Labour membership - reality check

Peter Kenyon Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 05:25:07 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

If ever there was a time to stop squabbling and focus on the future it is now. The Press Association published a story on the latest Labour membership figures, which was picked up by the Guardian Unlimited here:
 
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2101211,00.html

That's why I'm hoping that Gordon Brown's Oxford speech on Sunday is not a false dawn. The organisational challenge should not be under-estimated if we are to rebuild successfully.






tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Labour membership - reality check | 19 comments (19 topical)

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#1)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:43:24 AM GMT

How much to posters think the decline in membership is due to the party's policies (Iraq/top-up fees/the general rightward shift) and how much due to other factors.

I don't have figures to hand, but party membership in falling across the world. I imagine at least part of the decline is the natural downward trend.

I also imagine that there's a natural reducation in party membership figures when a party is in government due to "you can't please everyone all of the time".

That said, I'm not indifferent to the decline and worldwide trends shouldn't be an excuse to give up trying to retain members and recruit new ones.


Re: Labour membership - reality check (#2)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:53:08 AM GMT

Dear Glass House How do you explain the rise in Labour Party membership from 1987 to 1997?


Re: Labour membership - reality check (#3)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:25:03 PM GMT

Being in opposition to deeply divisive 2+ term government.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#4)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:59:11 PM GMT

Dear Glass House - Getting rid of the Tories is only part of the story. Labour Values and having a say also played a part. NB against the 'global' trend. Recommended reading - Labour Commission Interim Report 2007 http://www.labourcommission.org.uk


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#5)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:15:46 PM GMT

As I said, I'm not denying that some of the 1997-2007 decline is due to the actions of the party itself. However, there is a long term decline in political party membership.

My original post said that there were other factors and it was up to individuals to make a judgement on which factors have caused which amount of the 1997-2007 decline.

My real problem is with those who say that it's nothing to do with party policy/actions or who say that, if only we gave members more power in the party, 1997 levels of membership could be maintained indefinitely, regardless of the national political picture.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#6)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:38:41 PM GMT

Dear Glass House - I am not sure who thinks party membership is a function of how much say members have..certainly not the LabOUR Commission. But it good to see the Leader-elect positioning himself to reverse that downward trend. Political party membership needs to rehabilitated as reputable active citizenship. (Re)connecting with local communities requires major investment in grassroots organisational capacity. No?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#9)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:56:40 PM GMT

I agree. I'm simply saying that it is easy to overestimate how much the decline in membership in the result of party actions. The natural downward trend in party membership across the world and the difficulty of holding onto members when in government are significant factors too.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#7)

by grimupnorth on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:45:18 PM GMT

Today's Morning Star has P eter Watt living in la-la land.I hope whoever wins the DL contest addresses this desperate problem.People did jointhe Party to vote in the leadership elections .Some will probably leave but I hope the majority will stay.If the Party establishment continues blithely to ignore reality, well the fall will contonue, despite the hard work of people like Peter Kenyon.


Re: Labour membership - reality check (#8)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:54:06 PM GMT

I've moderated my views on this topic. While i think the moderated views of the Labour leadership play an integral part in decline of membership, Glass is right, parties across the world have all seen their membership's fall. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, this phenomonon occured, and while I think a more left-wing position would increase our membership, the rightward direction of the leadership is not the sole factor for Labour's decline in membership.


Re: Labour membership - reality check (#10)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:04:58 PM GMT

I'm very interested in the article in the Independent that Peter Kenyon's blog links to.

In the next few weeks, Mr Brown will unveil a package of party reforms, which will impose a "duty" on the leadership to give members a say over government policy. In return, constituency parties will have a similar "duty" to form closer links with local community groups and involve non-Labour members in their policy discussions. Speaking to young Labour members at a leadership hustings in Oxford yesterday, the incoming prime minister said: "We need a 21st-century party to meet 21st-century challenges. That requires us to involve and engage ourselves in all our communities and also to consult the membership and make them fully involved in making policy in the future."

A duty of link with extra-party groups and individuals in exchange for a great say over policy is a good idea. It allows better links with the membership but mitigates any tendancy towards internal party navel-gazing in policy.

Good news


Re: Labour membership - reality check (#11)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:30:02 PM GMT

Now the question is how will he build on this at the London hustings on Saturday 16 June and set the scene more fully in his formal Manchester acceptence speech on 24 June. Litmus tests of real intent to my mind will be no 'appointed' chair to replace Hazel Blears, fund-raising to be firmly back in control of the NEC with no replacement for Lord Levy, all members of the new government to have nomination rights and One-Minister-One-Vote for the three Cabinet NEC places, and all members of the PLP to elect their own representatives to the National Policy Forum. None of these measures requires rule changes. They are all in the 'gift' of the Leader-elect to break with recent, regrettable, if not reprehensible, anti-democratic precedent.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#12)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:49:04 PM GMT

What would putting "fund-raising to be firmly back in control of the NEC" do?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#14)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:09:44 PM GMT

Probity is the word, I think. The Party cannot afford either financially or politically to run its finances from No. 10. After 10 years as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am assuming that Gordon Brown has a modest understanding of accountability, reporting lines and financial protocols, not to mention the reporting requirements on political parties arising from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The 2006 Labour Party Accounts, which have to be filed officially by 30 June 2007 will make extremely painful reading. Enough said?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#13)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:52:35 PM GMT

What do you see as being changes that make BLPs and CLPs engage more with the community and community groups?

How can Labour engage better with UK civil society?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#15)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:13:32 PM GMT

For starters - Search out the beacons of Labour Party CLP and BLP good practice, learn from them and promulgate. Why not go to my personal blog for an inkling?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#16)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:27:58 PM GMT

But do we have any actual ideas yet? Or are we just hoping that there's best practice out there?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#17)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:40:02 PM GMT

If by 'we' you mean the Labour Party, I believe so. One of the useful things this site could do is encourage best practice to be shared as widely as possible. You could start by joining the campaign to get the control freaks to reconfigure MpURLs. I will be blogging about the City of London branch Living Wage campaign tomorrow after our monthly branch meeting.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#18)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 05:00:24 PM GMT

I read your post on MpURL - to what extent do you want to "reconfigure" it. Do you want any member to be able to send out an "all member" email?

On the other point - I was asking a question. What best practice do you think we could spread around?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour membership - reality check (#19)

by Peter Kenyon on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:53:11 AM GMT

MpURL reconfiguration could be achieved for example by enabling all BLP/CLP secretaries to communicate with each other - ditto BLP/CLP Treasurers, Membership Secretaries and so on. It could also accommodate interest groups as in Facebook.


[ Parent ]

Labour membership - reality check | 19 comments (19 topical)