These days, you’re more likely to possess a supermarket loyalty card than a trade union membership card. That points to clever marketing by supermarkets, but also says something about modern-day associations. It exemplifies the challenges that the Labour party faces: how is what we have to offer, as a political organisation and a potential party of government, relevant to people today?
That’s why a review of our structures and bureaucracy is so timely. Peter Hain’s Refounding Labour consultation is an opportunity to redefine what the Labour party stands for in a radically different world to the one it was founded in more than a century ago.
Much of the debate centres on opening up the party beyond the core membership. It is contentious and, if we get it wrong, potentially counterproductive to fully open up our structures and processes to non-members. I commit money, time and shoe leather to the Labour party and have a number of ‘privileges’ available to me in return. Not all of my member ‘privileges’ should be available without that greater degree of personal commitment. I also know non-members who’ve delivered leaflets and made donations yet received nothing, quantifiable, in return.
While the party looks to build on reward systems for local parties based on voter contact rates and other activity, we should look at introducing a loyalty system for those not yet ready or willing to join the party but who share our values and support our activities. Not just those who’ve voted Labour through good times and bad but also those who work with us, locally and nationally, in our desire to make a difference, to improve people’s lives, to change our communities and society.
This type of system could cover those non-members who belong to affiliate organisations as well as those who are not even members of affiliates – a ‘community link’ section of the party which could afford some ‘privileges’ in internal elections and selections and access to some training, policy development, community action and social activities.
Reshaping how we organise and involve members should be considered in tandem with this new loyalty system. All local meetings should be policy focused with the minimal number of ‘business’ meetings necessary. ‘Community link’ members should be encouraged, just as much as full members, to lead policy meetings on issues of local or national concern. Whether they’re bus drivers, school governors, local charity volunteers, members of the local foundation trust or active in their local neighbourhood watch, the perspective that non-members can bring to a policy issue or a local problem should be valued by Labour locally and nationally.
If we genuinely want to be the ‘people’s party’ once again then the old orthodoxies about our structures, local and national, must be challenged and changed.
Interesting observations Joanne and you’re not the only “membership organisation” to be looking at what loyalty means and how it can be fostered. Interestingly, some of the thinking behind the new branch of loyalty marketing, termed “gamification” would probably work well in your context. This relies on something we term social currency rather than the hard currency you see within traditional loyalty programmes. It recognises participation or interaction and can be tied into both social status as well as enhanced benefits or privileges.
Not really purple labour is it, how did this slip through the progress purple bookers
Jo, I think there is much to admire in what you have written and we should explore as many avenues to membership as possible. I agree with all you say about Labour Party meetings. We should have policy meetings which include supporters and this should be part of a wider compact with our supporters in the local community. The national party should build systems which allow local CLP Secretaries to do this, if the same systems could be built with affiliates esp unions this would help us become a mass member party again. I am a little wary of your language of privileges and loyalty schemes, the Labour party and its relationship with individuals is not purely transactional and we should not go down this path with individuals. People lead complex lives with many constraints on them due to family, health, work, study etc and our party is a party built on values and so reaching out should be conditional on supporting the party and making a complex layered system is probably not the right way forward, but we should do all we can to encourage supporters into membership. I do completely agree with the incentive scheme for local parties as we all know parties with better contact rates do better, but incentives for organisations are very different to those for individuals.
So long as no disabled people turn up of course, we do not wish the disabled around us, oh yes unless they have a job.
Jo, Some very interesting ideas, my only fear is in the numbers and time available for people to attend meetings. I suspect the way forwards is to utilize technology further and so reach out to as many people as possible, otherwise we will be limited in the breadth and length by which we engage communities. I think the focus on the policy is correct but also we do need to increase our membership in a big way and in doing so raise the funds required to reach out on the doorstep too and with literature also. A holistic programme of growth, development with the workload on orgaising split up, it all rests on good structural organising and delegation, if you can get the growth in involvement occuring in the first instance. The best way to introduce people to policis is when they themselves are concerned over a local issue the rest is merely tact and not burying them with political dogma especially when such dogma means so little today. Many thanks.