Posts
Dave's Debacle: Click to Enlarge, Image Not Membership
In 1995 Tony Blair's new leadership and desire for government, along with the Tories' desperate unpopularity led to blossoming membership for the people's party. Up to 400,000 plus by 1997. Over ten years this has halved of course. Many left soon after Labour were safely elected. They'd done their bit.
But since David Cameron became leader of the new-fangled Conselfservative party there has been no boost at all. Adherents have lost their stick and have been leaving in droves. 10 and 20% losses in a couple of years are not uncommon around the country. Labourlist.org has the constituency-by-constituency, MP-by-MP horrors for the blue crew.
You can click the above to enlarge. But only the image will grow. The Tory membership numbers will continue to go down the toilet. Hurrah!
CREDIT: This work is by John Mann MP - representative for the birthplace-of-the-LOL and Man Uni contemporary - and Mike Joslin, bicycle prefect in chief.
19 comments:
i have never read such crap as that opening paragraph and I read your blog often.
People smelt bullshit from the people's party even before it was elected.
What was the membership level in 1994 Chris? Higher or lower than 200,000?
Oh, dear boy anon, my old friend, it was higher. But the point is that in the run up to 1997 - under Cam's hero and model Blair - it grewed and it grewed and it grewed to 400,000 plus. Tory membership on the other hand is drifting away.
If membership in 94 was more than 400,000 you'd have a point. But as it is you are a sad drunk posting drunkenly in a lonely doss hole in Heywood at 1 am. No offence.
I'm not hennigan, but I am interested in your obsession. What's the root of it?
Labour membership used to be 407,000. It is now just under 177,000. This is 'half', is it, Chris? Or are you just choosing your years of comparison very carefully to present the best of a very bad job.
"Many left soon after Labour were safely elected. They'd done their bit."
That was meant to be ironic, wasn't it? Wasn't it!
The biggest drop in Labour membership came in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Obviously, the brothers and sisters felt that "they had done their bit".
It actually suggests that it wasn't the armchair members that were leaving but the activists - leaving behind only the numpties.
Labour Party membership is now thought to be at an historic low. And it is obvious from the level of debate from the comrades on your site that you haven't even gone for quality over quantity.
Dis I mention that Labour is also £19 million in debt? No. Well, the Labour Party is £19 miliion in debt.
A few days ago the party announced that it had just received a one million pound donation which it was going to spend on campaigning.
If I had a huge personal debt, was given a large cash present and immediately went out on a shopping spree, I can't imagine that my creditors would be very pleased.
All evil?
Oh Chris deary me!
How far your party has gone when you're talking about how many members the conservatives have got.
Lets talk about how your party have bankrupt this country how unemployment figures are through the roof and how "official figures" are basicaly wrong or what about a party who has introduced so many taxes to normal people that many people have lost count.
Or even how under Labour council tax has risen so much it now has snow on the top.
You like your party are arogant and will lose at the next General Election because you have shit all over the people who voted your party in the first place.
One thing people will remember about your parties time in government that the Labour party can not be trusted with public money and yet again it will be the Tories wiping the shit you have created.
All evil? Was the answer to the not Hennigan anon who pretended to be the Hennigan anon of 1 am. Over ten years it has halved. In fact it did so over eight years. More than halved over 11.5 years as you are being pedantic.
But this is not the point. Parties in government do lose members history shows. And not just in the UK. However the precedent between 1994 and 1997 under Blair was an increase from around 260,000 to over 400,000. In a period that ought to be similar for New Tory the boy Cam has been losing members hand over fist.
It's a good report.
On your silly billiness changing the subject over cash-in-hand (not) at Labour HQ you are deliberately missing the point are you not?
All of us who have mortgages are sitting on debts that for our own turnovers are far far higher than that faced by the Labour Party. Mutiplied by up to seven-fold at the outset of mortgages on their incomes.
When we get a windfall we have a choice of using it for something that adds value or that we enjoy or that we want or need; or reducing our mortgage by a lump sum. Given the price of money at the moment, versus most of our mortgage rates, paying off mortgages early is not the best use of a windfall.
Cue for argumentative bananas non sequitors from EHC.
Once again posts cross. Twaddle this time form "things can only get bitter". Sorry sad mess.
If the Labour Party actually had assets worth the full amount of their debt then you just might have a point. However, all reports suggest that they have nothing of the sort.
So, as you have inadvertently pointed out, the Labour Party is proably and knowingly trading illegally. Who do you think should be charged with this criminal activity?
EHC
The Labour Party doesn't trade - legally or otherwise - 11 minutes to get your non sequitur in, not bad! Libellous as well accusing the Labour Party of doing something illegal.
"with Labour holding few assets, and running up a loss last year of [pound]15m, business accountants questioned the Prime Minister's confidence. "If this was a company, I would be looking to wind it up," said one partner in a senior firm of corporate accountants."
And who precisely have I libelled?
The Labour Party you accused it of acting illegally - it isn't a company and it doesn't trade - the same rules don't apply (it doesn't have limited liability for a start).
If you were a rubbish dump you would be full of garbage.
Look up non sequitur!
"It is important to bear in mind that the highly reputable firm of Horwath Clark Whitehill can sign off on its annual financial statement only if Labour is regarded as a 'viable going concern'. However, as matters stand, this is not the case. Even ignoring the party's vanishing asset base, there is also a deeply worrying mismatch between income and expenditure."
Are you saying that the Labour Party can go on spending without any consideration for its creditors. A business is not allowed to act in this way, nor is a charity, or a trust, or an unincorporated organisation.
So, maybe you'll accept this from the Electoral Commission:
"The Labour and Conservative parties ran up record deficits of nearly £30m between them to fight the last general election, according to accounts from both organisations released by the Electoral Commission yesterday.
Without the secret loans which were only revealed after the election, both parties would have gone bust. They are being kept afloat by millionaires who have lent parties almost £30m on favourable terms and are not expecting to be paid back immediately."
What rules do govern the running of political parties?
Who have I libelled?
BTW, the Labour Party is also £6.3 million in debt with its own pension fund. That sum is not included in its liabilities.
Now you really are talking garbage - Horwath's have signed off on the Party's accounts because they think that it is a going concern - and I suspect that they know rather more about the real situation than you do. Going and read the auditing standard on going concern before you spout anymore rubbish on the subject.
BTW the Labour Party pension scheme was not in deficit at the time of the last accounts - so there is no longer any liability to include in its accounts. But when there was it was included - as is required by FRS 17 (look it up and read before you wish to demonstrate your ignorance even further).
Accusing anyone of acting illegally when they haven't is libellous - though I suspect that the Labour Party doesn't worry about being libelled by idiots as the damages it would suffer to its reputation would be minimal.
EHC - you are getting well and truly kippered up here. Deservedly.
But let's remember the point in question is the declining membership of the Conservative Party compared with the rocketing membership of the Labour party in a comparable period in its cycle.
The pension debt was not included in the liability because it is not expected to be paid out within the next 12 months - nor was the party's remortgaging of party HQ, adding another £5 million.
As for your point about Labour not having limited liability, well it looks as though they are actively considering doing so:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/29/labour
If you want the full details, but here are the highlights if you don't.
The Labour Party are so concerned about the reckless debt that has been run up that they are considering the prospect of changing its status to a limited liability company becuase it is terrified that its officials, leaders and NEC members could be made personally liable for the debt.
The GMB have decided to indemnify its NEC members in order to protect their homes and savings.
According to The Gurdian:
"The possibility that party officials and members of its national executive committee could become liable is being taken seriously by union leaders, and has been underlined by the decision of equity fund chairman David Pitt-Watson not to accept the post as Labour's general secretary... The advice was the sole reason why Pitt-Watson, a committed Labour supporter and former Westminster City councillor, turned down the job this month."
PS I ask again, who exactly have I libelled.
Don't care EHC. No one will take action against you. Because you are a thrice kippered obsessive ne'er-do-well.
Thank you.
Now, who did I libel?
"The pension debt was not included in the liability because it is not expected to be paid out within the next 12 months - nor was the party's remortgaging of party HQ, adding another £5 million"
Read the party's accounts and some basic accounting before commenting further - you clearly have no idea whatsover.
The pensions position is fully reflected in the accounts - as is required by accounting standards - and Horwath Clark Whitehill sign off to that effect.
I suspect that the Labour Party will have some difficulty in remortgaging its HQ - since it sold off the freehold property which used to be its HQ a while back. Again read the accounts and some basic accounting.
The level of ignorance demonstrated puts all your other past comments on financial matters in their true perspective.
Post a Comment