Now Ed needs to show the value of membership

Now that Ed Miliband is looking to build a mass membership party, he has to assess what it means to be a Labour Party member

Ed Miliband’s attempts to regain the initiative on the relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions will define his leadership.

This discussion has been coming from the very outset of his leadership but instead of concentrating on whether union members should ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt-out’ of membership of the party, Miliband should be looking at what being a member of the Labour Party actually means. Why should anyone join the party as a member?

Without considering this, it will not matter how easy it is to join the party because no-one, especially the union members who will now have a choice, will want to.

Wilson’s jibe about a ‘penny farthing’ party machine may need to be updated but in many ways it remains essentially true when it comes to membership.

The typical life of a party member involves receiving regular emails from leading members of the party, or John O’Farrell, urging support for a campaign. Locally, the scene is more mixed, some constituencies, wards etc, are more active but communications remain essentially calls to arms to get leafleting, canvassing or help to keep a local amenity open (hospital, post office, library – delete as appropriate).

A lot of local party meetings are very traditionally run and while some people like talking agendas, minutes and procedure, others, especially younger people, do not.

None of this is to say that there are not some parts of the party that really have made an effort but it needs to be more widespread and become the norm.

Miliband’s email to members, Better Politics, on his proposed reforms suggests that he wants a mass membership party.  For this to be achieved he needs to map out a path that shows that there is a value to membership.

The party needs to take lessons from NGOs – many of these really are ‘mass membership’. The argument made is that it’s easier to motivate people on the basis of a single issue but this ignores Labour’s own inability to fire the imagination of people (and the same if true for other parties as well). Why is it that NGOs do well?

For many Labour members, the feeling is that you have to be veryactive to get involved, there are no quick and easy options, for instance in policy development or candidate selection.  Primaries, while opening up the party, could mean less incentive to be a member – if you can’t select a candidate, what is left?  Crowd sourcing policy on an ongoing basis is very possible and is done in other countries.

Labour is building its digital campaigns team, and rightly so, but it is imperative that this also considers how it works with members on an ongoing basis. The party needs to build an individual relationship with its members, which would allow tailored approaches, recognising the strengths and skills of the member.  Calls for mass membership are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. What it should be about is focusing on each member, which would together build up the strength of the party and deliver the movement.

The emphasis should be on the local, working in communities, and giving members opportunities to get involved in a variety of ways.

Unless the party can bind people into membership over the longer term, rates will fluctuate along with the political cycle. It then becomes a numbers game with the leadership succeeding or failing.

Without thinking through what membership means, Miliband will not be able to build a ‘mass membership’ party.

Guest blog for Total Politics.