Chris Shale, Cameron constituency chief found dead in toilet

[TonyGosling]

Cameron constituency chief body found in Glastonbury toilet

Senior Tory's leaked memo and sudden death of Cameron's 'rock'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jun/26/senior-tory-glastonbury-ch ristopher-shale
Christopher Shale's death at Glastonbury festival shocks party faithful in PM's Oxfordshire constituency
Robert Booth and Sam Jones - guardian.co.uk, Sunday 26 June 2011 21.22 BST
Senior Tory Christoper Shale, who has been discovered dead at Glastonbury festival, was the chairman of the party association in David Cameron's constituency.
The genteel lanes of David Cameron's Oxfordshire constituency are usually a world away from the muddy chaos of Glastonbury, but the two collided following the death of a 56-year-old businessman in a festival toilet.
Friends and political colleagues of Christopher Shale, the chairman of West Oxfordshire Conservative Association (Woca), expressed disbelief and grief as they came to terms with his sudden death – apparently from a heart attack midway through the festival programme.
Shale had become such a close political ally of the prime minister's that Cameron described him as "a big rock in my life".
Maybe the rock was refusing to bear the weight of Cameron's evil?
Shale was found dead at around 9am. It has emerged that he may have died as early as Saturday lunchtime and was only discovered after a search.
In the picturesque hamlets and villages on the edge of the Cotswolds, where Shale lived near several of Cameron's inner circle of political and media allies, the entrepreneur-turned-Tory-activist's death was all the more shocking because it emerged just hours after a strategy document he had drafted was published in a Sunday newspaper, complete with strident criticisms of the attractiveness of the party as it stands.
The coincidence sparked unsubstantiated rumours at Glastonbury – described as "totally scurrilous" by party officials, that he might have committed suicide..........

[TonyGosling]

Mr Shale’s death coincided with the publication of a leaked Conservative Party strategy memo in the Mail on Sunday, in which he said there was ‘no reason to join. Lots of reasons not to’. He said the constituency party was ‘not always an appealing proposition’, adding: ‘Over the years we have come across as graceless, voracious, crass, always on the take.’
Mr Shale argued that the local party needed to change to boost membership, and said the Prime Minister’s own association had gained only 22 new members in the past year.
The article was written by Mail on Sunday columnist James Forsyth, the Spectator’s political editor, who contacted No 10 about it on Saturday.
'VORACIOUS CRASS'...WHAT LEAKED MEMO SAID ABOUT THE TORIES
‘Collectively, we are not always an appealing proposition.
‘Over the years we have come across as graceless, voracious, crass, always on the take.
‘People think we’ll beg and steal from them. And they’re right.
‘When we are together we are not always a group of people to whom many of our potential members are going to be magnetically drawn.
‘When we come together as a group we sometimes morph into something different, less attractive. Our environment alters us.
‘We must look different – when we communicate, when we’re together. We must sound different – in what we say, how we say it, the language we use, our tone of voice. We must behave differently – try to see ourselves as others see us.’
Criticising Tories who want to offer old-style Conservative policies: ‘It’s what, pre-2005, DC used to call double ham and eggs: We’ve offered them ham and eggs repeatedly. They don’t want it. So how can the solution possibly be double ham and eggs?’
Suggesting fundraising opportunities: ‘West Oxfordshire Conservative Association is, in effect, going into the event-management business. The association needs to offer events with “money-can’t-buy” appeal. (Such as) the PMQ DIY Lunch: Bring your own sandwiches to watch PMQs [Prime Minister’s Questions] in a different fine country house in the constituency every week; glass of wine, cup of coffee, informal discussion, yours for a fiver.’
Mr Cameron’s press secretary Gabby Bertin called Mr Shale at 12.30pm that day but could not get through to his mobile phone and left a voicemail message. The Daily Mail has been told she told him not to worry about it, but said it would be better not to discuss the issue with journalists.
Mr Shale did not return the call but contacted a second Downing Street official whom he knew well.....
Mr Shale also spoke to Mr Cameron’s constituency agent, Barry Norton, about the leaked memo. It is not clear who initiated the conversation.
Mr Norton said Mr Shale was aware of the article and was ‘circumspect’ about it, though he was confident it was ‘not really an issue’....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008856/The-Prime-Ministers-tr agic-friend-dead-Glastonbury-secret-plan-modernise-Tory-Party.html

Inquest opens THE DAY AFTER HIS BODY IS FOUND

Toxicology tests inconclusive over cause of death of Christoper Shale at Glastonbury
A pathologist has been unable to determine how a senior Tory whose body was found in a Glastonbury Festival VIP toilet died, an inquest heard today.
Telegraph - 4:20PM BST 27 Jun 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8601255/Toxicolo gy-tests-inconclusive-over-cause-of-death-of-Christoper-Shale-at-Glast onbury.html
Christopher Shale, 56, a close friend of David Cameron, was discovered slumped in a cubicle in the backstage area yesterday morning.
The Prime Minister's constituency chairman had been reported as missing by worried family members at 900-acre Worthy Farm on Saturday.
The inquest, which lasted just a few minutes, was opened and adjourned until a later date by East Somerset Coroner Tony Williams.
The hearing, which was held at Wells Town Hall, heard that Mr Shale was found within the festival's Orange Zone and declared dead at 9.17am by an emergency care practitioner.
Mr Shale's wife formally identified his body later that morning.
Coroner's officer Ben Batley told the inquest that a post mortem examination was carried out yesterday and the preliminary cause of death was "unascertained".
Mr Batley said further toxicology tests would be carried out to establish how Mr Shale died.
The coroner said that he was adjourning the inquest until a later date.
He added: "As a result of me having opened this inquest I am content to release the body to the family."
No members of Mr Shale's family were present at the inquest.
It is feared Mr Shale's body may have lain undiscovered for up to 10 hours.
Police found the businessman's body as he was quoted in the Mail on Sunday bemoaning difficulties his party faced in recruiting new members.
He was reported to have written: "No reason to join. Lots of reasons not to."
Earlier today Downing Street confirmed it had contacted Mr Shale on Saturday to warn him that the note he had written had been leaked to the newspaper".
Mr Cameron said he was "devastated" as he described Mr Shale as a valued friend and a "big rock" in his life.
Confusion reigned at the site after festival founder Michael Eavis said the wealthy businessman's death could be a "suicide situation".
But police dismissed the claim, with sources saying he was thought to have suffered a heart attack.
A police spokesman said: "The results of the post-mortem combined with the inquiries conducted into the circumstances surrounding the death indicate it is not suspicious."
Mr Eavis expressed his "deepest sympathy" as the police probe was launched.
Mr Shale was staying with his family in a Winnebago surrounded by a host of celebrities and performers.
Mr Cameron, the MP for Witney, said he and wife Samantha were great friends of Mr Shale's.
"Sam and I were devastated to hear the news about Christopher," the Prime Minister said.
The West Oxfordshire Conservative Association chairman was "a great friend and has been a huge support over the last decade" in the constituency, Mr Cameron added.
"A big rock in my life has suddenly been rolled away," he said.
A distraught woman, staying in the backstage area between the Pyramid and other stages, was seen being comforted by officers shortly after the discovery at 9am.
Police confirmed several relatives were at the site.
Mr Eavis sent his thoughts to family and friends, before adding: "We work very closely with the police, medical and other emergency services to ensure that the festival is as safe as possible for all 170,000 people on the site."
A police cordon, patrolled by dozens of officers and security guards, was erected in the area where festival production teams and some performers stay.
A host of celebrities were also camped in the vicinity, with Wayne and Coleen Rooney understood to have been staying in a nearby luxury RV.
Mr Shale and his relatives were apparently staying next to The Times columnist Caitlin Moran.
The writer tweeted: "Woke up to find the man in the Winnebago next to us died. Bit of a grim start to the morning."
Revellers reacted with shock as they were told the area was "a crime scene".
Tom Waite, 35, from Cheddar, was among those staying in the VIP area.
He said: "It's just awful for his family."
Mr Shale was the chief executive of Oxford Resources Ltd, a cost reduction company based in Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire.
He was previously chief executive of MSG Communications.
He is listed on the website of eurosceptic think-tank OpenEurope as a supporter and was a director of the Centre for Policy Studies.

[TonyGosling]

Shale was eating & hanging out it seems with the brother of Nicholas Soames, the chap who is alleged at the inquest to have threatened Diana on the phone that she might have an accident if she didn't give up her land mines campaign when he was Defence Minister.

A No.10 source said: ‘The Prime Minister was aware of it, but had not read it.’ Rupert Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill and a close friend of Mr Shale, had eaten with him on Friday afternoon as the pair were staying in the same campsite area.
He said: ‘I last saw him as he crossed the VIP area on Saturday as he headed in the direction of the lavatories.’
Mr Soames is understood to have told Mr Shale’s wife of the last time he saw her husband before the pair asked security staff to check the toilets.

[TonyGosling]

CHRISTOPHER SHALE: Just what the Hell is going on here?
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/christopher-shale-just-what-the -hell-is-going-on-here/

Doubts are growing about the nature of, and reasons for, the death of the Prime Minister’s local Party Chairman

Those who you who read last night’s At the End of the Day at The Slog will know that I was quite happy to put Camerlot’s local Party Chairman down as a simple heart-attack victim way back then, all those 24 hours ago.

But now things have gone from odd to silly and on to suspicious. In last night’s post, I wrote:

‘These days, just the words ‘dead in toilet’ are suggestive of drugs. Given that Christopher Shales expired at the Glastonbury festival, I must confess this was my first thought….’

As events have not so much unfolded as been folded up into a form of spin-origami today, it might help if I summarise below the order of play, and why it sometimes seems with government these days that the desire for everything to look normal actually creates conspiracy suspicions that may be completely unfounded.

* Shales is found dead. The police cordon off the area as ‘an official crime scene’.

* The Glastonbury organiser says the death contains “the circumstances of suicide”.

* We learn that the Shales corpse ‘wasn’t found for ten hours’. That’s a long period for a husband to be missing.

* The local Tory Party refutes the suicide assumption as ‘scurrilous’, and showers the media with evidence of Shales’s family history of heart problems.

* Police decide they are “not treating the death as suspicious”.

* The post mortem staff yesterday decide to carry out ‘toxicology tests’.

* The Coroner’s Court inquest opens this morning, but within a few minutes is adjourned.

* During the brief session, the Coroner’s officer Ben Batley tells the inquest that a post mortem examination was carried out, and the preliminary cause of death was “unascertained”.

* Despite this, the Coroner says, “As a result of me having opened this inquest I am content to release the body to the family.”

Just a few observations on this train of events. Despite some of the early contradictions in the statements, such is not unusual in cases like this: there are red herrings and confused people all over the place.

Things only start to get confusing when the post-mortem staff (looking for an Elvis-straining style weak heart trauma) take toxicology tests.

They become suspicious when statements like ‘unascertained’ are released….with further toxicology tests to come.

They start to look extremely odd when, after just a few seconds consideration, the Coroner decides to release the body.

——————————

Look, if there’s nothing unusual here, why not just say so? If there is nothing dodgy emerging from the post mortem, then why not confirm that? There could still be a perfectly normal explanation for all this: Shales had a cold, he took an OTC remedy, it turned up in his bloodstream. So now they need to recheck a few things….and release the body so it can be cremated?

I repeat: this may all be something and nothing. But anyway, there are two theories in circulation as I write.

The first is the one I made glancing reference to last night – and the words were composed after several email exchanges with my voluntary legal help:

‘rumours have been around for some time that several powerful media Tories of a West Oxford persuasion are fond of tooting the talcum of a weekend.’

I’m sure most of you can work out who the alleged line-dancers are in all this: as we know, WO is a tight-knit and rather incestuous area where elite mutual assistance and a leg-up rule supreme.

The second one has been advanced and expanded by Will Heaven in the Telegraph this afternoon. It can be summed up by the key phrase in his piece: ‘Strikingly, it looks like Tory High Command was desperate to keep this [Shale's memo] away from the public eye’.

I’m told by a reliable media contact that the leaker was NOT a local Tory. And more along the Tebbit end of Toryism than the Prime Minister.

The best way to close this piece is by me formally apologising to The Observer for raising the question of Shale’s ‘proximity’ to the senior Newscorpers who are WO-based. The Big O may well have a point after all.

[TonyGosling]

Witney constituency party agent, second speaker down:

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL7zUXIU4oM

http://protectyourself.cc/glastonbury-stabbing-death-christopher-shale -mp-festival-drugs-crime/

[TonyGosling]

Murder, Glastonbury and the nuclear nightmare
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/01/murder-glastonbury-and-the-nuc lear-nightmare/
why was Shale using the grizly public toilets and not those in his luxury Winnebago motor home which was parked nearby?

[TonyGosling]

nothing to see here!


Glastonbury Festival: Christopher Shale died of natural causes
Christopher Shale was found dead in a backstage VIP area
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-15071882
A senior Conservative and friend of David Cameron who was found dead in a toilet at the Glastonbury Festival died of natural causes, a coroner has ruled.
Christopher Shale, 56, chairman of West Oxfordshire Conservative Association, was found dead on 26 June.
The inquest into the death of the prime minister's constituency chairman heard he was missing on the site for about 18 hours before he was found.
East Somerset coroner Tony Williams ruled he died from heart disease.
The inquest at Wells Town Hall heard Mr Shale was found dead in a backstage VIP area near the Other Stage.
'Excessive workload'
Mr Cameron, who is the MP for Witney in Oxfordshire, said he was "devastated" by Mr Shale's death, describing him as a "rock".
The inquest heard that Mr Shale was overweight and asthmatic.
Pathologist Basil Purdue said his weight put "an excessive workload" on his heart.
On June 24, the day before he went missing, Mr Shale spoke of feeling unwell. The next day he complained of shortness of breath, which he put down to his asthma.
When he failed to turn up for lunch with friends and family or make contact, his wife Nikki reported him missing.
'Inaccurate speculation'
The next morning a friend of Mr Shale retraced his steps and came across a locked toilet.
When he knocked and there was no response, he broke in and found Mr Shale dead.
Following Tuesday's hearing, Mrs Shale paid tribute to her husband and hit out at "inaccurate speculation" regarding his death.
She said: "It was always obvious to us, and confirmed very soon afterwards, that my husband, my darling husband, died of natural causes.
"It has been a cause of great regret to our children, to Chris's family and all our friends, that so much inaccurate speculation has appeared in the media with regard to the circumstances of his death."

[scienceplease 2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-15071882

[TonyGosling]

by email
This 'German' GO2 business nothing to do with CIA?
Hmmmmm.
Personally I suggest Soames is the one to look at.
Winston was up to deals with Nazis in 1944/1945
The Soames family quite clearly up for the power and financial trade off that comes with committing crime for a Mafia cult.

[scienceplease 2]

Rupert Soames

From wikipedia...

[TonyGosling]

The report Christopher Shale wrote just a few days before he died

They think we’ll beg and steal from them
And they’re right.
The widespread perception is that our party plunders its members at every turn. We rarely miss an opportunity to pick a member’s pocket. Their money disappears into a bottomless pit. And when we ask for more. Ad nauseam. Ad infinitum as well. If ever we say thank you, there’s always another please not far behind. We treat our members like an addict treats his dealer. Over the years we have come across as graceless, voracious, crass, always on the take.



West Oxfordshire Conservative Association

Great reasons to join. No reasons not to.

Operation Vanguard
A strategy to transform membership
West Oxfordshire Conservative Association
Christopher Shale
May 2011

Preface
Vanguard is a new membership strategy from which comes a different proposition and approach. We - WOCA developed in partnership withh CCHQ.
It is more than WOCA’s future. It is also a pilot for CCHQ. If it succeeds, others will build on it.
I’d like to thank everyone at WOCA, CCHQ and No. 10 who has given their time, support and ideas. It’s been a perfect model of intra-party co-operation. Everybody wants Vanguard to be successful.
Overall party policy on membership is obviously not our remit. Where this document differs from others on this subject it does so with CCHQ’s support, in the spirit of contributing to collective thinking and trying new things for the benefit of all.

Christopher Shale
Chairman, WOCA
May 2011

Postscript
Until Vanguard has been formally adopted by WOCA’s Executive Council it is a personal proposal from me, as chairman. That’s why you will find many uses of the first person singular in this document.
If it’s adopted it will become agreed collective strategy; and in every appropriate context, I will become we.

Contents
Objective
The problem
The solution
Characteristic of the programme
Summary
Conclusion
Appendix: Initial implications



Objective

To achieve a transformational increase in membership of the West Oxfordshire Conservative Association; to do this in ways others can apply to similar effect nationally.

“A transformational increase. 2 No specific target?

The absence of a quantifiable target is not cautious management of expectations. It’s actually the opposite.

Over the years there have been countless membership initiatives, countless targets set. Some may have succeeded I suppose, but most have failed. And another one comes along. And it’s the same all over again.

What’s the right number this time? Last year WOCA added 22 members (net), so maybe 50 or 100? Or let’s think a lot bigger: 5% of our vote? Or maybe 10%, because 5% would be ok for a normal constituency but we have DC as our MP

It doesn’t seem to matter all that much, because whatever happens we know that a year or two down the line it will have been forgotten; and then someone else will set a new target and we’ll start all over again. It is Orwellian.

We are where we are because, to the extent that we have really thought about numbers at all, we’ve tended to think about them as a numbers game. We think quantitatively, because that’s what membership is: a numbers game. It’s what it’s always been.

‘Transformational increase’ is indeed a specific target. But it’s more about the first word than the second.



The problem

If one asks Tory voters, as I have done many times over the years, to complete the sentence:

“I should join the Conservative Party because ” there is no compelling response. If there was I’d have heard it by now. There isn’t.

The claimed benefits the right to attend party conference, take part in selecting our MP and so on are zero interest to most current, let alone potential, members. (And our emotive appeals typically along the lines of ‘help us save Britain’ or don’t let them – the Labour party do it a again’ even at best are reasons for voting for us, not joining us).

It’s actually worse than that: the perception is that not only are there no benefits, there are all sorts of penalties [that was my experience stop your planning permission and approve next door’s planning application and do all sorts of things to annoy] of membership.

No reasons to join. Lots of reasons not to.

To take the second of these obstacles first, I think there are 5 main reasons not to join us.

They think we are not like them

Although WOCA has many good people as members, collectively we are not always an appealing proposition. As a group, we don’t look much different to how we looked 10 or 20 years ago. Everybody else does. The people who vote for us are now much more representative of the general population than they used to be (DC did this); but the people who join us still aren’t. The perception is that we are too fond of looking inwards rather than outwards; too prone to exclude rather than include; too interested in process rather than outcome; too concerned with rank rather than responsibility.

When we are together we are not always a group of people to whom many of our potential members are going to be magnetically drawn.

They think our social activity isn’t fun

One of the so-called benefits of membership is our social activity. To many potential members the idea of a Tory party social activity is at best rather more a threat than a promise, at worst a perfect oxymoron.

And they’re generally right: most of what we do under the banner of social activity has a pretty narrow appeal. If we struggle, as we often do, to get our existing members to come to things, why on earth would we think they’ll appeal to potential members?

I’m not saying that everything we do socially is unattractive; simply that the nearer it is to stereotype the less appealing it is to potential members.

They think we’ll beg and steal from them

And they’re right.

The widespread perception is that our party plunders its members at every turn. We rarely miss an opportunity to pick a member’s pocket. Their money disappears into a bottomless pit. And when we ask for more. Ad nauseam. Ad infinitum as well. If ever we say thank you, there’s always another please not far behind. We treat our members like an addict treats his dealer. Over the years we have come across as graceless, voracious, crass, always on the take.

The problem goes beyond our approach to money, but money is a big part of it. Of course we have an endless need to raise it. But sometimes we have gone about it in a not very intelligent way.



They think it’s a big step

The prospect of joining our party is perceived as a bigger step than joining almost any other type of organisation.

This is partly because it is seen as a slippery slope: they fear they’ll be dragged into political activism: leafleting on a wet Wednesday evening; worse still terrifying in fact: canvassing.

It’s also partly because they perceive that if they were to join us they would lose their intellectual independence; and they’d be required instead to defend some things policies, statements, decisions t they don’t believe in, or say we’re right when actually they think we’re wrong.

They don’t want to go public

Some (many?) people are deterred by any idea they might be publicly identified as a member of the party. Lots of people greatly prefer to keep their political views to themselves, especially if they are at odds with family or friends, work colleagues or neighbours.

As an aside, even the party’s creative director (Tom Edmonds) fits this bill: when I asked him if he’s a member he said he wasn’t because, and I quote: “it’d be on my record.”

Summary

Please join us. It costs £25. There are no real benefits. Individually we’re ok some of us are your friends even but collectively we’re sometimes not a very attractive group of people. Our parties aren’t fun. It’s a slippery slope to political activism. You’ll always have to support us, even when you know we are wrong. You’ll have to go public about being a Tory and face the consequences with your non-Tory friends. Oh and by the way, we’re after as much money as we can get; and we’ll never stop asking for it.



The solution

No reason to join. Lots of reasons not to.

We have to solve both these problems: we have to remove the reasons not to join or, if that just can’t be done, at the very least we have to minimise them; and we have to give people great reasons to join.

Think of membership as a product. It’s our product. We can’t sell it. Sure around 1,250 people in West Oxfordshire buy it every year, but that’s a failure not success. 33,973 people voted for us last year, so we know they’re well disposed towards us. But we can’t even get 5% of them to buy it.

It has to be said: we’re not great at selling it. We have to become cleverer at that. And we will. But actually we’re already better than almost every other constituency, so that’s not the problem.

The plain fact is that people don’t want to buy it. We therefore have to change it. If we can change it into something they want to buy, then buy it they will.

If one is trying to sell something, the first thing to do is identify the potential customer. We just can’t leave it at ‘everyone’s a potential customer’ because our product isn’t a commodity. Aiming a non-commodity product at everybody is the same as aiming at nobody.

So the first step is nothing much to do with the product. It is to narrow the target: to define a group of people whom we think might buy from us, have lots in common with each other, think similarly, like the same things.

The audience

We are going to focus on people who have voted for (and/or otherwise supported) us over many years, but never joined us. In the first instance at least, we are not going to try to win a single convert: not people into Tories, nor Tories into members.

In the nadir of 1997 we the party nationally - polled 30.7% of the vote. In 2010 it was 36.5%. While clearly one can’t draw this conclusion solely from those two poll numbers with 13 years between them, perhaps 75% of our electoral support is constant: long term, loyal, steadfast, dyed-in-the-wool, serial Tory voters, most of whom are middle aged or older.

We will focus on them because they don’t need to be convinced of our merits. Theirs is the support we are least likely to lose as, nationally, we do difficult things and become less popular.

What more can we say about them?

I’d like to divide the whole adult population, over the age of say 40, into two groups. One we’ll call political heavy. The other: political light.

Politics heavy people are really interested in politics.

Except at general elections and sometimes on single issues political light people aren’t.

Most British people are not greatly motivated by politics. To quote Andrew Cooper (founder of Populus, Director of Strategy at No.10, Chipping Norton resident) “they are not that bothered.”

98% of Tory voters are political light. Literally 98%.

The other 2% are not all activists, but they are members. As far as political light people are concerned, the fact of membership and what we do as members defines those 2% as politics heavy. The Policy Forum, Conservative Women’s Organisation, Conservative Future and so on: it doesn’t get much politics heavier.

Our potential members are happy to vote for us they support us, they share our values, some of them regard it as their duty to vote, and so on; and they may opine about politics rage about it sometimes. But they don’t consider themselves to be political in the sense that even approaches activism. It’s just not their thing. It never will be.

Most of the time, politics heavy is a big turnoff for politics light people. Hold that thought. We’ll return to it later.



The product

No reason to join. Lots of reasons not to.

We have to remove these reasons not to join or, iff that can’t be done, at the very least minimise them.

This is what should be done.

We think we’re not like them

We can’t change ourselves overnight. But we can start. We must look different when we communicate, when we’re together. We must sound different in what we say, in how we say it, the language we use, our tone of voice. We must behave differently try to see ourselves as others see us.

We do have to change, but not as much as one might think. Our target audience is in fact full of people just like us except in two ways.

We’re politics heavy; they’re politics light.

When we’re with politics light people, doing politics light things, we’re no more or less fun to be with than they are. But when we come together as a group we sometimes morph into something different, less attractive. Our WOCA environment alters us. We are not alone in this (just being behind the wheel of a car has the potential to change many of us).

So we must change the WOCA environment. In the meantime we must recognise that we need to make not just the message but also the messenger as attractive as possible.

They think our social activity isn’t fun

And as often as not they’re right. So instead of offering them things they don’t find attractive, we’ll offer them things they do.

They think they’ll beg or steal from them

And again, sometimes they’re right. So we’ll set out to earn whatever we seek from them, not beg for it. We will earn it through the profit margin on events, sponsorship, auctions, and other such activities where we are in effect either giving or selling something of perceived value.

We’ll also be more careful about how and when we sell to them. If we were to view every activity, every event, every act of communication as a fund-raising opportunity we could never neutralise the negative.

So sometimes we’ll just give, not take. Sometimes thanks will mean exactly and only that: no please; just thanks.

They think it’s a big step

To overcome this negative we’ll change what we ask, what we do and what we say.

When we ask them to join we’ll ask them only to share our values, give us their vote and not support our opponents. We’ll tell them we’ll spell it out that his doesn’t mean they have to agree, slavishly, with everything we say, support every policy, defend every decision, relinquish the right to think and speak for themselves, cease to hold their own opinions.

When we ask them to join we’ll promise that membership isn’t a slippery slope to political activism and we’ll make sure it isn’t. They won’t be pressured into doing things they don’t want to do; and it will be easy to opt out of anything.

We’ll give them an undertaking that they can resign their membership at any time for any reason. (They can at any moment, but that’s not the point.)

Imagine a spectrum with ‘just voting for us’ at one end and ‘political activism’ miles away at the other. I want to position joining us as not even a single step beyond just voting for us: the image is of one foot anchored safely where it is while just a toe of the other is dipped into the membership water.

They don’t want to go public

We’ll reassure them that their political affiliation, like their vote, will remain as private as they want it to be. We’ll reinforce this with an undertaking. We’ll give them a range of privacy options.

Summary

We will behave, look, sound and present ourselves differently. We’ll raise money by earning it, not begging for it. They won’t be asked to sign up to onerous, agree with our policies or defend us when they think we’re wrong. They won’t be press ganged into activism. They’ll have the option to keep their membership as private as they want. They can leave at a moment’s notice.

We will change all these things perception, reality or both. And we’ll find the best ways of getting the message across to potential members, so this new reality eradicates the current one as quickly and completely as possible.

If we do these things and communicate them effectively we will remove or minimise the reasons not to join.

But that of course is not enough. We have to give them reasons to join.



Reasons to join

As a political party our membership product has to be political, appropriate and consistent with our values, or it won’t be credible.

But and here’s the rub it doesn’t have to be politics heavy, which is what it is at the moment. It can be politics light.

We don’t have to stop doing politics heavy things at WOCA, of course. But we do have to stop thinking there’s the slightest chance of politics light people, in any significant number, being attracted to join them. There just isn’t.

There never has been. It’s what, pre 2005, DC used to call double ham and eggs: we’ve offered them ham and eggs repeatedly. They don’t want it. So how can the solution possibly be ham and eggs?

It can’t. It wasn’t then. It isn’t now.

But that’s precisely what we’ve been doing with membership. It’s what we’re still doing: we’re offering a politics heavy product to politics light potential customers. It’s not what they want. It doesn’t appeal to them. Of course they’re not buying it.

The horse died decades ago. We should stop flogging it.

Instead, we are going to minimise the current reasons to join, and offer our politics light potential members a range of politics light benefits, centred around a rolling programme of events they’ll really want to attend.

And we’re going to give them exceptional, compelling and clear value.

Great reasons to join. No reasons not to.

Characteristics of the programme

This paper is about membership strategy, not the details of what we propose to offer. Nevertheless, a little flesh on the bones.

What is a political light event?

An example; A day in HMP Wormwood Scrubs. Meet there at 11.00am. Tour of the prison. An hour with the governor: short introductory speech, question and answer, discussion about crime and punishment. Lunch with the prisoners: eat what they eat, with them behind bars.

Way beyond curiosity: mutual fascination.

What did you do today?

Peter Chadlington [Lord Chadlington who provides funding for WOCA] has organised this many times (on behalf of the League for penal Reform). I have been several times, to different prisons. It’s a great experience. Almost everyone would agree. Almost everyone would like it.

Another example: An evening [non-politician celebrity), in conversation on stage at Chipping Norton Theatre (the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire did this recently there, to packed house; so has Felix Dennis).

A third example: The Great Debate: loosely modelled on the Oxford Union, topical but politics light subject, maybe a political speaker maybe even 2 but prepredominantly not typical politician preaching party politics; the emphasis not on politics but entertainment with a Tory political ingredient somewhere in it.

There will be a rolling programme of these events. Here is a flavour of their defining features.

1. They will have what is known as ‘money-can’t-buy’ appeal: they will be events and activities not normally available from other sources. They will be bespoke.

2. They will be organised and staged to professional standards. WOCA is, in effect, going into the event managed business. WOCA as impresario, almost. At present the mind-set is perceived as: spend as little as possible, charge as much as possible, thereby maximise profit. It will become: this is first and foremost a membership benefit and only second a fundraising opportunity; do everything really well; offer high quality at a reasonable price; do our utmost to give them a great time.

3. There will be a range of events at different price points: something for everyone, as it were. Most events will be mid-price so as to have a broad appeal. But not all. For example, at one end of the scale we might have PMQ DIY Lunch: bring your own sandwiches to watch PMQs in different fine country house in the constituency (by courtesy of PPC member) every week; glass of wine, cup of coffee, informal discussion, yours for a fiver. At the other, we might have just Another ordinary day: we’ll organise it, but choose how you get there, stay where you like for as long as you like, and on one of those days: breakfast briefing with a senior staffer, tour the White House, lunch with a Senator yours for cost plus a £1,000 donation to WOCA.

4. Almost all events will also be open to non-members, but there will be differential pricing: say, for example, non-members £50, members £30. Three benefits of this: it establishes open market value at the higher price; it makes the financial case for membership clear; it thereby rewards existing members and encourages new ones.

5. Each year there will be at least one thing something attractive, of clear perceived value for nothing. Free for all members (albeit maybe sponsored by one or some) as part of their subscription. No fundraising there. No auction, silent or otherwise. Nothing for sale there. No please. Just thanks.

6. There will be a counterbalancing social action element to the programme. It will be far removed from the stereotypical spectre wonderfully enjoyable and worthwhile though it is of marauding hordes of Tories armed with paintbrushes, loose in the vicinity, bursting with bonhomie, furiously painting for victory. With late 60s as the average member’s age, this just doesn’t work for WOCA.

And so on. As I say, only a flavour. But I hope enough to illustrate.

Really enjoyable, attractive events. Utterly atypical. Organised and presented to professional standards. Everything done well. Attention to every tiny detail. Great value.

Great reasons to join.



Summary

We aim to achieve a transformational increase in WOCA membership, in ways others can apply to similar effect nationally.

Currently there is no reason to join our party; and there are lots of reasons not to. We want to solve both these problems.

We start with the audience. We will aim at the 32,000 constituents who voted for us in 2010 but aren’t members. Nationally, 98% of Tory voters are what I have called politics light: except at general elections (and sometimes over single issues) they’re basically not that interested in politics; and they never will be. The other 2% - our members nationally are politics heavy.

Most of the time, politics heavy is a big turn-off for politics light people. Our approach to membership has been unsuccessful for decades because it seeks to attract a politics light audience with an offer that is politics heavy and has no perceived value. This will never work.

Instead, we want to match the offer with the audience: to sell them something they want, not something they don’t.

We will base the membership proposition on: neutralising, or at least minimising, the current reasons not to join; offering a rolling programme of atypical, attractive, politics light events; providing exceptional, compelling and clear value.

Great reasons to join. No reason not to.


Conclusions

I talked at the outset about a transformational increase in membership; and about the first word being the principle target. I want to transform not just the membership proposition but the whole way we think about members and membership.

An association’s two main tasks are to win elections and raise money. I contend that we will become much better at both if we change our mind-set about members.

I also contend that, if we get the proposition, the quality and the communication right, the quantity will look after itself. If we offer a great membership proposition to the people at whom we’re aiming, they will want to buy it.

This isn’t a plan to follow. Just as important, we will have to implement it really well. Install it. Make change happen.

Finally, I promise that we launch the membership proposition and programme on Thursday 6th October, the day after DC’s conference speech.
Appendix

Initial implications

As I say, we will need a business plan and a communications plan. These are next priorities. The full implications of this new approach to membership will be addressed in them. In the meantime we can safely predict the following.

1. Membership recruitment will become primarily a WOCA rather than a branch activity. It would be unfair as well as unrealistic to try to implement change on the scale envisaged across 23 branches. This is not, of course, to propose that branches should have no recruitment role; but it is recognition that WOCA must itself take the major responsibility.

2. Without changes in the way we currently operate in the office, the administrative and organisational workload would grow to the point where it was unsustainable at sensible cost. We will therefore change our approach to, for example, membership communications and administration, so that more time is available to support a new programme of events.

3. Even with such changes, we will need to bring in more – and in some cases different resources and skills to bear. Several new senior (voluntary) roles will be created. For example, we will need people to lead whatever social action initiatives and major events we decide upon.

4. We need a new website with features and functionality not available to us from the current one. It will become the engine of membership recruitment, communication and administration. Many things we currently do manually or not at all can and should be automated so as to increase capacity and improve efficiency. We must begin work on this without delay: it’s likely to be the programme element with the longest lead time.

5. We will need to raise money in order to fund the website and membership recruitment programme. Although net revenue will be earned in due course, in the meantime programme costs will exceed new income generated.

There is an important point about cost of this programme. We will want to experiment, constantly try new things, find out what works and what doesn’t, relentlessly improve. In the early days, some events may succeed by qualitative and other terms of reference, but raise less than they cost. Other things will just fail. It’s inevitable. Some of the failures will be expensive. We will need this budgetary margin for error.

6. In the light of this strategy, and in particular the conclusions I have reached about politics heavy and politics light, we should take a fresh look at our existing activities the Supper Club, CPF, CF, CCWO for example and make plans for each.

7. We need a timetable critical path analysis, in fact to make sure we know what needs to be done, by whom and by when, so we’re ready to launch on Thursday 6th October.

8. If we are to achieve this deadline I will need to have delegated authority from the Executive Council to incur expenditure, appoint people to lead new initiatives and implement change arising from membership strategy, the business and communications plans. I will seek this authority at the Executive Council meeting on Wednesday 15th June. I will report on how I have used it at the next meeting, on Wednesday 28th September.

[scienceplease 2]

Christopher Shale murder linked to that of Dr. David Kelly

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/2499

This is new to me but apparently published in 2011...