The blind leading the blind? (is it any wonder people are confused about social enterprise structures when national sector bodies' advice is lacking or wrong..?)

Some of you will know that I seem to have a reputation in relation to legal structures and social enterprise. Based on ongoing research and evidences I try to source about all the claims, experiences, and realities made about them, I:

• get asked to deliver masterclasses for university business schools' MBAs on the subject;
• am the lead adviser in some national bodies' mentoring programmes on the subject;
• 'accidentally' changed CIC legislation so it stopped forcing the governance of social enterprises to act in ways that were contrary to the sectors' values;
• am commissioned to create resources and train sector advisers on the subject;
• have created a simple framework that people say is a great way to help them better approach starting to think through/navigate the options available to them;
• help unpick and restructure social enterprises who realise they've incorporated with the wrong form (which they usually picked on the basis of an 'expert advisors' encouragement); 
• have been subject to personal attacks, and investigations by regulators, because I've spoken out about when research and evidence seems to contradict the policy and direction of some sector bodies'...

But whichever of the above guises I'm working in, people usually have the same starting point of feeling "confused by it all" - and after recently sitting in on a national webinar designed to help social entrepreneurs best think about how they choose a legal form, I'm worried that future social enterprises will be in even bigger messes.

Over the course of about 20 minutes the lead adviser of a national social enterprise sector body revealed that:

1. they were unaware of how many options there currently are that a social enterprise can be created with (14);
2. they didn't understand why Companies limited by guarantee, despite being the most popular choice for social enterprises to always adopt, are able to be recognised as legitimate 'social enterprises' (Companies Act 1986);
3. they weren't able to state what the potential benefits of having exempt charitable status might be if you were a Community Co-operative Society (less tax on trading surpluses, greater ability to apply for grants than a limited company, business rate reliefs); 
4. and that they didn't fully understand what the rules around 'Persons with Significant Control' were, which apply to all companies and CICs, and form part of the legal statutory rules which a social enterprise would have to comply with if they chose this form.

On the basis that you don't know what you don't know, and the questions people brought with them to this session highlighted that the lead adviser's knowledge about the scope, range, and detail of what relates to the subject of legal forms for social enterprises seemed to be more limited that they realised it was, is the sector increasingly becoming "the blind leading the blind"..?

sharing squeaky bum moments, swearing, and bread - my contributions to European Freelancers Week 2021

Each year, there are initiatives and campaigns to help highlight the contribution that freelancers (like me) make to our economy and society, and also the realities and challenges we face in being overlooked in government business policy (including being taxed at higher rates than other types of employees).

One such initiative is European Freelancers Week, which each year stages a week (and 2 weekends) of events, gatherings, and conversations across Europe.

This year, part of its programme was an on-line conversation hosted by Freelance Heroes, and I found that my calendar wasn't demanding that I be delivering a workshop or meeting with a client at the time, so took the opportunity to 'click in'.

Now, my intention of doing this was to listen in to others' experiences, insights, and ideas, as part of the wider CPD framework I've designed for myself over the last 16 years - helping me better reflect on my own thoughts and practices.

But as the conversation progressed, one of the key participants had to offer apologies and leave early, and the host of the call spotted I was watching along and press-ganged me into joining the panel - with no intention to have been an active part of any of the EFweek2021 events this year, I hadn't given any thought to what I might contribute or argue...

(I start to appear at around the 34:30 mark - https://youtu.be/vo_-ACnhzyE?t=2070) 

Watching the call back, I realise that my unscripted and spontaneous offerings (which saw me talking about squeaky bum moments, swearing live, and the importance of bread), may not have been what people might have expected to be hearing about - but in the spirit of EFweek2021 being about allowing us to all share our voices with each other in mutual encouragement and support, it's hopefully added something to the mix that enriched the overall experience?

Co-ops will never succeed until they start demanding more money from people who want to join them

The co-operative movement is often referred to as having emerged from Rochdale in 1844 (although it's history goes far further back than that) - a time when the average life expectancy was a mere 21 years; and most people died in the streets wearing nothing but rags.

The co-operative society that was formed then did two very powerful things that have since resonated through history: one has defined the movement globally (documenting a set of core values and principles); and the other has come to limit the interest of people in not only becoming members of co-operatives, but subsequently also not being interested in being actively involved in their governance (the setting of a membership fee of £1).

Whilst those values have gone on to be argued about, expanded, refined, and ultimately codified by the International Co-operative Alliance as the acid test of what makes a co-op a co-op, that membership fee has largely remained resolutely steadfast at £1 in nearly all co-ops.

Today, most people in the movement would argue that it should remain £1 - this is the lowest amount the law will recognise and allow, and allows for inclusivity: after all, no matter what your circumstances, you can scrape £1 together relatively quickly and easily.

But adjust for inflation, and that £1 should actually now be £128.

However, inflation only looks at the nominal buying power of that £1 - it doesn't recognise the extremes of poverty and deprivation people whom that co-operative in Rochdale was created for, and how those might transpose to our society of 2021.

A couple of quick google searches identifies that in 1844, people were most likely to be factory workers or labourers, with an annual earning of around £20.

Compare that to the average UK salary in 2021 which is £29,600 (as at 18th March).

And suddenly we start to some some big differences.

If I were to join a co-op in 1844, it would cost me 5% of what I could hope to earn in a year = roughly 3 weeks earnings (nearly a months wages) .

3 weeks wages today would be equal to £1,700.

Suddenly it becomes apparent just how radical the co-op of Rochdale was, in what it represented that meant people were willing to give up so much of what they would have otherwise spent on their rent, meals, and health (no NHS in those days!).

If you invested nearly £2,000 or a month's wages in something, you'd want to make sure you were getting value for money and a return on what you've otherwise have been spending it on (insert your favourite vice here). You'd want to make sure your voice was heard: you'd engage with any and all opportunities the organisation offered you to be part of its governance and decision making.

In short - you'd be actively involved, because it had hurt you financially to be part of it.

Most co-ops today struggle to not only recruit members, but also to encourage and maintain their involvement and engagement in their co-op's governance and activities.

Could it be because the movement hasn't paid enough heed to its history, and forgotten just how much it asked of people who wanted to be part of it, in order to keep this cost of membership current and relevant?

If co-ops today suddenly made the cost of membership £1,700 (after all, they all echo nearly everything else that the Rochdale co-op mandated and advocated), I suspect we'd seen an initial drop in member numbers. But those that did become members - how active and dynamic would they be in the democracy of their co-ops?  

why ducks are better than dolphins

Anyone familiar with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will know that since time immemorial, it's been dolphins (not us) who are the most intelligent life form on our planet.

But I've started to wonder recently if they've only gotten this position thanks to some crafty PR on the part of the late Douglas Adams, and it's actually the ducks that are the ones we should all be looking to... 

(the precedent for this being within the co-op movement where the 'Rochdale Pioneers' are oft cited as the fathers of co-operatives thanks to some clever PR on their part back in the day, despite there being lots of co-op societies in England that were already well established before they came together - and some of which are still trading today!)

- It's ducks who are favoured by surrealists

https://arthive.com/salvadordali/works/315568~Duck

https://parkzer.com/2009/04/17/whats-the-difference-between-a-duck/

- It's ducks who helped me convey to a national festival my identity as being NOT that of a social enterprise/entrepreneur

https://thirdsectorexpert.blogspot.com/2015/05/i-came-i-saw-i-possibly-embarrassed.html

- It's ducks who avoided becoming weaponised in warfare (unlike their porpoise counterparts)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dolphin

- and it's ducks who can best help us get fully to grips with themes of equality and diversity... 

https://charteredabs.org/what-makes-a-duck-a-duck-a-playful-introduction-to-equality-diversity-and-inclusion/

But is there a hidden moral or meaning in this seemingly random and off-beat post... well, I think there is, and I think it's this - 

in the words of Public Enemy, "don't believe the hype": just because something seems insignificant and commonplace doesn't mean it doesn't have the potential to usurp the leading authorities on any given matter.

member only content

there seems to be an increasing trend on the internet towards content being hosted behind paywalls - the number of emails I now receive with links to research, features, and articles which are increasingly marked as 'member only content' when I try to read them, is starting to annoy me...

I fully appreciate that in an increasingly fragmented economy, people need to find novel and clever ways of being able to earn a living (or something approximating one), and so the potential to earn 'micro payments' of a few pence from people clicking to read your blog post or news feature may seem innocuous enough. But I'm concerned it may herald the dawn of a new net age of digital inequality - not from access to the technology which is the current digital divide, but from not being able to access information or learning when you do.

When the internet was created, it was intended to be as freely open and available to as many people as possible. A principle that chimes with the declaration of human rights, whose Article 26 states that everyone has the right to education [to be able to access learning], and that this should be free; and Article 27 which says that we should all be able to freely participate in the cultural life of our [on-line] community. 

If we start putting up charges to access content, then we start to limit the sharing our learning and experiences with each other - we start to segregate our communities into those who can afford to 'play with us' and those who can't. Which means that potentially increasingly large numbers of people will lose access to articles and research that could help to further understanding, constructively challenge prejudice and bias, and generally create a more consistent experience for us all on-line and in our lives.

I also appreciate the argument that we only truly value things we've paid for, but if the established norm in the marketplace of internet blogs and articles was that they were freely shared, then surely we need to be having a wider and deeper conversation about the effects that our use of 'member only content' may be creating in exacerbating inequality, stopping prejudice and bias from being able to be challenged as they could/should be, and generally increasingly p!ssing people off who are trying to contribute to the overall pool of knowledge and learning at the cost of our own time, in keeping with the original spirit of the internet, only to see others seemingly starting to exploit it for selfish gains...?

tap dancing in the House of Commons

Some of you will know that I'm not big on formalities, nor one to readily 'doff the cap' in restraining myself from speaking out or causing disruption for the sake of manners.

Which meant that I was surprised to be invited to the House of Commons earlier this week, after being shortlisted in the national enterprise support awards from IOEE and SFEDI.

Although my famous fez didn't make the journey down to London with me, I was able to share the experience with my girlfriend (although she's not new to the whole awards ceremonies at Parliament, having done similar a few years back, but with the bonus of guided tours by Ministers!). 

And I'd encourage anyone who has the opportunity to add their partners as a "+1" to any business event like this to do so, as being there with her made me much more aware of just how I present myself in such settings, (and reassuringly/worryingly that I'm not that different in private to my public persona!).

Sadly, despite being shortlisted for 2 of the awards, I was pipped to the post on both of them, but the event was a rare opportunity to re-engage with some universities and sector bodies I'd started to loose touch with. 

The setting itself was also suitably prestigious, although the lack of tables for dancing on made me wonder if the organisers had been tipped off about my coming in advance..? 

But despite this, I still managed to thrown down some moves with a tap dance under the main chandelier in the Central Lobby before security were able to move me along...

whatever happened to the Conservative Coops?

So, its party season again, and with a general election looming, every sector seems to be vying for attention with all the separate parties to become the solution that they’re each hoping to find that’ll help them to deliver on all their aspirations but won’t bankrupt the economy in the process...

One such sector which every party (at least in recently history) has embraced and talked up are co-ops: marrying social justice with economic independence and free market economies, they seem too good to be true and have often been cited in many a politician’s speech as to their ‘fab-ness’. Recently, co-op sector bodies such as Co-operativesUK have also started to more explicitly publish the ways in which co-ops can help each party deliver on their conference promises too.

But how far can we really hold faith in these political parties’ interest? Historically, government and political parties were so anti-coops that the movement formed its own political party to ensure that the sector wasn’t discriminated against in parliament! In more recent history, the Conservative party launched its own co-ops initiative. “The Conservative Co-operative Movement” (CCM) to capitalise on politicians’ interest in co-ops and to help keep this sector at the heart of parliament and to their policy and thinking. And they even set it up as a co-op society! (Intrigued, I even became a Member of this society, despite my father being a Labour councillor and a Co-op party Chair...)

But fast forward 4 years. In that time as a Member, I’ve had 3 general emails; 1 item of post (with postage underpaid on it); no notifications of Members’ meetings (or minutes from them); and I also spotted that they’ve been identifying themselves by another co-op society’s registration number in their stationary. Their website seems to have disappeared and I’ve not been able to get any response to messages I’ve sent to contact details I have.

What can I conclude from this?

In the absence of any response that may suggest otherwise, it seems like the CCM were an opportunistic political attempt to cash-in on the integrity and hard work of the co-op sector over the last few centuries. It’s obviously not understood what it means to be a co-operative by not acting as one. And it doesn’t seem to notice when it stops being able to deliver what it was set up to do.

Some might say the above analysis and conclusions are reflective of this wider political parties approach in general, but I couldn’t possibly comment...

I dare you to go to a library...

Libraries are dangerous places...

They're full of ideas, inspiration, encouragement, excitement, reassurance, and comfort;

Full of stories of worlds that have been, could be, and are still to come;

Places for people to meet, to plan, to escape;

Shelves loaded with adventures, sadness, and hope;

Libraries are places of revolution and refuge - they allow us to redefine and reshape ourselves and our communities.

They are our stronghold against injustice and tyranny, our celebration of how far we've come.


When was the last time you dared to spend time in a library?

when email accounts get hijacked...

It transpired that earlier this week, my yahoo email address (which I’ve been using for well over 10 years) got ‘hi-jacked’ by a ‘spambot’ – an automated programme that seems to have it in for yahoo by the looks of how many other yahoo mail accounts have also recently started to send out ‘spam’. Fortunately I noticed it within a few minutes as was able to quickly reset all the security stuff on the account which seems to have stopped it. But not before it sent an email to several hundred email addresses that contained only a cryptic link to an usual looking web address.

Now, I know most people are pretty sensible and will have recognised this for what it was if they received it, and happily deleted/ignored it (I once received a spam email from the then chief executive of what is now Social Enterprise UK!). But I appreciated those who got in touch by email and phone to check I knew and was OK.

It happens all the time: we get odd emails saying we’ve won the Nigerian lottery, promising miracle weight loss, or from people asking for help as they’ve been mugged on holiday and asking to wire money to an offshore account to help them out... most of the time our email programmes filter them as spam, but when they come from email accounts we know and trust, they tend to land in our inboxes.

It seems to be a symptom of living in the modern technological age that sometimes despite best efforts, things go awry – twitter was massively ‘hacked’ a couple of years ago, facebook got ‘turned off’ once, and a certain high street bank’s system shut down unexpectedly leaving its customers unable to access their accounts, make any sorts of payments or withdraw cash for several hours...

I’ve heard of lots of people who are now giving up on yahoo and moving their email accounts to other providers. But I think that in doing so, they’re missing an opportunity to show some solidarity and support for a service provider that offers us access to some of the joys of the World Wide Web without asking us for any payment as its users. Just about every email provider suffers problems at some point from attacks by hackers and ne’er-do-gooders, but it we all bolted at the first sign of trouble from any group, organisation or person that caused us embarrassment or upset, without offering them the benefit of the doubt and a trust that they’ll make things better next time, we’d very quickly all end up living as hermits in caves.

My yahoo email account being hi-jacked was an annoyance and slight embarrassment. But it happens to people all the time. We have a choice for how we respond – get angry with the wrong person who’s suffering with us, or stick together to try and ride it out, creating some more trust in an increasingly fragmented world.

The Big Society will lead to Anarchy!! (and why that's a good thing...)

Anarchy is a phrase that’s often mis-understood – people associate it with lawlessness, chaos and disorder; with fear and unrest. But it’s exactly what will increasingly happen as the Big Society show trundles on...

You see, Big Society is all about us as ‘mere citizens’ taking ever increasing amounts of control and responsibility over things that affect our lives and upon which we depend – public services, for example. And a chance comment at a recent Co-production seminar in Manchester made me realise that this means we’ll be moving to an ever increasing anarchistic society.

We were discussing how coproduction will see the traditional ‘powers that be’ and commissioning bodies become ever less powerful and loose their control over how individuals decide upon how they want the social and health services they access look and feel. “It’ll be madness – a free for all – pure anarchy!” was the comment made in semi-jest...

But actually anarchy will be a good thing to happen – because anarchy isn’t about the breakdown of society and law and order, it’s about the absence of government control over our lives; it’s about us as ‘ordinary citizens’ coming together voluntarily and co-operatively to decide and agree upon the type of society that we feel it most appropriate and just. And coproduction may offer us the best framework/model by which to achieve this.

But if nothing else, isn’t it therefore about time we starting talking not about the Big Society, but the Society of Anarchy? (who’d have thought it – David Cameron: the anarchist!)