The curious case of the Co-operative Party and lessons for Labour

Dr Katharine McCrossan

Tutor in Economic and Social History at the University of Glasgow. Her research interests lie in the economic, social, and political history of Scotland in the twentieth century, with her PhD research focusing on the co-operative movement in Scotland between 1945 and 1973.

Scottish Election 2026

Section 1: Parties and the campaign

  1. How SNP and Swinney stopped the rot (Eddie Barnes)
  2. The Scottish green wave breaks at last (Dr Jonathan Parker)
  3. What went wrong for Labour (Prof Kezia Dugdale)
  4. The Scottish Conservatives (Dr Alan Convery)
  5. Reform’s courting of Scotland’s post-industrial communities (Dr Maike Dinger and Prof Darren Lilleker)
  6. From chatbots to the ballotbox – how voters used AI to learn about the Scottish Parliament election (Dr Louise Luxton, Dr Timea Balogh, Elise Frelin & Prof Zoe Greene)
  7. Online advertising in the Scottish Parliament election (Kate Dimson and Prof Cristian Vaccari)
  8. Boring is not a virtue: Lessons from Scottish parties’ campaigns on TikTok (Prof Ana Ines Langer, Dr Lluis de Nadal)
  9. When parties travel, does negativity follow? Comparing campaigns on X (Dr Aybuke Atalay, Dr Ricardo Ribeiro Ferreira)
  10. Minding the distance: leaders in the election manifestos (Dr Michael Higgins, Prof Angela Smith)
  11. “It’s the Crisis, Stupid!” – Permacrisis and the 2026 Scottish Parliament election (Dr Paul Anderson, Dr Coree Brown Swan, Dr Judith Sijstermans
  12. ‘Whither Scottish national identity? The Reform UK challenge to an inclusive Scotland’ (Dr Murray Leith, Dr Duncan Sim)
  13. Environmental politics: flooded off the agenda? (Dr Kristen Nicolson)
  14. A disappearing crisis? Climate debate in the 2026 Scottish election campaign (Dr William Dinan)
  15. The Curious Case of the Co-operative Party and Lessons for Labour (Katharine McCrossan)

The Co-operative Party, founded in 1917 to represent and defend the interests of the co-operative movement in Britain, has always enjoyed a close association with the Labour Party. Since 1927, the two parties have held an electoral alliance to co-sponsor joint candidates and maximise their political reach while maintaining organisational independence. But in the aftermath of the Labour Party’s dismal performance at the polls on Thursday 7th May 2026 – with its worst ever result at a Scottish Parliament election compounded by devastating losses in the Senedd and local elections in England – is it time for co-operators to reconsider this relationship?

This would not be quite as rash or kneejerk a reaction as it would first appear. Relations between the two parties have long been marred by tension and accusations of political marginalisation, and there is significant precedent should the option be explored. After all, political agreements are not immutable. In the aftermath of the 1945 General Election, a new agreement was drawn up to clarify the working relationship between the Labour and Co-operative parties and ensure consultation on any matters of mutual political interest. But this agreement, ratified in 1946, did little to dispel misgivings in either party. While co-operators believed that the new agreement failed to give the Co-operative Party (and, by extension, the wider co-operative movement) the respect it deserved, it was also criticised by some Labour supporters who believed that it afforded the Co-operative Party a higher degree of recognition than was justified by the success of the Labour Party.

Tension between the two parties continued to escalate, and by 1957 Labour terminated the 1946 agreement. While the exact motive is unclear, it is likely that the decision resulted from the refusal of the Co-operative Party to affiliate directly with the Labour Party. In addition to the position and discipline of the Co-operative Parliamentary Group (with the leader of the Labour Party, Hugh Gaitskill, stating that he would not tolerate a party within a party), pressure from unions surrounding the selection of Labour candidates and the apparent financial advantage provided by the co-operative movement also proved influential. While a new agreement between the parties was eventually reached in October 1958, the Co-operative Party maintained its refusal to affiliate at a national level. As before, however, the new agreement did little to alleviate friction between the factions.

Although celebrated within the co-operative movement, the election and re-election of a Labour government in 1964 and 1966 pushed co-operative-labour loyalties to breaking point. The Labour Government’s introduction of Selective Employment Tax (SET) in 1966 (in a bid to redress what it saw as an imbalance between the taxation of the manufacturing and service industries) imposed a costly financial burden on co-operative societies. While the Co-operative Parliamentary Group had attempted to defend the movement’s interests by proposing a total of nine amendments to the legislation, the government issued a three-line whip to designate the subject a question of confidence. Despite protests, the government proceeded to double the rate of SET in 1968. For co-operative societies (already struggling under the weight of the initial tax rate), the movement considered this act to represent a “vicious” stab in the back, and once again prompted the Co-operative Party to question its relationship with the Labour Party.

There is, therefore, historical precedent for the re-evaluation of the relationship between the Co-operative and Labour parties, and one which neatly illustrates the failure of the Labour Party to fully appreciate co-operative principles or offer co-operators a degree of political protection. Of course, this is not to say that all is lost in terms of the co-operative-labour parliamentary interest, or that current electoral trends are irreversible. But there is no denying that, at present, support for the Labour Party (and joint Labour-Co-op candidates, by association) is decreasing, both in Scotland and further afield. So, how does the Co-operative Party approach the current challenge? Does is it maintain its partnership with the Labour Party, despite its waning appeal in the eyes of the electorate? If so, how does the Co-operative Party maximise its political influence and reverse the historical pattern of marginalisation? And, in any case, to what extent do the purpose and objectives of each party remain consistent? To this end, could the Co-operative Party dissolve its electoral agreement with Labour, and attempt to align itself with another party sympathetic to its aims (such as the Scottish Greens)? Or could the party go it alone, and advocate a political vision based upon co-operative principles and democratic public ownership? In short, will the Co-operative Party stick or will it twist? This remains to be seen.

This would not be quite as rash or kneejerk a reaction as it would first appear. Relations between the two parties have long been marred by tension and accusations of political marginalisation, and there is significant precedent should the option be explored. After all, political agreements are not immutable. In the aftermath of the 1945 General Election, a new agreement was drawn up to clarify the working relationship between the Labour and Co-operative parties and ensure consultation on any matters of mutual political interest. But this agreement, ratified in 1946, did little to dispel misgivings in either party. While co-operators believed that the new agreement failed to give the Co-operative Party (and, by extension, the wider co-operative movement) the respect it deserved, it was also criticised by some Labour supporters who believed that it afforded the Co-operative Party a higher degree of recognition than was justified by the success of the Labour Party.

Tension between the two parties continued to escalate, and by 1957 Labour terminated the 1946 agreement. While the exact motive is unclear, it is likely that the decision resulted from the refusal of the Co-operative Party to affiliate directly with the Labour Party. In addition to the position and discipline of the Co-operative Parliamentary Group (with the leader of the Labour Party, Hugh Gaitskill, stating that he would not tolerate a party within a party), pressure from unions surrounding the selection of Labour candidates and the apparent financial advantage provided by the co-operative movement also proved influential. While a new agreement between the parties was eventually reached in October 1958, the Co-operative Party maintained its refusal to affiliate at a national level. As before, however, the new agreement did little to alleviate friction between the factions.

Although celebrated within the co-operative movement, the election and re-election of a Labour government in 1964 and 1966 pushed co-operative-labour loyalties to breaking point. The Labour Government’s introduction of Selective Employment Tax (SET) in 1966 (in a bid to redress what it saw as an imbalance between the taxation of the manufacturing and service industries) imposed a costly financial burden on co-operative societies. While the Co-operative Parliamentary Group had attempted to defend the movement’s interests by proposing a total of nine amendments to the legislation, the government issued a three-line whip to designate the subject a question of confidence. Despite protests, the government proceeded to double the rate of SET in 1968. For co-operative societies (already struggling under the weight of the initial tax rate), the movement considered this act to represent a “vicious” stab in the back, and once again prompted the Co-operative Party to question its relationship with the Labour Party.

There is, therefore, historical precedent for the re-evaluation of the relationship between the Co-operative and Labour parties, and one which neatly illustrates the failure of the Labour Party to fully appreciate co-operative principles or offer co-operators a degree of political protection. Of course, this is not to say that all is lost in terms of the co-operative-labour parliamentary interest, or that current electoral trends are irreversible. But there is no denying that, at present, support for the Labour Party (and joint Labour-Co-op candidates, by association) is decreasing, both in Scotland and further afield. So, how does the Co-operative Party approach the current challenge? Does is it maintain its partnership with the Labour Party, despite its waning appeal in the eyes of the electorate? If so, how does the Co-operative Party maximise its political influence and reverse the historical pattern of marginalisation? And, in any case, to what extent do the purpose and objectives of each party remain consistent? To this end, could the Co-operative Party dissolve its electoral agreement with Labour, and attempt to align itself with another party sympathetic to its aims (such as the Scottish Greens)? Or could the party go it alone, and advocate a political vision based upon co-operative principles and democratic public ownership? In short, will the Co-operative Party stick or will it twist? This remains to be seen.