If people in 1844 could form the co-operative movement… to lower the price of food, then why can’t we now…?”
It’s just a cheap politico’s sound bite, easily said and quickly forgotten.
I would be interested in starting an internal group within the party to further the case for economic democracy, principally on advocating for a co-operative and mutualistic economy. I think the points you have raised are very important!
@Dennis Delice
I would be very interested in this, too!!
I agree that we need to think much more broadly about co-operatives. They’re not just part of the answer on food retail but also on housing, energy, care, finance and other sectors where giving people a real stake and democratic control can deliver better outcomes.
It’s also worth remembering that, despite all the rhetoric over recent decades, there has been remarkably little legislative progress for the co-operative movement. Arguably the only major pro-co-operative legislative change in the last 70 years came under the Coalition Government, when Business Secretary Vince Cable oversaw the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. The Act modernised mutual law by replacing the outdated “Industrial and Provident Society” legal form with co-operative and community benefit societies, while consolidating decades of fragmented legislation into a modern framework.
If we’re serious about economic democracy, the next step shouldn’t just be celebrating the Rochdale Pioneers—it should be looking at what further reforms would help new co-operatives and mutuals flourish today, particularly in housing as well as food.
Isn’t this just one big ‘fudge’. Manchesterism is basically Caesarism. In Antonio Gramsci’s political theory, Caesarism refers to a situation of political stalemate where opposing social forces are so evenly matched that neither can achieve hegemony, forcing an intermediary or charismatic figure to step in to restore order and arbitrate the conflict. Gramsci distinguished between progressive Caesarism (which resolves a crisis by breaking old structures and advancing a new social group) and regressive Caesarism (which forcibly restores the old order, as he argued at the time Mussolini’s fascism did).