Chizz, some interesting thoughts and observations,
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
I think Labour have 650k members and growing @Rob7Lee. I read a really good quote this morning from a Labour person that went something like " The Tories can throw money at an election but we can throw people".
Quite possibly, I was looking at a report from March 2017 and quantified it with it will have grown.
Very true on people, I certainly saw more labour 'helpers' on the campaign than Conservative if Effords Twitter was anything to go by.
So what makes people become a member of a political party. Taking Labour the policies and party is very different to 20 years ago, are the members now completely different members to back then or do a wave of people pin their flag to a party for life?
My gut feel is roughly 30% of the electorate (who vote) will always vote Tory, another 30% will always vote Labour, it may be more or less than that percentage and may not be equal. It's the other 40% or more (if more people actually go out and vote) who will decide each time based on the politics or leaders of the day.
I don't personally think having looked at the numbers of members over the past 40 years that a high membership means gaining power, in fact if anything the opposite seems true.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
I haven't followed UK politics as closely in the last ~year and a half as I would otherwise. So I'll keep this brief.
One thing I think is worth mentioning is that politics is cyclical. It seems less so in the UK where you don't *have* to have parliamentary elections every two and four years (did you hear that Madam Prime Minister?). But it tends to be the case that when a party is in power they will see their lead grow, then lessen, then power will change hands. We see that here too. A lot of other people have articulated things far better than I can, but that would be what I would say. To an extent, this is kind of normal.
C'mon @SDAddick I was hoping for at least several pages of analysis from you.
I would if I could mate! But I feel like it would just be sort of standard commentary against conservatism/austerity measures/etc.
You are never standard mate! Should read 'exemplary commentary' surely.
If the US comes calling for us to send troops to some pointless war, we find the money.
Need to refurb parliament. We find the money.
Need to bail out banks. We find the money.
Want to renew a hugely expensive weapon we've never used and likely never will. We find the money.
The 'magic money tree' exists. It's just politicians often choose to use it for things that don't benefit you and I like a lot of things they could spend the money on would.
What would you do to Parliament then? Knock it down? The place is a mess. For years they've not done proper work on it for fear if upsetting voters. Now it's crumbling inside & out.
Personally I'd flog it & turn it into a museum/hotel, use the proceeds to build a modern government building, hi tech, etc.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
Rob gets all his information from his story tree in the garden - I don't doubt he believes it so no problem for me However, moving on, it is obvious members are helpful, but it doesn't matter how many members you have, it is how many people vote for you that is important at the end of the day.
It is a big asset though towards achieving that end and I know the target is 1m, which is challenging but i think it can happen. I do get a sense that possibly some of the media and certainly the opposition, doesn't really know how slick and well organised the party is. I'm not going to keep going on about it anymore, because that lack of knowledge is a positive from Labour's perspective. Not that CL is going to make much difference - but battles have to be won on may fronts.
Maybe they could promise to right off people's loans , seems to work for Corbyn.
The student loan book is a fiasco waiting to happen. The deal with student loans is that you start paying them off once you earn a certain amount. Many students don't and won't ever earn enough. In addition the govt are being taken to court by Martyn Lewis of money saving expert because they retrospectively changed the terms. At some point in the future huge amounts will have to be written off. Far better to bite that bullet now rather than continue to pile up huge debts both personal and for the country.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
Rob gets all his information from his story tree in the garden - I don't doubt he believes it so no problem for me However, moving on, it is obvious members are helpful, but it doesn't matter how many members you have, it is how many people vote for you that is important at the end of the day.
It is a big asset though towards achieving that end and I know the target is 1m, which is challenging but i think it can happen. I do get a sense that possibly some of the media and certainly the opposition, doesn't really know how slick and well organised the party is. I'm not going to keep going on about it anymore, because that lack of knowledge is a positive from Labour's perspective. Not that CL is going to make much difference - but battles have to be won on may fronts.
get a life you lot! Yer, I just make up numbers as I see fit straight out of the reported numbers by the parties declarations;
Labour had an income of £51.153m, Conservative £41.887m
Political party financial accounts 2015
British National Party £376,424 Commonwealth Liberation Party £826,736 Conservative and Unionist Party £41,887,000 Co-operative Party £1,029,424 Democratic Unionist Party £533,682 Green Party £3,048,921 Labour Party £51,153,000 Liberal Democrats £7,881,909 Plaid Cymru £737,768 Scottish Green Party £390,417 Scottish National Party £6,010,002 SDLP £543,704 Sinn Fein £1,162,851 UKIP £5,816,166 Ulster Unionist Party £412,805 Women's Equality Party £640,836
the link you refer to Leuth isn't the full year........
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
They need to be more right wing, there are millions who don't vote and are just waiting to vote for an extreme right wing party. There's no real alternative, it's either labour or labour-lite.
^ basically the arguement put forward a couple of years ago for labour.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
See above...... anyone like to share any information that disproves this?
I can't disprove what you linked to (yet!) so apologies, I am gobsmacked as it flies against received wisdom. Are you sure the Tories haven't failed to accurately report something as they do have a bit of previous.
And as for asking us to get a life! Pot and kettle comes to mind.
The thing about members is interesting. Under Blair, Labour took a view that members were fine, so long as they were passive. What they wanted to deter were "activists" - people who would work for the party but in return expected to have some sort of say in what the party did. I knew people who were activists in Labour at the time and they felt they were being shoved to one side as communications with the media took centre stage rather than old-fashioned door-to-door campaigning. What Corbyn has done is to re-energise these activists and bring in a whole new raft of them. The Tories have less need of activists because nearly all newspapers support them and most broadcast media implicitly do as well. They do have them-hence the expenses scandal from the previous General Election, but don't need to rely on them so much. If we are in a different place now, however, when places like Kensington are marginal, they will need to do the same things, either by paying people or getting their activists to do it for free. All parties use activists - and tend to concentrate on places they know they need them - in this election I know people who lived in Lewisham who went to Eltham or Croydon Central to help out Labour. Pretty certain the Greens will have concentrated on Brighton massively - they've gone down to 4th in Lewisham Deptford which used to be their number 2 target seat. Likewise LibDems in Richmond and Kingston. If the Tories are to recover they need to grow an activist base capable to doing this on a more consistent level. I wasn't canvassed by anyone, but a mate was by all the main parties except the Tories. I realise they don't stand a chance in Lewisham Deptford, but it does send a message all the same.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
See above...... anyone like to share any information that disproves this?
I can't disprove what you linked to (yet!) so apologies, I am gobsmacked as it flies against received wisdom. Are you sure the Tories haven't failed to accurately report something as they do have a bit of previous.
And as for asking us to get a life! Pot and kettle comes to mind.
Have to say I was surprised at the numbers too, maybe I was a bit strong but then I was told to stop lying......
So that's where my £160 a year Union membership goes. I thought it was just the rich fat cats that like to starve the working man via the Tories. You tell me how belonging to a union justifies a £160 annual charge?
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
See above...... anyone like to share any information that disproves this?
I can't disprove what you linked to (yet!) so apologies, I am gobsmacked as it flies against received wisdom. Are you sure the Tories haven't failed to accurately report something as they do have a bit of previous.
And as for asking us to get a life! Pot and kettle comes to mind.
Have to say I was surprised at the numbers too, maybe I was a bit strong but then I was told to stop lying......
Not by me, and the get a life bit I took to be a joke because it is all to true.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
So that's where my £160 a year Union membership goes. I thought it was just the rich fat cats that like to starve the working man via the Tories. You tell me how belonging to a union justifies a £160 annual charge?
They should stop being realistic, stop thinking about money and just spend spend spend whilst promising the world. That's what we all want to hear...
But we are seeing the downside to this since Tony Blair came in and did exactly that.
We will see Labour come in again soon and do their damage with overspending on an ideology and it'll be the Tories called back in to clear up the mess again in 10 years. But the thing that worries me is they didn't do as well at clearing up this time as they had in the past so I hate to think what damage will be done next time by Labour.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
They should stop being realistic, stop thinking about money and just spend spend spend whilst promising the world. That's what we all want to hear...
But we are seeing the downside to this since Tony Blair came in and did exactly that.
We will see Labour come in again soon and do their damage with overspending on an ideology and it'll be the Tories called back in to clear up the mess again in 10 years. But the thing that worries me is they didn't do as well at clearing up this time as they had in the past so I hate to think what damage will be done next time by Labour.
This is the How do the Tories need to change thread, I think you need the How does Labour need to change thread.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
I thought that many of the Tory members were also Labour members and had elected Corbyn in the last leadership vote to ensure a Tory landslide victory in a GE.
That's a myth used by the blair bods to stop new members voting for the leadership
What the Tories will have learnt from this debacle is that arrogance and assumption is not the way to win an election; that you can't call an election on a one-policy strategy; you need to properly interact with the general public and if you are offering strong, stable leadership then demonstrate it yourselves rather than rely on the opposition's lack of decisive leadership to do the job for you.
They may have lost the current youth vote for good after this performance; add to that the extra millions reaching voting age in the next 4 years, plus the older, home-owning Tory voters dying off in the same period; they will have a difficult time at the next election, regardless of how they perform during this period in office.
As much as anything, Theresa May's performance as a "strong and stable leader" lost them their majority and perhaps the most important change the party needs to make is to find a new, dynamic, compelling and personable leader. Not easy!
I think you give them too much credit. You are 100% right that arrogance cost them - although I think that the cuts to the Police, that was overseen by May, and timing of the two terrorist attacks had a big impact in the last week. Where I think you are being too generous is that they are too arrogant to believe that they are too arrogant!
If I focus on what I think were the mistakes of the Tory campaign, I think it was the lack of response to events. It did seem logical at the start of the election to make it about May and Corbyn and let him make the mistakes. But as things started to go badly, it needed a change of tactics. The strong and stable mantra became a joke and it was kept too long after this was the case. Corbyn played two masterstrokes - First the leaking of the manifesto that Labour had actually put real effort into because they realised how important it was). What it did was create a lot of publicity and coverage prior to the actual launch and the Tories were focussing on the launch. Secondly was the last minute decision of Corbyn to enter the second debate. The tactics of this can't be underestimated.
What May had to do was realise that a perfectly reasonable initial strategy wasn't working and change tack. She called the election but the threat wasn't taken seriously and they had not built in contingencies. Labour when formulating its plan would have known exactly what the Tory one was, we all did. Nothing wrong with that when things are going well, but when they are sliding you have to respond. Momentum in politics is a massive thing and so is losing it.
Normally, you would expect the terrorist atrocities to hurt Labour - but they did highlight how badly the Home Office have performed in relation to protecting us. And the person who was at the Home Office for 6 years before becoming Prime Minsiter was May. Her record was rubbish - watering down anti- terrorist laws and cutting Police. Not sure what could have been done about that - and we all wished it wasn't a factor one way or the other because these actions can't ever affect or democracy.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
See above...... anyone like to share any information that disproves this?
I can't disprove what you linked to (yet!) so apologies, I am gobsmacked as it flies against received wisdom. Are you sure the Tories haven't failed to accurately report something as they do have a bit of previous.
And as for asking us to get a life! Pot and kettle comes to mind.
Have to say I was surprised at the numbers too, maybe I was a bit strong but then I was told to stop lying......
wouldn't that include the surge in membership after the election when Corbyn won power as it is all of 2015?
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
Maybe they could promise to right off people's loans , seems to work for Corbyn.
The student loan book is a fiasco waiting to happen. The deal with student loans is that you start paying them off once you earn a certain amount. Many students don't and won't ever earn enough. In addition the govt are being taken to court by Martyn Lewis of money saving expert because they retrospectively changed the terms. At some point in the future huge amounts will have to be written off. Far better to bite that bullet now rather than continue to pile up huge debts both personal and for the country.
The most realistic solution is to cut the number that go to university. From what I've seen (and it is all anecdotal) there are a huge number of people in higher education that shouldn't be there and are 'wasting' the money that it's costing to educate them.
I find it hard to believe that there is much benefit in providing degrees in communications or media studies to people that are going to be serving fries at McDonalds. This is not an elitist agenda, but there are lots and lots of graduates that don't have the academic qualifications (like having two Ds and an E at 'A' Level) for a graduate training position and will have wasted three years of their lives and run up thousands of pounds of debt (not all of it in government backed student loans) and will still end up in the same kind of job that they could have got at eighteen.
Of my Niece and Nephew's generation there is a feeling that they have been cheated as they did 'A' levels (and got less than average grades) spent three years 'studying' (in reality drinking, playing video games and bunking off lectures) and now they've finished they have huge debts and can't get a job on a basic of £50k with a convertible company car! You see their parents went to University and have all those things. The fact that their parents worked much harder than they did - probably from about thirteen - and achieved much better 'A' levels and secured a place at a much better University and worked much, much harder while there is lost on them.
To get this back to the topic in hand, I think it's obscene that those that don't appreciate education but see it as a three year party should have someone else pay for it for them. Ironically of those graduates that I know that are Accountants or Solicitors (and I know quite a few) none of them begrudge paying back their student loans, but then they were so grateful for the opportunity to study for three years that they worked hard and justified the costs, both the tax payer's contribution and their own.
Comments
Very true on people, I certainly saw more labour 'helpers' on the campaign than Conservative if Effords Twitter was anything to go by.
So what makes people become a member of a political party. Taking Labour the policies and party is very different to 20 years ago, are the members now completely different members to back then or do a wave of people pin their flag to a party for life?
My gut feel is roughly 30% of the electorate (who vote) will always vote Tory, another 30% will always vote Labour, it may be more or less than that percentage and may not be equal. It's the other 40% or more (if more people actually go out and vote) who will decide each time based on the politics or leaders of the day.
I don't personally think having looked at the numbers of members over the past 40 years that a high membership means gaining power, in fact if anything the opposite seems true.
Personally I'd flog it & turn it into a museum/hotel, use the proceeds to build a modern government building, hi tech, etc.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/28/massive-surge-donations-2015-general-election-most-expensive-ever
It is a big asset though towards achieving that end and I know the target is 1m, which is challenging but i think it can happen. I do get a sense that possibly some of the media and certainly the opposition, doesn't really know how slick and well organised the party is. I'm not going to keep going on about it anymore, because that lack of knowledge is a positive from Labour's perspective. Not that CL is going to make much difference - but battles have to be won on may fronts.
get a life you lot! Yer, I just make up numbers as I see fit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36977840
Labour had an income of £51.153m, Conservative £41.887m
Political party financial accounts 2015
British National Party £376,424
Commonwealth Liberation Party £826,736
Conservative and Unionist Party £41,887,000
Co-operative Party £1,029,424
Democratic Unionist Party £533,682
Green Party £3,048,921
Labour Party £51,153,000
Liberal Democrats £7,881,909
Plaid Cymru £737,768
Scottish Green Party £390,417
Scottish National Party £6,010,002
SDLP £543,704
Sinn Fein £1,162,851
UKIP £5,816,166
Ulster Unionist Party £412,805
Women's Equality Party £640,836
the link you refer to Leuth isn't the full year........
So run by me where I've been telling lies?
^ basically the arguement put forward a couple of years ago for labour.
And as for asking us to get a life! Pot and kettle comes to mind.
The Tories have less need of activists because nearly all newspapers support them and most broadcast media implicitly do as well. They do have them-hence the expenses scandal from the previous General Election, but don't need to rely on them so much. If we are in a different place now, however, when places like Kensington are marginal, they will need to do the same things, either by paying people or getting their activists to do it for free.
All parties use activists - and tend to concentrate on places they know they need them - in this election I know people who lived in Lewisham who went to Eltham or Croydon Central to help out Labour. Pretty certain the Greens will have concentrated on Brighton massively - they've gone down to 4th in Lewisham Deptford which used to be their number 2 target seat. Likewise LibDems in Richmond and Kingston. If the Tories are to recover they need to grow an activist base capable to doing this on a more consistent level. I wasn't canvassed by anyone, but a mate was by all the main parties except the Tories. I realise they don't stand a chance in Lewisham Deptford, but it does send a message all the same.
Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
But we are seeing the downside to this since Tony Blair came in and did exactly that.
We will see Labour come in again soon and do their damage with overspending on an ideology and it'll be the Tories called back in to clear up the mess again in 10 years. But the thing that worries me is they didn't do as well at clearing up this time as they had in the past so I hate to think what damage will be done next time by Labour.
What May had to do was realise that a perfectly reasonable initial strategy wasn't working and change tack. She called the election but the threat wasn't taken seriously and they had not built in contingencies. Labour when formulating its plan would have known exactly what the Tory one was, we all did. Nothing wrong with that when things are going well, but when they are sliding you have to respond. Momentum in politics is a massive thing and so is losing it.
Normally, you would expect the terrorist atrocities to hurt Labour - but they did highlight how badly the Home Office have performed in relation to protecting us. And the person who was at the Home Office for 6 years before becoming Prime Minsiter was May. Her record was rubbish - watering down anti- terrorist laws and cutting Police. Not sure what could have been done about that - and we all wished it wasn't a factor one way or the other because these actions can't ever affect or democracy.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm
I find it hard to believe that there is much benefit in providing degrees in communications or media studies to people that are going to be serving fries at McDonalds. This is not an elitist agenda, but there are lots and lots of graduates that don't have the academic qualifications (like having two Ds and an E at 'A' Level) for a graduate training position and will have wasted three years of their lives and run up thousands of pounds of debt (not all of it in government backed student loans) and will still end up in the same kind of job that they could have got at eighteen.
Of my Niece and Nephew's generation there is a feeling that they have been cheated as they did 'A' levels (and got less than average grades) spent three years 'studying' (in reality drinking, playing video games and bunking off lectures) and now they've finished they have huge debts and can't get a job on a basic of £50k with a convertible company car! You see their parents went to University and have all those things. The fact that their parents worked much harder than they did - probably from about thirteen - and achieved much better 'A' levels and secured a place at a much better University and worked much, much harder while there is lost on them.
To get this back to the topic in hand, I think it's obscene that those that don't appreciate education but see it as a three year party should have someone else pay for it for them. Ironically of those graduates that I know that are Accountants or Solicitors (and I know quite a few) none of them begrudge paying back their student loans, but then they were so grateful for the opportunity to study for three years that they worked hard and justified the costs, both the tax payer's contribution and their own.