I have been considering joining the Labour Party. Yet the expulsion of Alastair Campbell is making me think again.

Hi Philip, can I suggest it would be appropriate to post this in the wider Worker Co-operatives group, of which Solidfund is a subgroup?

Hi Sion

You know my feelings re Labour especially with regard to extremism and whilst I was no great fan of Campbell his expulsion is worrying. How any organisation treats dissenting voices & views says a great deal about its value base!

Can't really advise you mate but simply say a decision can often be based on gut not head!

Speak soon

Mervyn

I posted the thread on Solidfund because this was my introduction to a forum, exclusively for worker coops but that might be my misunderstanding. If the topic does not rouse interest then I am best to let it be. I am sure Mr Cambell needs no help from me. As a student of organizational theory, I found this (and I am sorry to nag on for some) from Stafford Beer in the "Heart of Enterprise" chapter 6 "Freedom".:

“ Freedom is in principle a computable function of systemic purpose as perceived. “

He continues ( abridged): When heart meets cohesiveness, (a function of systemic purpose, a subjective phenomenon ), only agreement of the heart will justify a given level of cohesion in any institution.

Therein lies the conundrum of worker cooperatives, they value freedom, it’s what drove them from the conventional workplace. Hierarchy or recursive viable systems as Stafford Beer would prefer to see emerge , can only gain agreement when the perception of systemic purpose by the observer fulfils the needs of the heart.

I voted for Liberals once as @sionwhellens knows and it lead to the coalition Govt, which i still feel personally responsible for. However bad it gets i'm not doing that again..... Oh and moved the post to a wider audience.

I do hold you personally responsible for the 2010 government, just as I am personally responsible for Brexit because I didn't vote on June 16th 2016.

He clearly invited this and is no doubt very happy with the way it has gone viral, it is impossible to believe that he was unaware of the rules, this is the part in question on page 10 (15th page in the PDF):

A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules.

Is the problem really the rules of cessation? Whether the organization is Stafford Beers recursive model, SSM, Sociocracy or a hierarchy, once that moment is reached that matters of heart leads to such poor coherence, things break apart and instability set in. Surely if the rules of cessation are such that when an individual or subgroup breaks away from the whole, they should have ownership not only of their own resources but that which is by proportion "emergent resources". By which I mean those resources which the whole could bring about only because the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Surely an official may think twice before taking away an individuals right of joint ownership or sub group ownership, when that which is emergent is also at risk? This may improve the stability of what is otherwise a reproducible system but perhaps not a fully viable system.

Could worker coops who value freedom through mutual ownership find cohesive organizational forces more palatable in such agreements?

Not sure where the confusion lies @chriscroome ? An example of good cessation policy, up-scaled from the individual to nations, could include that proportion of emergent resources which are transferred to a member state, should they withdraw. Brexit is topical to the point of exhaustion but should the UK leave, reliant upon its own resources alone? What about the contributions to science, education, medicine research? Surely there are outcomes, new discoveries and leaps forward in technology which could not otherwise have come about from a limited member state budget alone. Much of this discovery may be licensed or held privileged to EU members. On a separate thread the concept of stories was introduced. Where is the story of that which has " emerged" which has had benefit to all member states? Surely this is the most important story missing in the "remain" narrative?

Alastair Campbell asked for it, I don't know what else you expect from me on the subject.