After its defeat on May 6th, the Labour Party needs to be as open and inclusive as possible to start a genuine conversation with the public about its future. One immediate way in which this could be facilitated is if Labour dramatically reduced the cost of membership to new members for 6 months, say to £1. If the Labour Party is to become a movement once more, it needs to radically expand its membership base. If the next leader of the Labour Party is to have maximum legitimacy, these members should be allowed a vote in the leadership election.
Progress is calling on the NEC which meets tomorrow to commit to opening up the Labour Party’s doors to the huge number of supporters who have never been asked to play a part in the party.
Please sign this petition to add your voice and we will send the signatures to the members of the NEC first thing tomorrow
The idea of joining a political party turns off a lot of people. There are loads of Labour supporters who’d never think of paying £40 to demonstrate it. This is a really positive way of recruiting the activists who are worth far more to our movement than a cheque of any size.
Am I to understand that new members will not be getting a vote in the leadership election? Although a pensioner, with a total income more than two grand below the tax free limit, I paid a membership fee of £19.50 a few days back on the assumption that as a member (not thinking that new or old would make a difference) I would have voting rights in the leadership election. Is there any way I can get a refund from the Labour Party if this isn’t the case?
Reducing the price does not encourage more people to join – or if it does, they all drop out when they have to pay the full fee in the second year.
This approach never worked when Blair and Brown championed it in the 1990s and it won’t work now.
This, and other similar schemes (eg letting defecting LibDems in for £1) may attract media attention, but only serve to alienate loyal members who pay their full subs and support the party through thick and thin.
Hope people joining know that only 1/3 of the votes for leader actually comes from the members, two thirds of the vote comes from the MPs and MEPs and the Unions.
I guess that explains why they need the bargain basement price of £1!
I think this is a good idea as a short-term measure – but we definitely need to think about how we include these members henceforth, it has to be more inspiring and engaging than simply getting a few new faces at CLP meetings!
I recently joined the party after many years of wondering whether to do so. I timed it to coincide with the first debate. As a under 25, I already paid only a pound to join, for a annual membership. This is too little, as it undervalues membership and literally is a lost leader which drains party funds. I received three individual stamped letters with my joining. One to thank me for joining. One to tell me I had joined. And another giving me my membership card. Each 1st class received together. Thats around £1.20 of my pound contribution spent just processing me. A short week or so later i got another one as a youth from ‘gordon’.
When I received my first begging letter shortly after, I promptly replied with a donation to put funds firmly in to black on my count.But really, this is just wastage and inefficent. We all know the party is cash poor and owe years worth of income to the cooperative bank not least due due to the number of emails we’ve all recieved. Subsidies do not work, its that simple…. If we want smaller sums contributed or simple numbers, from members who do not want to have normal membership, then we’ll have to offer something smaller and less expensive, perhaps by cross advertising cheaper items in the campaign shop
This is a useful short-term suggestion but not enough, and the issue is how to then turn new members into committed supporters and activists. I have a more fundamental concern about the normal price of membershjip, which in my view is far too high. The strategy should be to attract members for a low but realistic fee, and then use a sensible approach to encouraging higher levels of regular donations from those who can afford it.
I know there has been problems in the past with people who’ve joined at special student rates and then lapsed as soon as they are charged £38 or whatever for continuing membership in future years; we need to think again.
Aren’t all members able to vote for the party leader?
Does a more open membership mean giving members a say and not allowing the NEC to impose candidates on CLP’s as we saw in droves just before teh last genaeral election? I suspect not. However how about the membership of each CLP selecting a PPC as a stand by just in case the current candidate stands down at the last moment. Power to the membership and not just a few. Indeed how about restricting the leadership election to only MP’s who went throught a selection process which involved all the members all the way and no NEC. Looks like only Ed Balls would be in the running if this happened.
Sorry? Where exactly are the Labour Party . . . “progressive” ?
Illegal wars, 10p tax, expenses scandals, repression of freedom of speech and the right to protest, rewarding greedy bankers with taxpayers money, hiding the costs for PFI & PPP projects, arresting MP’s in the H of C, kettling climate protestors, etc, etc.
I think REPRESSIVE & AUTHORITARIAN is a better description of the Labour Party.
Even £40 membership is worth it to stop David Miliband becoming leader.
This election needs time to develop, the LRC are asking John McDonnell to stand for leadership, if he does, watch how the debate develops then.
@theChristophe
It’s not just ‘the unions’. You ignore all the Socialist Societies – like the Fabians – that many individual party members are also members of. A large number of members will probably be balloted multiple times because of their membership of several Labour-affiliated organisations.
You must be a member for six months before you can vote, this is supposed to stop MP’s looking looking for people to join and vote for them.
labour is looking at changing it, but as you know if the NEC puts in change it takes about five years to happen….
An interesting idea though one which maybe confused. £1 membership and immediate voting rights would leave the election open to considerable abuse.
If opening up the election of the leader is the aim, would american style primaries not be more in order (expensive no doubt but ultimately empowering).
If membership of the party is you are seeking to drive, I do no think it is the membership fee that puts people off. I think it is the (not incorrect) view that ordindary members have an ineffective influence on party policy. In my view we need a radical rethink how CLPs are structured and used by the party. They could be far more effective both in helping formulate policy and communicate with the country.
I joined the Labour Party a few days ago as I believe they need support. I am a pensioner but I have no arguments with paying the full fee. I also do not expect to have a vote for the new leader. It is normal for any organisation to expect some level committment before having voting rights. I would have expected 1 year, I am surprised to read that it is as low as 6 months. I don’t think that a low membership fee shows any committment at all and is not a good move.