Making it easy to join is sensible – but if you make it too easy to join then members do not value their membership so come subs renewal time, easily lapse.

So what I’m suggesting (even if the proposals weren’t that innovative) is that it’s currently really easy to get involved with Compass which is a good thing, supports their objectives and gives them political credibility. But if it were slightly more meaningful to become a member then they might have more active members, contributing more making the management of them more worthwhile.

In the initial stage this may lead to fewer members contributing more – but over a period of time it should lead to more members contributing more (both in terms of activism and money).

But I think Compass’ turnout figure may be artificially low as a % of their real membership, because the 4000 members may be an artificially high claim, pitched there as part of a sense that the membership number is part of their legitimacy.

Compass make it very easy to join (and I think quite difficult to leave): for example, they charge a prohibitively high “non-member” ticket price for their annual conference, which is deliberately more than a “ticket plus membership” price. This is, I think, their main recruitment tool. So the membership is “decided to join” plus “attended the conference”. My impression is that they count a good many lapsed members or once-members in the 4000.

For example, your receiving the ballot paper as well as the emails suggests to me that you are in the 4000 members, though you believe yourself not to be a member. Perhaps you should ask them that to check this hypothesis. (I don’t know if you have brought a ticket for one of their conferences). Otherwise it might be a data management issue, but I doubt they are deliberately sending ballot papers to people they don’t think are members.

It seems very reasonable to ask if they will publish their finances, including the number of currently paid-up members and income received. I don’t see why they would want to resist that, given the emphasis on democracy and transparency throughout their work, and the commitment to the democratic ethos of the organisation. So perhaps they do make this available on request. I have never asked them for it.

Perhaps the supporter figure (which I assume means everybody who has participated in anything, or ended up getting emails, and I suspect is also an estimate).

Apart from the issues about numbers, on the whole, it is sensible for them to have had low barriers to entry and participation. One risk of seeking to give membership added value is that it could raise barriers to entry and participation – I think they are doing this for some prestige activities: I was told they are insisting that attendees to their Cruddas lecture either join or in the case of ‘lapsed’ once members that they pay to renew.