The intended target of this new initiative is presumably the student population. Those who may have previously voted Liberal Democrat but have become disenfranchised by the coalition, in fact anybody who is affected by the trebling of tuition fees, the scrapping of EMA, of school sports, and the farcical situation regarding the Building Schools for the Future programme. I agree that it is essential that these people see a home in Labour, but we should be doing more to ensure that this is a permanent home rather than just a temporary one. It could also be argued that this rate isn’t as transparent as it needs to be and will do as much to make young people feel disillusioned with politics than anything which the coalition government are doing.

I appreciate that there will be many shouting at the screen reading that last sentence, but think about it for a second. Is it fair to charge 1p for a year and then proceed to withdraw the full subscription of almost £40 per year without any notification, no opt-in procedure, no letter, in fact nothing more than a small clause at the bottom of the joining page in tiny font to tell people that they will be charged the full membership rate after the initial period. Does that sound like a tactic of the self branded ‘fighting force for fairness’ or one used by door to door salesmen?

Labour now sells itself to students as the only party which understands the difficulties facing them, the good guys. Personally, I disagree. Where do we expect a student who is already heavily in debt to find £40 per year? Where do we expect a 15-year-old facing the prospect of no EMA when they go into the next step of their education to find the money for the full or even reduced membership rate? If we really want to become a movement then we need to ensure that our young members feel engaged and valued by the Labour Party, to ensure that our membership is affordable to these people and that our CLPs and branches are capable of involving new members to the fullest extent possible. I believe that these issues are much more pressing and have been somewhat ignored at all levels.

The 1p joining rate shouldn’t be seen as an attempt to increase the affordability of the membership. The previous rate of £1 for the first year, although 100 times more expensive, is no less affordable. It would be very interesting to see the difference in numbers of members joining under the 1p rate compared to the £1 rate. What would also be interesting to see is how many people drawn in by these introductory offers actually continue their membership beyond two years once they begin to be charged a rate which many of them can’t afford. In addition to this, the reduced rate which the majority of those signing up to this would otherwise be on is £19.50 per year; two years at this rate is £39. This is 1p less than the cost of two years’ membership under the 1p membership ‘special offer’. This surely ends the theory that this is about making it affordable to join the Labour party; in fact it ultimately makes it more expensive. Four years after taking up this offer, the new member will have paid £39 more than they would have under the reduced rate; this is a whole two years’ membership subscription.

Why do those subscribed to the introductory offer get charged automatically at the standard rate of £19.50 per year regardless of whether they are in employment or not? This would be totally unfair but unfortunately is what is currently happening (see below).

_{The 1p (£0.01) introductory rate is for the first year of membership only. Subsequent years will be charged at the standard membership rate}

Struggle to read it? Yes, I did too!

I am in favour of a progressive, income based membership structure which obviously has issues, most notably people’s understandable reluctance to declare their incomes. This is easily resolved. Instead of having a two tiered membership system, we increase this to five or six. We have a membership rate for those under 18, those in full-time education, those earning under twenty five thousand pounds, those earning above twenty five thousand pounds and a rate for retired members. This will ensure that people’s salaries aren’t declared, their membership rate is appropriate to their income and they feel part of party which actually demonstrates the values of fairness rather than just one which says the word often.

We back a progressive structure in taxation, so as a party shouldn’t we mirror this in our membership rates and ensure it really is accessible to all? I believe strongly in the effectiveness of introductory rates to increase membership but this will be futile by itself. We’ve got a blank piece of paper. Let’s start to write stuff on it which will make our party become the movement it strives to be. Let’s reform the cost of membership to make it affordable, let’s ensure that our party at a local level has the ability to ensure our members feel engaged and included and let’s actually start listening to our members instead of placing such a high importance on recruiting more so that they can be ignored too. The biggest threat to levels of our membership isn’t our failure to recruit new members; it’s our inability to keep them.