How to maximise money for your local party by recruiting more members

If you’re one of the many local parties who have grown in membership, you will have benefitted from vastly increased service fees since the introduction of the Membership Incentive Scheme in 2013.  This scheme gives local parties 20% of all subscriptions if their membership grows at all in a quarter. For those which grow by more than 10 members, that jumps to 40%.

From the beginning of next year, the amount you get will reduce slightly. From an email sent by Sal Brinton to local parties this week:

Local parties with net growth of between 1 and 10 members during a quarter will be qualified to receive 18% of all their membership subscription fees paid during that quarter (which includes the 3% payable to all compliant local parties)

Local parties with net growth of more than 10 during a quarter will be qualified to receive 33% of all their membership subscription fees paid during that quarter (which includes the 3% payable to all compliant local parties)

All compliant local parties will be qualified to receive 3% of all their membership subscription fees paid during that quarter.

That is still pretty generous, but it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the more members you recruit or retain before the end of the year, the more money you will get.

So, this is the time to recruit your cousin who goes all gooey-eyed when Tim Farron (or more likely Justin Trudeau) appears on the telly or your work colleague who complains that the Government’s response to terrorism curbs freedoms or your friend who’s worried about the future of the planet.

Your local party will have received a list of lapsing members. Why not volunteer to call on them to encourage them to rejoin before the end of the year?

The bigger your local party is on 31st December, the more money you will get to fight whatever elections you are facing in 2016.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • Paul Holmes 19th Dec '15 - 6:03pm

    The higher level of rebates for Parties showing growth was a good innovation (last year?) although now reduced a bit.

    But who took the original decision some years ago to cut the rebate for all parties down to a tiny 3%, wasn’t it obvious that this would provide a severe disincentive to recruitment? It is always easier to get people to agree to help (in various ways) than to actually join so why bother chasing membership hard if there is so little return to the Local Party?

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 20th Dec '15 - 8:52am

    It was 5% for parties that didn’t grow at all and that’s now been cut to 3% for 2016. The idea of the incentive scheme is to make effort at recruitment and retention and growth really, really pay. I’m not sure how you can say there’s no incentive to recruit when you can get 15% more for even growing by 1 person in a quarter.

  • Paul Holmes 20th Dec '15 - 1:12pm

    Not what I said Caron. I welcomed the relatively recent rebates of significant proportions of membership money for Local Parties who grow their membership.

    What I asked was ‘who took the original decision some years ago’ to have a rebate of just 3% now and as you note 5% previously? There are intermittent surges (as in May/June) and -more often -intermittent sharp drops in membership levels due to national events. But mostly Local Parties memberships, high or low, have that because of local activity so why was it thought a good idea to only let a flat rate of 5%, now 3%, of membership money be retained by Local Parties?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Graham Jeffs
    A truly excellent article. I do hope that we all do indeed cherish our candidates before and after the GE. Afterwards is so important. Meantime I also hop...
  • Andrew Tampion
    Christopher Haigh. "I always got the impression that freedom of movement would work better if people from the more economically active EU countries should retir...
  • John Waller
    I only did 3 not 5. Thank you from crazy USA. What sense....
  • Alex Macfie
    This "non-aggression" pact between us and Labour is presumably supposed to apply only to each other's Tory-facing battlegrounds (I don't think we're holding bac...
  • Robert SAYER
    Totally right. Having experienced the same stresses as described it can be lonely and you can believe that the most unwinnable seat can be won. But to those fig...