Age discrimination in membership fees

[chaikhosi]

Right, you may well think this is a very lame first post... and you may be right. But here goes anyway. I came here to join the party, after reading the party principles in your Wikipedia article and thinking "that's what I would do if I was PM (or Generalissimo, or High Prophet, etc)".

Then I saw that the membership fee discriminates on the basis of age, without any explanation or rationale. Shurely shome mishtake?

I am older than 21, and I can't see how that should make any difference at all to my status. For anything really. Even assuming I went to university straight after school, there are loads of degrees that last 4 years, and in law or medicine courses take much longer than that. And not everyone goes to uni, and those that do might start their course a bit later in life than 18. And how many students are really so skint they can't find a tenner for something they really believe in?

I'm not that well off at the moment, but not completely broke either. I can pay £10 to join up, but (in the spirit of gratuitous argument ) I would like to hear a good reason why a random 20 year old should pay less.

[Duke]

My understanding was that originally there was a lower fee for under 18s because they are not able to vote (and so aren't "as useful" to the party). I was 21 when I signed up for membership and it does seem rather weird - and possibly illegal under age discrimination laws. It would be useful to have an official statement on this - perhaps changing the conditions for the discount slightly?

[epriezka]

I'll be terse and to the point because I'm disappointed that we've got two posts from people who can't see the wood for the trees.

Is the membership fee designed to be a manifestation of some political point about what makes for a perfect society? Nope.

Is the membership fee designed to raise the most money possible? Yup.

We need money because we won't be changing society not even one little iota without money. To make changes in the UK needs more money than in some countries, less than in others, but it sure is a heck of a lot more money than we've raised already.

Academic discussions about what people can afford, should afford etc are irrelevant. All that matters is that you set a price to maximize the yield i.e. set the fee so number of members*fee = largest amount of money.

I can hear some people now... 'I'm so very very principled that I can't stand the thought of a party that discriminates/is so mercenary about money/doesn't think it's more important to have members than money' blah blah. All of you people, on every side of the fees up/down/equal/unequal debate should just get over it. That's because I'm so very principled that I'd rather make some compromises and see the party succeed than make an idealistic decision that makes it likelier that the party will fail.

It's funny I just posted a long post about how changing leadership structure is irrelevant if people don't have basic management skills. So here's a quick download on management skills for setting a price. (1) You gather data and adjust the price based on data, not on guesswork. (2) If you don't have data, you look at what others do and use that as a source of data. (3) If you have data i.e. about how many people gave how much money, then you extrapolate to theories about the utility curve of your 'customers' and potential 'customers' and adjust prices to see if they those theories are valid.

So, in short, if you want the party to have the most money so it can campaign for stuff, then you won't succeed through an abstract argument disconnected to real data or even to what similar orgs charge. And if you don't want the party to have the most money so it can campaign for stuff, I question your priorities.

[glambert]

The only thing I'll add to Eric's post is that under 21s, in general, may not want or be able to freely donate £10 as a lot of them are students and will want to hang onto whatever they can. £2 however is a lot easier to spare, cheaper than a pint and cheaper than cigarettes. Therefore, more under 21s will donate at a lower price, resulting in more money for PPUK.

It's simple business. Do you think supermarkets do special offers on products just out of their kindness towards humanity? No, they do it because 1. they'll make profit anyway and 2. so more people will buy it, resulting in more money than without the offer.

[chaikhosi]

Hi Eric,
Two wrongs don't make a left. I know lots of other organisations engage in age discrimination; how does that make it a good or even a defensible idea?

Your last sentence is an ad hominem attack. I haven't said anything about lowering the fee. I asked why some should pay less. £10 for all would be reasonable enough, and if there is to be a lower fee, why not apply it to students, the unemployed and other unwaged people?

Chris

[chaikhosi]

£2 however is a lot easier to spare, cheaper than a pint and cheaper than cigarettes. Therefore, more under 21s will donate at a lower price, resulting in more money for PPUK.

Even though it would take five times as many under-21s joining as 22 year olds to bring in the same money? Not to mention the loss of people like myself who are a bit disappointed by being reduced to an irrelevant number and then faced with personal attacks.

Chris

[glambert]

personal attacks?

[chaikhosi]

Eric just accused me of not wanting the party to raise enough money, when I've said nothing to support that.

By the way, the student society I helped promote at uni actually got more interest after raising the fee into double figures. One new member told us charging a pocket change fee suggests that membership is worthless. Of course, I can't show any evidence for that, and it is just one person's secondhand opinion, so feel free to disregard...

[Duke]

I understand that we need money, and I understand about reducing price to attract more members (it's one of the key points for "things the content industries need to learn"). My question is "why 21?". With 18 there is a direct and obvious reason, 21 is more arbitrary. Does anyone know if there are age discrimination laws in the UK that might cover this?

Disclaimer: I do not want to turn this into a major issue; I am perfectly happy with the way things are set up now, I just don't want us to a) get into legal trouble or b) get into political trouble for having potentially discriminatory membership policies.

[PeterBrett]

[borgs8472]

Too much speculation without facts IMO. 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.

[rancidpunk]

[gareth]

We could try having a variable membership fee - i.e. pay what you like (£6, £12, £25, etc).

...I was originally just going to donate some money, but then it looked like I had to join in order to do that, so I joined, and joining cost £10, which is less than I intended to donate, but after paying that I didnt feel like giving any more right then.

^ I know its not logical, but people are not

[epriezka]

Says it all.

We could try having a variable membership fee

People can donate if they want to give a variable amount.

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.

Does anyone know if there are age discrimination laws in the UK that might cover this?

There aren't.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[glambert]

this.

[Duke]

After those particularly detailed and informative replies, I did some research of my own.

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (page 13) - that wonderfully useful document that we've been using in our arguments against the DEB and similar laws etc. states;

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as [...] age [...] shall be prohibited.

Now, I am no expert on EU law, but it would seem rather hypocritical of us do breach the CFR while complaining about other people doing so. Of course, if there was a reason other than age as to why 21 was chosen (such as if it was at the voting age) that would be fine, so I will ask again, why 21?

[Again, I don't wish to suggest that I have a problem with this personally, I just would like an answer to what seems like a fairly straightforward question - the answer "because the exec decided to on the toss of a coin" would do, but I hope there is a better one.]

[borgs8472]

Age is discriminated against in politics, this will never change. I would say the EU fails at that one.

[glambert]

I explained why yesterday. To add to that, although I think someone else mentioned it above, it's a minimum donation, I'm under 21 and i've donated more than £2.

[samgower]

People under 21 tend to be financially dependent on their parents, and so have a smaller income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people under 21 to donate less than those over 21. This is not always the case, and many people over the age of 21 are also dependent (especially if they are in university) but it's as good as any place to draw the line.

[M2Ys4U]

I suggest a student discount rather than an under 21s discount.