Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?



On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:47:12 -0000, "Dave Mayall"
<dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<bulpitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1173299883.398508.318290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Which should it be? If Committee of the Council found itself in the
position to be able to reduce the national membership fee, due to a
sustained increase in its other revenue, should it do so, or should it
increase further the level of services it provides to the movement?

Reduce the membership fees.

Over the years, the membership fee has grown substantially in real terms,
and now represents a significant burden on groups (yes, I know the members
are responsible, but many of our YP are in difficult financial
circumstances, so unless the group raises the money, the kid isn't going to
join).


I have no real experience of your locale, save passing through
en-route to Manchester. I wouldn't say that it was any more or less
deprived than many other Northern towns.

I'm not convinced by the lack of money argument. Sure, there will be
some who will live a life of poverty but... poverty is often self
imposed. I've spent some considerable time unemployed, or self
employed on low earnings - but my family never went without, we never
missed a mortage payment, we never missed a credit payemt. Instead my
kids didn't get to wear the latest football top, or the latest fashion
trainers form Nike or whatever. We didn't go on holiday, we stayed
here, mucked in and kept our kids busy at school, and involved in the
activities they wanted to do. We have always beaten poverty by setting
priorities and making things happen for our kids. Money is not the
sole issue.

You can cut the fees to some kids, they still won't come. The funds go
to mum and dad's interests, football fashion etc..

At that level the kids are out of our reach in our present format.

Ewan Scott
.



Relevant Pages