Says it all.
gareth wrote:We could try having a variable membership fee
People can donate if they want to give a variable amount.
borgs8472 wrote:What we need to do is open the member forums for non members and get more non-members to debate on this, maybe hold straw poll or two. Then we'll know the facts.
Relevant facts = what people actually do, not what they say they will do. The two are different.
duke wrote:Does anyone know if there are age discrimination laws in the UK that might cover this?
chaikhosi wrote:just one person's secondhand opinion, so feel free to disregard...
Good point well made. But if you want people to disregard an isolated anecdotal experience of questionable relevance, then why share it in the first place?
chaikhosi wrote:I haven't said anything about lowering the fee.
Indeed you didn't. And I didn't say you had. Go back and re-read if you don't believe me.
chaikhosi wrote:Right, you may well think this is a very lame first post... and you may be right.
Deep in your heart, you know the truth. So please don't get upset if I am curt when pointing it out. Simple truth is I've put far more work and time into this question than you have. If you want to play the "I'm upset, people should listen to me, we should politely debate this and respect every point of view" card then I'm happy to argue that I can trump you on that too. It comes down to the difference between being somebody with a personal opinion not backed by any info and not needing to think about compromising with others (that's you) and being somebody who used their management skills and experience, did a lot more research than you, and who had to try to find a workable and acceptable compromise between a hundred different and irreconcilable and often irrational opinions (that's me). So, yeah, I'm pretty hacked off that 6 months after that crap blew over - during which time I got all sorts of crazy insults from every side (too high! too low! no fee! discounts for students! concessions for unemployed! free membership for under-16's!) - there's somebody daft/ignorant enough to want to reopen the debate from scratch. If you want to find out what a real ad hominem attack is, try sharing your proposal with one of the party 'supporters' who would email me with accusations that because party membership wasn't free that meant I must be in cahoots with the RIAA and/or corrupt and using the party to make money for myself. I'm confident you'll find those people far more insulting than I've been. But hey, dealing with alternative opinions comes with the territory of making a decision as opposed to being a bit naive and thinking that if you make a single ill-supported forum post then perhaps lots of people might just see sense and agree with you.
duke wrote:Disclaimer: I do not want to turn this into a major issue
Spot on. Bad thread. Lots of aimless speculation about something not worth discussing now. No data in any of these posts. No research. No evidence of even basic training in pricing strategy. Higher priorities for the party right now (e.g. general election campaign). Move on or else waste time and hurt the party. Sorry if I sound tetchy but it comes from observing that people have seemingly forgotten/not checked that this got debated to death before. But if we want a really ineffective party, I suppose we could
review every decision on a regular 6-monthly basis... meanwhile none of us are campaigning or working on the manifesto or debating the manifesto or raising money or all those other things that would definitely have a benefit, compared to the speculative advantages of changing party fees.