Disenchantment With Westminster Sees Party Membership Plummet

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-politics-at-a-crossroads-disenchantment-with-westminster-sees-party-membership-plummet-8753054.html

The public’s disenchantment with Westminster is now so severe senior Conservative figures fear the party’s membership has fallen to 100,000 for the first time in modern politics – a fraction of its three million heyday.

The dramatic decline – similar to a haemorrhage in numbers of Labour and Liberal Democrat activists in recent years – prompted warnings that political leaders needed to adopt radically new ways of engaging with voters to avoid becoming obsolete in the internet age.

The warnings came as the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, backed a fundamental overhaul of Parliament to help it to reconnect with voters.

He suggested that centuries of “arrogant” control by ministers needed to end and raised worries that the institution would become irrelevant to people’s lives unless it was able to respond quickly to mass communications.

Conservative headquarters has come under fire within the party for steadfastly refusing to disclose its latest membership numbers. Its reticence has raised suspicions that the total is embarrassingly low.

Douglas Carswell, an MP pressing for fundamental overhaul of the party’s operation, said he would not be surprised if membership was now “south of 100,000”. Paul Goodman, the editor of the ConservativeHome website, said his “guesstimate” was that membership was between 100,000 and 130,000. Numbers are thought to have halved since David Cameron became leader.

The scale of the problem facing the party is underlined by a drop of revenue from membership fees of more than a quarter between 2010 and 2012.

Further down the article it estimates Labour has 200,000 members. At least with so few members it means the real talent can get to the top.... Great news for the sociopaths who want to lead far less competition.

Are UKip membership numbers?

[The Knimbies who say No]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-politics-at-a-crossroads-disenchantment-with-westminster-sees-party-membership-plummet-8753054.html

Further down the article it estimates Labour has 200,000 members. At least with so few members it means the real talent can get to the top.... Great news for the sociopaths who want to lead far less competition.

Are UKip membership numbers?

Cons have been very secretive regarding member numbers. I think the only option for them is a post-election clearout of those wetter than a fish's wet bits, which probably means in excess of half the parliamentary party, including most if not all of the front bench.

And remember, highly-regarded political strategists keep banging on about the middle ground being where you want to be positioned. This seems the inevitable consequence-noone believes you.

Labour's numbers might be muddied by the way unions act, I've seen it said that people have been signed up without consent.

Adding them both, we get two parties whose membership may represent 1% ofthe adult population. Very representative.

UKIP have a much smaller membership iirc, but crucially their membership is growing.

[EUBanana]

Looks like it's of the order of 15k in UKIP.

7k in the SWP.

The BNP claims 15k ish as well it seems, I am surprised. Maybe it's lies tho.

[spongeh]

Looks like it's of the order of 15k in UKIP.

7k in the SWP.

The BNP claims 15k ish as well it seems, I am surprised. Maybe it's lies tho.

UKIP hit over 30k at the end of June and is still rising steadily, some rumours that it's currently heading towards the 40k mark.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/ukip-membership-hits-30000-could-it-overtake-lib-dems-next

[Tankus]

Its like a lot of chapels in my neck of the woods , the bulk of the numbers appear to be made up of people closer to death than to birth.

its just not 3 channel TV anymore ,more outlets, more opportunities, interests have become more varied , as the channels have become less relevant and inclusive

We are heading for many small niche party's catering to limited numbers .discovery channel politics. Heh...!

. A knock on from multiculturalism as well as a non communal upbringing and shared threats (WWII).The old boundary's no longer are as distinct.

Politics is not the only thing that's not keeping up with the rate of change , which is going to speed up as the old guard dies off.

.....

The rise of the nutters

[The Knimbies who say No]

UKIP hit over 30k at the end of June and is still rising steadily, some rumours that it's currently heading towards the 40k mark.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/ukip-membership-hits-30000-could-it-overtake-lib-dems-next

The Lib-Dem figures quoted there are horrific, 42,000 members currently, down 35% since 2010 and the lowest in the party's history!! They fully deserve it of course.

Edited August 9, 2013 by cheeznbreed

[billybong]

The dramatic decline – similar to a haemorrhage in numbers of Labour and Liberal Democrat activists in recent years – prompted warnings that political leaders needed to adopt radically new ways of engaging with voters to avoid becoming obsolete in the internet age.

There's that word again. The word radical that was used to describe Carney's recent same old same old policy announcement on 'pre-commitment' interest rates etc.

If the "new ways" are as "radical" as Carney's new ways then the country will never recover never mind the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

The rise of the nutters sums up Tony Blair and Cameron nicely. Combined with the expenses issue, it is little wonder that in an attempt to capture non-core voters they lose the plot, and party members. This, and George economics, are the reasons we will have coalitions for the next few decades.

[Snafu]

Soon party political funding will be on the agenda again. I'm not opposed it - as long as donations from the public are removed/capped massively.

I dislike the summer trips the politicos do - Bercow touring the extolling the virtues of democracy??????

[fluffy666]

Well, given that the manifestos of both Labour and Conservative seem to be:

a - Do whatever the City asks for, regardless of costs and/or sanity.

b - Continue the progressive outsourcing of public services to favoured contractors without bothering to put such changes in your manifesto.

c - Bung a few quid to either the pensioners (if Conservative) or public sector workers (if Labour) to keep them voting for you.

d - Tinker around the edges of the tax and benefits systems on a 'Maximum complexity, minimum saving' basis.

e - Waffle like you mean it.

Why would any member of the general public bother with membership? The fact that the top echelons of the parties seem to be sewn up in advance dosen't help..

EDIT:

In my North Somerset constituency, we have a new Labour candidate. American bloke, got citenship in 2006, lives in Notting Hill. Chosen over the local candidates, naturally. Hope he has a decent SatNav so he can find the place.

Edited August 9, 2013 by fluffy666

[billybong]

In the early 1950s three million Britons were paid-up Conservatives and the number remained over one million for much of the 1980s. When David Cameron became leader in 2005, membership stood at 258,000 and has fallen steadily since. A Tory spokesman refused to comment on its membership figures.

Apparently only last year the membership was 177,000 so it's nearly halved in a year. Catastrophic for them.

Likely 2012 was a tipping point when people were really able to compare election promises with reality along with all the subsequent statements, promises and guarantees that just get discarded almost overnight and there's also been Help to Buy since 2012 which doesn't seem to have helped their decline one bit.

Likely members will put up with some outright and blatant self interested electioneering policies when the country appears to be in reasonable economic health but not so when the economy is clearly devastated and on its knees.

Edited August 9, 2013 by billybong

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

Well, given that the manifestos of both Labour and Conservative seem to be:

a - Do whatever the City asks for, regardless of costs and/or sanity.

b - Continue the progressive outsourcing of public services to favoured contractors without bothering to put such changes in your manifesto.

c - Bung a few quid to either the pensioners (if Conservative) or public sector workers (if Labour) to keep them voting for you.

d - Tinker around the edges of the tax and benefits systems on a 'Maximum complexity, minimum saving' basis.

e - Waffle like you mean it.

Why would any member of the general public bother with membership? The fact that the top echelons of the parties seem to be sewn up in advance dosen't help..

Brilliant.

[@contradevian]

Couldn't care less. let them all die.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

i suppose it might be too much for the UK to become an actual democracy and recognise the largest democratic majority of self representation in place for decades

Edited August 9, 2013 by Maria Gorski

[winkie]

Well, given that the manifestos of both Labour and Conservative seem to be:

a - Do whatever the City asks for, regardless of costs and/or sanity.

b - Continue the progressive outsourcing of public services to favoured contractors without bothering to put such changes in your manifesto.

c - Bung a few quid to either the pensioners (if Conservative) or public sector workers (if Labour) to keep them voting for you.

d - Tinker around the edges of the tax and benefits systems on a 'Maximum complexity, minimum saving' basis.

e - Waffle like you mean it.

Why would any member of the general public bother with membership? The fact that the top echelons of the parties seem to be sewn up in advance dosen't help..

Fluffy for PM.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Well, given that the manifestos of both Labour and Conservative seem to be:

a - Do whatever the City asks for, regardless of costs and/or sanity.

b - Continue the progressive outsourcing of public services to favoured contractors without bothering to put such changes in your manifesto.

c - Bung a few quid to either the pensioners (if Conservative) or public sector workers (if Labour) to keep them voting for you.

d - Tinker around the edges of the tax and benefits systems on a 'Maximum complexity, minimum saving' basis.

e - Waffle like you mean it.

Why would any member of the general public bother with membership? The fact that the top echelons of the parties seem to be sewn up in advance dosen't help..

EDIT:

In my North Somerset constituency, we have a new Labour candidate. American bloke, got citenship in 2006, lives in Notting Hill. Chosen over the local candidates, naturally. Hope he has a decent SatNav so he can find the place.

Excellent post.

[Riedquat]

Fluffy for PM.

He didn't say that he thinks any of those things are bad...

[fluffy666]

He didn't say that he thinks any of those things are bad...

Damm..

Let's face it, in the extremely unlikely event of my getting anywhere near the levers of power, it would become extremely hazardous for me to go on a walk in the woods..

[goldbug9999]

i suppose it might be too much for the UK to become an actual democracy and recognise the largest democratic majority of self representation in place for decades

The cultivation of political ambivalence among the populace is IMO a deliberate policy by all the conservative parties (lib/lab/tory).

After all its easier and cheaper to manipulate and bribe a smaller effective voting population.

[interestrateripoff]

The cultivation of political ambivalence among the populace is IMO a deliberate policy by all the conservative parties (lib/lab/tory).

After all its easier and cheaper to manipulate and bribe a smaller effective voting population.

Although extremely risky if a populist party suddenly emerges with a leader that immediately connects with the non voting populace.

[fluffy666]

The cultivation of political ambivalence among the populace is IMO a deliberate policy by all the conservative parties (lib/lab/tory).

After all its easier and cheaper to manipulate and bribe a smaller effective voting population.

It's an unfortunate modern 'trick'.. the range of policies that are discussed is kept to a very narrow set, and anything outside of that is treated as some kind of madness.

[Jie Bie]

Those numbers look a bit on the low side to me - I know that the SNP have around 25k members, and they only have 10% of the UK population to draw on!

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

The cultivation of political ambivalence among the populace is IMO a deliberate policy by all the conservative parties (lib/lab/tory).

After all its easier and cheaper to manipulate and bribe a smaller effective voting population.

Therese no evidence that the population are politically ambivalent, there is a democratic majority choosing no representive though, all i suggested was the UK becomes a democracy and recognises the democratic majority

When i lived in the UK i was unable to vote every time because my democratic right was removed unless i chose someone (i didnt know from adam) to represent me. The only person i know on the planet who can possibly represent my diverse views across the political,socio,economic spectrum is me. Im simply highlighting i find it laughable the UK could call itself a democracy without allowing me the opportunity to express those views through self representation when the ability is clearly there.

Hell, even when the ability wasnt there the ability to implement right of recall and right of forcing a referendum has been. There is no problem with a representive democracy when its democratic if thats what people want, the main issue is the democratic majority in the UK for decades has democratically refused representation and had minority dictat imposed as it would be under any autocracy

If 51% of the popn wish to vote labour or tory or lib dem or ukip or monster raving or polpot to represent them, thats a democracy and their choice, it would be democratic no matter how much i disagreed with it, but when the majority choose no representative thats a blindingly obvious autocracy to anyone with a basic grasp of arithmetic

Edited August 9, 2013 by Maria Gorski

[EUBanana]

UKIP hit over 30k at the end of June and is still rising steadily, some rumours that it's currently heading towards the 40k mark.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/ukip-membership-hits-30000-could-it-overtake-lib-dems-next

My numbers were a couple of years old, can't say I'm all that surprised.

[Bear Goggles]

I think we are at a fascinating point in political history. We are witnessing a transition period where a new generation is about to come of age. This is a Europe-wide phenomenon, but seems especially relevant in NIMBY rentier Britain.

About 25 years ago, the younger generation's interests stopped being represented by the mainstream parties. This has meant that people currently under about 40 have completely withdrawn from mainstream politics. This in turn has resulted in a vicious political and economic attack on successive generations of younger people by the policies of the mainstream parties as they act on their short-term self-interest and the interests of their ageing voter base, marginalising the young yet further.

Apparently the average age of a Tory party member is 74, Labour's is only around 10 years younger. These people are dying off, they're history, their generation is passing and we are about the reap what they've sown. Even the baby boomer generation are becoming politically fragmented as many turn to UKIP (average voter age of about 55) in an attempt to 'get things back to how they were'.

At some point we will hit a tipping point, and a political party (probably an existing one) is going to twig that policies that benefit the young may help increase their membership and their overall vote. These policies will need to be a radical departure from the current crock. We may still be 10 years off from this and I have no idea how it will be shaped, but it is coming.