The Future of the Housing Co-op Movement (and the role of the London Federation of Housing Co-ops in that) Greg Robbins

What do we want to achieve ? Our aim must be to maintain a strong co-op voice, which is heard where it is needed and at the right time. Today we’ll be thinking about how that is best achieved, especially on behalf of co-ops in London. (By housing co-ops we mean any housing managed by the people who live in it.)

What will I be boring you with today ? Something about who represents co-ops today and what each group is achieving. A bit about the issues with the way things are. Some benefits that we might or might not gain And some crystal ball gazing about what could go wrong (risk management ?). Finally I’ll talk about how closer working might help.

National Position Research in 2009 suggested that there were 836 co-op and mutual housing organisations in the UK (0.6%). That’s about 200 management co-ops, 300 registered or unregistered ownership co-ops and 300 organisations with various levels of membership. 71% of TMOs and 50% of other co-ops are in London. CCH represents about 100 co-ops. NFTMO represents about 150 co-ops. LFHC represents about 80 co-ops. Some co-ops belong to more than one organisation

Who is achieving what ? The main thing to say is that all the co-op organisations are doing good work and have a range of projects and we are all working together. No-one is at anybody’s throats, though possibly we could be more effective. Co-ops in other countries have a far greater share of housing – we need to build for the future.

CCH Code of governance. Model rules. Long term plans for a ‘warehouse fund’ for co- op developments and borrowing. A successful annual conference. Discussions with the HCA. Links to Coops UK, mutual housing group and the ‘national tenant organisations’.

NFTMO Networking effectively with TMOs. Benchmarking and kitemarks. Supporting new regulatory regime. Outreach to young people. National and regional conferences.

LFHC Regular forums and training (free to attend). Lobbying the Mayor’s Office and HCA. Networking regionally. Developing ideas for growth. Working with Co-ops London, London Tenants Federation, Locality, local councils and the Co- op party.

So if we’re all doing great, what’s the problem ? Finances: CCH gives a £50 membership discount for conference fees and gets £22 membership for each co-op in a federation.

So if we’re all doing great, what’s the problem ? Finances: CCH gives a £50 membership discount for conference fees and gets £22 membership for each co-op in a federation. Members who want help and go to CCH might expect the same service as direct members.

So if we’re all doing great, what’s the problem ? Finances: CCH gives a £50 membership discount for conference fees and gets £22 membership for each co-op in a federation. Members who want help and go to CCH might expect the same service as direct members. Some co-ops pay membership to LFHC as well as CCH (or NFTMO).

Is CCH able to provide everything ? CCH is reviewing its services generally, having recovered from a bad financial position.

Is CCH able to provide everything ? CCH is reviewing its services generally, having recovered from a bad financial position. It has felt that too much was expected from too few people and CCH cannot continue as a fully voluntary organisation.

Is CCH able to provide everything ? CCH is reviewing its services generally, having recovered from a bad financial position. It has felt that too much was expected from too few people and cannot continue as a fully voluntary organisation. Some people have found it hard to get involved and feel they are discouraged from new initiatives.

Is CCH able to provide everything ? CCH is reviewing its services generally, having recovered from a bad financial position. It has felt that too much was expected from too few people and cannot continue as a fully voluntary organisation. Some people have found it hard to get involved and feel they are discouraged from new initiatives. CCH intends recruiting from outside the movement and employing staff.

What would be different A board picked for its skills.

What would be different A board picked for its skills. Paid staff to respond to queries and promote membership and be the face of co-ops.

What would be different A board picked for its skills. Paid staff to respond to queries and promote membership and be the face of co-ops. London would no longer have an independent group, but rather a sub-committee to advise the board, chaired by a CCH director, so there is only one voice for co-ops.

Future scenarios: (It’s time for that crystal ball.)

What could go wrong: London activists could be excluded from the board and the London sub-committee could have no authority.

What could go wrong: London activists could be excluded from the board and the London sub-committee could have no authority. No-one is scheming against us, but it would mean Londoners travelling around the meeting to get agreement on how to deal with London Issues.

What could go wrong: London activists could be excluded from the board and the London sub-committee could have no authority. London activists could dominate CCH and base it in London. A London committee would not be needed as the focus of CCH would be in London already.

What could go wrong: London activists could be excluded from the board and the London sub-committee could have no authority. London activists could dominate CCH and base it in London. A London committee would not be needed as the focus of CCH would be in London already. This is not the best result for the co-op movement though, as issues in the rest of the country are different and would be marginalised.

What could go wrong: London activists could be excluded from the board and the London sub-committee could have no authority. London activists could dominate CCH and base it in London. A London committee would not be needed as the focus of CCH would be in London already. There might not be enough money for the extra staff or services planned.

What could go wrong: London activists could be excluded from the board and the London sub-committee could have no authority. London activists could dominate CCH and base it in London. A London committee would not be needed as the focus of CCH would be in London already. There might not be enough money for the extra staff or services planned. Plans and costings have not yet been presented.

What could go wrong: London activists could be excluded from the board and the London sub-committee could have no authority. London activists could dominate CCH and base it in London. A London committee would not be needed as the focus of CCH would be in London already. There might not be enough money for the extra staff or services planned. Or – We could continue with London activists participating nationally and a regional group (LFHC) with a strong local focus.

What’s my message then ?

Policies and conditions in London are different to the rest of the country. We network with different groups, canvas different groups and housing needs and costs are not even comparable to other areas. We need independent London representation, not a national group to tell our problems to.

CCH needs money to fund staff. We can’t just give them more money through the federation because they have ended that. We could have offered joint membership, but they don’t want that. Except it is not about subscriptions – CCH makes its money from the annual conference and consultancy services.

We could offer to part fund the staff. We could share office space in London. LFHC could cover more London co-ops’ issues. The main thing is that we need to work together on issues that affect our members.

A strong co-op voice, where it’s needed and at the right time. Would a London based CCH have achieved the success that is being achieved in Wales ? Can a Midlands based CCH understand the impact of property prices, overcrowding and pressures of gentrification in London ? If policies need to be different in London to the rest of the country, could a single CCH argue for different solutions as effectively ?

Confederation means an association of partners, not that everyone merges.