trainers, and their learners. 2011 membership fees dispute Dispute history In February 2009 the IfL launched its 5-year plan for 2009–2014, this was reported in the TES where it was noted that the 2008 membership survey indicated that 47% of members joined because they were required to do so by their employer. Of these, some (not quantified) felt 'they had been forced to join against their will'. A typical comment from this group was: 'I feel bullied into being a member and totally resent the existence of this organisation'. Others (not quantified) voiced support for Ifl, one describing it as 'a great tool in order to advance our teachers, trainers and tutors into the next decade'. It is against this backdrop that the membership fees dispute started. In November 2009, government set out in Skills for Growth that IfL would need to become self-financed 'within three years', a position that was accepted by IfL's chief executive Toni Fazaeli. With the results of the UK general election in May 2010 returning no clear majority the subsequent formation of a coalition government introduced a number of uncertainties with respect to public policy. The coalition government confirmed in Skills for Sustainable Growth (November 2010) that the cost of funding IfL membership would move from government to the individual, a model prevalent in most forms of professional regulation. It wasn't until much later in 2010 (late December) that IfL was made aware of the transitional funding government would provide. Publication of subscription arrangements The subscription arrangements were subsequently disclosed, in an embargoed letter from IfL's Chief Executive Toni Fazaeli to employers on 4 February 2011, prior to informing members on 8 February 2011. Standard membership fees were originally due to rise from £30 per year (government paid) to £68 (for 18 months in the transitional period), as IfL membership would no longer be fully funded by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). Previously membership had been at no cost to members required to join IfL by the Further Education Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007 or through requirements placed on learning providers by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA). Initial objections raised The scale of the increase and the transfer of payment from government to individual teachers and trainers caused some controversy to be reported in FE Focus, an insert to the Times Educational Supplement. UCU expressed surprise that IfL