on, parties simply don't have the resources for that. Of course a known name might well be scrutinised more closely. Looks like the Greens don't allow for dual membership though. Which is a pity in my book. I reckon a lot of their members wouldn't have been averse to pushing Labour from within while retaining their electoral preference. It's a fair point. I suppose the traditional justification for requiring exclusivity was to stop details of tactics etc. being leaked to rivals. But realistically ordinary members are not going to be privy to any really sensitive information. And when you're talking about allied parties like the Greens and Labour some sharing of members and strategy would be a positive thing. Perhaps a better rule would be to exclude office-holders from dual memberships. Perhaps "people" don't mind getting stuff in their letter box obviously branded with their political affiliation. I, being just a "person", actually do, for reasons I don't particularly want to go into. When I made my $400 donation to Labour before the last election I got an A3 envelope emblazoned with Labour in the mail that I didn't ask for or expect. So I think I'll be giving this a miss, unless there is a way to specify in membership that you do not want any mail correspondence (or such correspondence is in discrete envelopes). The democratic checks and balances would have to be set up within the branch. But basically, a Standard branch with 1000 members will be