Wondrous Ritchie: the Co Op failed because it was too neoliberal!

Myners has pointed out two things. First, management was out of control. I think there is little doubt that the management team of the Co-op had fully embraced the neoliberal logic that competing is the sole goal of all organisations. They evidenced this through a desire to compete on the basis of the group’s size and breadth even though that both clearly compromised viability and, at least as importantly, defied the supposed ethos of the group, which was and should be to supply value to its members. Yt has very clearly failed to do that. This was the fundamental malaise at the heart of this issue. The management, possibly motivated by self interest (which appears to have been well rewarded), had very clearly forgotten all that this group was supposed to be about and what they were good at.

As worryingly, the board that were supposed to remind them of this appear not to have done so. They take some significant blame for what happened if that is true: it looks like they succumbed to the same neoliberal logic, not that this is surprising: the whole neoliberal game of the last thirty years has been to make its logic of competition in all things all pervasive. It would appear to have succeeded here, at great cost.

Sirsly?

17 thoughts on “Wondrous Ritchie: the Co Op failed because it was too neoliberal!”

  1. I was but a lad when my father told me never to work for the workers. Hopeless fuckers, on the whole; not that he’d have phrased it that way.

  2. So Much for Subtlety

    I think there is little doubt that the management team of the Co-op had fully embraced the neoliberal logic that competing is the sole goal of all organisations.

    I think I am learning how to understand Ritchie’s interesting use of the English language. When he says “I think there is little doubt….” what he means is “I am about to say something so stupid no one in the world agrees with me, but …”.

    They evidenced this through a desire to compete on the basis of the group’s size and breadth even though that both clearly compromised viability and, at least as importantly, defied the supposed ethos of the group, which was and should be to supply value to its members.

    Ummm, he does know that they turned down the purchase of 600 branches from Lloyds TSB doesn’t he? They may have wanted to enlarge the company, but actually they did the sensible thing and turned it down when they had a chance to snap up some bank branches cheaply.

  3. Look, it is simple. Neo-liberal = bad. Co-op Board = bad.

    => Co-op Board = neo-liberal.

    We’ve all seen the LHTD’s infinitesimal grip of set theory, therefore we can analyse his impressive illogic on the basis that he has no idea of the difference between “=” and “∈” and that the inference which would apply with the mathematical equality operator doesn’t apply with the set theory “is a member of” operator.

    Showing his delusion is further fuelled by the very limited congruence between “Murphy-math” and “the real world” is left as an comprehension exercise for those students diligent enough to read some of the drivel that passes for his “published oeuvre”.

  4. If i could be arsed to go to The Big Dick’s website, I’m sure i could find the posts wherein he extolled the virtues of the Co-Op and how well run it was, by people who were completely unlike other nasty bankers.

    But then, in true lefty style, those posts have probably disappeared.

  5. How many neoliberal capitalist bastard banks have drug fueled, rent boy using Chairmen? Or was it just the Co-Op bank?

  6. Bloke in Central Illinois

    Wait, this is a supermarket chain, right? How are they going to provide value to their members if they don’t compete?

  7. Jim,
    “How many neoliberal capitalist bastard banks have drug fueled, rent boy using Chairmen? Or was it just the Co-Op bank?”

    Hmm. I don’t know any bank chairmen or rent boys, but I think that could be tempting fate.

  8. Four legs good, two legs neo-liberal!

    This opinion is from the same deep pit of wriggle which insists there has never been a true socialist country ever; the mass killings, economic disaster and despotism were not socialism.

  9. Excuse me for asking, but isn’t the brand of economics usually championed here Classical liberal economics. And over there it’s the “new economics”. So am I wrong in thinking neo-liberals are the buncha-cunts over there?

  10. @Luke: well the stats could change. But at the moment we have one druggy rentboy using chairman, and he was head of a co-operative owned bank, and zero of same from the evil neoliberal capitalist banks. Thus the correlation is (currently) 100% against co-operatives………………..

  11. So Much for Subtlety

    Jim – “well the stats could change. But at the moment we have one druggy rentboy using chairman, and he was head of a co-operative owned bank, and zero of same from the evil neoliberal capitalist banks. Thus the correlation is (currently) 100% against co-operatives………………..”

    There is also a rentboy using Chairman of British Petroleum. Not sure if he was using crystal meth as well, but I would have thought that proper City types stick to the Peruvian marching powder. Meth is for trailer park trash surely?

    He was, however, from my point of view, an utterly useless CEO of BP. Not sure about the financials, but he was the one who “re-branded” BP as “Beyond Petroleum” and tried to move it into Green energy. I am sure someone here can comment on the competence of BP under his tenure.

    I always like the fact that he met his money grubbing French Canadian toy boy on a website called Suited and Booted. You got to feel sorry for him. If ever there was a case when lying under oath about how you met the object of your sexual desire ….

  12. Dennis The Peasant

    “As worryingly, the board that were supposed to remind them of this appear not to have done so.”

    That were?

    The boy writes as well as he thinks.

  13. Dennis The Peasant

    “They take some significant blame for what happened if that is true: it looks like they succumbed to the same neoliberal logic, not that this is surprising: the whole neoliberal game of the last thirty years has been to make its logic of competition in all things all pervasive.”

    A sentence only Amanda Marcotte could love. I especially admire the use of two colons in the same sentence. Then again, Ritchie has two colons himself… one being between his ears.

  14. Orwell: The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”. Murphy has no idea what ‘neoliberal’ means except as a signifier of things that he thinks Courageous Statists ought not to like. It’s a shibboleth, nothing more, and is therefore semantically void.You could substitute ‘poopy-pants’ or ‘snodwhillicker’ or ‘gjosdsncxn’ and it would mean the same thing.

  15. “Provide value for members” is what all businesses have to do, if they want to stay in existence. Whether members are shareholders, members of a mutual or taxpayers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *