Revamp of party membership rules on the way

The Board of the Conservative Party are consulting local Associations on changes to the membership rules, and specifically the annual subscriptions.  This involves an online questionnaire for voting between various options and even a private blog.  I ought to come clean and confess that I've been sent these details as an Area Deputy Chairman in London.  Because of the nature of the consultation exercise it's difficult to hazard a guess on what the result will be, but an overhaul of the system has been due for some time.

 

This review is part of the improved professionalism Francis Maude promised in his recent Tory Radio interviews in the May 2006 archive.  As such, it should be welcomed.  At a recent City Circle event in London I was talking to someone from the Income Generation department at CCHQ.  There are some very creative ideas for helping local associations in the pipeline and some genuinely impressive people working on them.

 

It's worth putting on record that, for all the stick Francis Maude has received in recent months (not least from visitors to this site) he does deserve applause for the way in which these changes are being handled.

 

The £15 minimum annual membership fee was set nearly ten years ago, and it is possible to join either centrally via CCHQ (e.g. through the website)  or through a local constituency (find yours here ).  I know from my own experience that the national membership facility is bitterly resented by local officers (largely because it has never really worked efficiently).  It's also true to say that constituencies have been less than enthusiastic about helping to fund the Centre, with the annual quota often descending into an undignified haggle.  There has to be a better way of doing these things, and it reassuring that CCHQ is on the case.

During the period that the Conservatives have had a minimum of £15, the Lib Dems have put up their membership fee to £42 and Labour are now charging £36 (yes, even after all those peerages).  We could make snide comments about whether the other parties are delivering value for money, but that's a fair reflection of the inflation rate involved in campaigning.  When I was the Agent for NESNO in the North East Regional Assembly Referendum in 2004 we spent £150,000 on a shoe-string campaign, and our opponents together spent £525,000 (and achieved little for it).  None of the major parties raise a significant slice of their income from their own grassroots members.

 

Democracy costs money and if we don't want political parties to be reliant on a few rich men  - or the British taxpayer - then people are going to have to start paying for it.  And that includes paying for CCHQ.  Get out your chequebook and credit cards (and while you're at it: don't forget Conservative Home, either).

William Norton

Comments

[James Maskell]

What I loved was that on the questionnaire it had its own recommendation for what the membership fee should be! It asks for your opinion but then says it would like you to pick a particular option...fantastic!

[Jonathan Sheppard]

What is that option?

[James Maskell]

It says on the questionnaire.

[James Maskell]

In fact, after looking at it again, its got recommendations for everything!

[Chris]

A revamp would be nice, but the very last thing we want to happen is to put off people joining by having high membership rates. If we ever want to be trusted with the economy again we must have the very least understand supply and demand!

I'm currently enrolled as a youth member (£3) which probabaly could be boosted up a bit, personally when I pay my dues I normally bump it up to around £20, along with the odd donation throughout the year.

[changetowin]

Good for Francis Maude - yet more good work...

[Derek]

At the same time as we are giving a vote to choose our candidate for Mayor of London to anyone on the electoral role, we are considering asking our members to pay almost double the current membership fee. Surely the selection of candidates is one of the biggest privileges of membership. I fear that this will lead to a lot of our existing members deciding not to renew - particularly those on standing orders.

It would be nice to think that we will attract a lot of new members, but what will they be offered in return for this new fee? - The privilege of delivering leaflets or canvassing? It is worth noting that both Labour and the Lib Dems have small declining memberships.

It is important to realise that it is not the membership fee that brings in the most of our income, it is the amount of money that a member spends on raffle tickets and attending association functions. We also ask our members to carry out work for us free of charge, using their own petrol. Personally I would be inclined to leave the fee more or less as it is or have a modest annual increase at most.

On the other hand I would only allow those who are prepared to commit at least £5, the privilege of voting for Conservative candidates. If they are not prepared to pay that, then they are not committed enough to deserve a vote! If these primaries attract enough attention the extra fivers should bring in a lot of extra income - if not then it shows how shallow the interest really is.

[dizzy]

do people still use cheques?

[malcolm]

You make a good point Derek.I do approve of the party asking the membership for more money as I'm totally opposed to state funding but interesting ideas have to be put forward to looking at what members should receive in return.
I can't thnk of anything very revolutionary but Francis Maude engaging with the members on CH is a good start.Perhaps something similar could be done on the party website where the Shadow Cabinet could debate with members on various issues.The members would at least be given the impression that their veiws are being listened to.
I also think it would be a good idea to reply to letters.Yes I mean you David Cameron!

[TimC]

Something needs to be done about the local vs national issue. Having joined via the website, I haven't heard from my local association. Maybe I was being naive but I thought that the local association would be in touch to welcome new members and tell them about future events that they could attend.

[William Norton]

Dizzy: do people still use cheques?

Remember the demographic. My grandmother still mentally prices things in shillings.

[Chris]

On the other hand I would only allow those who are prepared to commit at least £5, the privilege of voting for Conservative candidates. If they are not prepared to pay that, then they are not committed enough to deserve a vote! If these primaries attract enough attention the extra fivers should bring in a lot of extra income - if not then it shows how shallow the interest really is.
When i fist joined, you can to have contributed a minimumm of £15 to the party coffers, including your membership fee in order to vote, is this still in place?

[Michael Tombs]

the Lib Dems have put up their membership fee to £42

That is the recommended fee. The minimum membership fee is actually £6.

I can imagine the reaction in many estates when trying to sign up members if I asked for something in the region of £30 to £40!

Membership creates commitment. The first task is to expand the membership. So - make membership free for the first year.

Use that year to involve the new members, and convince them of the value of belonging to the party, and then sign them up as paying members at the end of the twelve months.

In the meantime, during that year the direct-mail people at Central Office and in the Area/Constituency offices can use the names and addresses for fundraising mailshots.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Something needs to be done about the local vs national issue. Having joined via the website, I haven't heard from my local association. Maybe I was being naive but I thought that the local association would be in touch to welcome new members and tell them about future events that they could attend."

I agree - I haven't heard anything from the local association either, although I don't actually live in the area so it doesn't really matter that much I guess.

[Zhukov]

The proposed changes are, on the whole, very good for Associations.

People like TimC above join the Party through the CCHQ website but the local Association are either told months later or not at all. In the future all membership will be administrated through the local association.

The other great proposals is giving a fixed figure of each membership to CCHQ - this will end the situation where some rich Associations pay very little to the centre.

In short it is a devolvement of power - good move.

[kingbongo]

I too joined via the web and have just had a letter from the Association including the 'diary of events' - unfortunately it wasn't in there. It seems the whole process is a bit haphazard.

I think FM is going in the right direction and I hope one day this might be reflected in the maonthly poll but I won't hold my breath.

[Andrew Woodman]

It seems local associations are a bit hit or miss with membership. Mine put out regular newsletters and list of events and try to give maximum value for money for membership. From what I've heard of a neighbouring association, they fail to keep in contact with their members and the executive reject all offers of help from them.

[Therese Coffey]

To Tim C and Daniel VA - when you register centrally, there used to be a default status that you did not wish to be contacted by your local association. I am not sure if that has been rectified yet.

[Bruce Standing]

Should not the Conservative subscription be in guineas ?

[dizzy]

Remember the demographic. My grandmother still mentally prices things in shillings.
=====================================

A fair point William, I was just being flippant! I do agree about the whole national and local differences. When I met the Chairman of our Association he asked whether I signed up nationally. He then proceeded to speak in anglo-saxon about the way nobody from Central Office ever let him know.

[Paul Kennedy]

"Should not the Conservative subscription be in guineas ?" 15:32

It is still the currency of the bloodstock trade! ;)

[Chris Palmer]

I can see why people wish for members to join the association locally, and have that money added to the local pot.

All very well and good. However, in the seats where we have very few members, then a central fund needs to be able to help push money from unneeded areas to needy areas.

[Old Hack]

Don't Labour insist their MPs pay £2k pa to the Labour Party. Go on Francis, try that one on Tory MPs if you're so keen on pointing out what other parties charge.

[Tam Large]

Any incease on the £15 minimum would be madness. We have already lost many small contributions from Conservative pensioners and others on low incomes thanks to the introduction of the £15. We need to welcome loyalty, whatever the sum given and be inclusive of low income supporters. A low sub accepted may encourage that member to be part of the team and thereby help in other, non-financial, ways such as filling envelopes, delivering etc.. People should know they have more worth to the party than just as money producers. I would rather have lots of small memberships paid rather than a few big ones any day.

[Andrew Woodman]

I agree with Tam. When we have members, we have plenty of chance to grab money through raffles, events and donations.

In my experience, if we put the membership up, it will be the richest members who moan the most.

[Ted]

An reasonable increase with greater transparency of split between local and centre, with perhaps also greater transparency on how the money is spent, seems sensible particularly with issues of funding.

Regarding central v local memberships - I joined on the web but when it came up for renewal it was snail mail or a phone call so I rang up and re-newed. Shortly afterwards I heard from local association for the first time and have now got the newsletter.
So problem advising associations seemed to be in the process around joining on-line.

[Anon]

Who says Maude wants to raise membership levels anyway? For a long time now it's been apparent that the leadership in general, and Maude in particular, have only contempt for their most loyal supporters. Witness last year's attempt to exclude us from the leadership contest. Witness the "A-List".

Doubling the membership fee will of course lead to fewerr members and lower revenue. anybody sensible must know that. Maybe Maude is happy to have the latter provided he can achieve the former.

[Jeremy Middleton]

The aim of the proposals are to make sure that Associations and the Centre have the same objective, that is to add more members rather than competing for them, to raise more money for Associations, and to make the system of contributing to the Centre much simpler and fairer.

I dont think asking people for £25 will put people off joining.If we had only put through inflation increases we woul;d have got to about£20. Also when people liked the Labour party they had a much bigger membership than us at a higher price. It should give Associations more money to campaign and help them add more members.
Finally, its true that there may be some Associations who are right that in their circumstances some concessions should be made and these proposals allow for local Associations to make that choice.

Readers should bear in mind that I am an interested party, as Chairman of the Membership committee that made these proposals!