The FT has reported:
The Labour party has lost about 100,000 members since last year's general election, underscoring the dramatic fall in Sir Keir Starmer's popularity and the surge in support for smaller parties.
They added:
The governing party's membership now stands below 250,000, meaning that Nigel Farage's Reform UK has overtaken Labour to become the largest political party in the UK, with 268,631 members, according to Reform's website.
They also noted, way down in the article, that:
The Green party's membership has risen from 126,000 to 180,000 since October.
The figures do not prove voting intentions, of course. They do, however, appear to replicate the findings of opinion polls, though. They also give clear indications of directions of travel:
- Labour is declining
- Reform is plateauing.
- The Greens are rising fast.
To pretend that change is not on the political agenda would be absurd, especially when it is also noted that the Tories have at most 120,000 members.
The questions are:
- Will Labour notice what is happening?
- Will they axe Syarmer?
- Has Farage peaked too soon?
- Can change be in the right direction for those who support a politics of care?
I am sure you can add more questions to that list. What is clear, however long it is, is that times are changing. We need to keep shouting for what we want, which is also true in Wales and Scotland.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
As well as membership, strong local grass roots activists are key. Both the Greens and the LDs have really strong bases in their areas, hence their successes locally. The Conservatives now have such an old membership they struggle to mobilise effectively, and Labour have alienated many of their local party groups by installing their national candidates on them. Reform has significant funding of dubious origins with a lot of MSM coverage. The younger generation have felt alienated politically and haven’t voted. I think the Green Party is finally giving them a home and the opinion polls may be underestimating the effect of a mobilised under 35 voting population.
Much to agree with.
Depressing though the Green Party is going to allow “Verdant” (yet another Tory wolf in sheep’s clothing think tank) to advise it! Will Zack Polanski turn out to be another Keir Starmer kow-towing to the rich by allowing this? He’s certainly got a battle on his hands with monetarily illiterate Green Party members if he fights this!
“Has Farage peaked too soon”.. you really are clutching at straws. There will be a Reform/Tory electoral pact, the donors will see to that and Farage will be the next PM. Polanski is an actor, literally, and the Greens have a high number of disruptive left wing cranks in their ranks (as you well know) which will really hurt them at the polls. That is the reality.
Surprise, surprise: this person had never posted here before.
Full marks though: these people are spending a lot of time and effort monitoring what I say.
And the name is fake, as the real Jason Statham is an actor.
@larry
Agree with you! The real “Jason Statham” would not bothering posting on this blog. If the real “Jason Statham” wanted to have a conversation with Richard Murphy, I am confident he would just ring him up or have a his publicist contact him.
I am pretty sure Richard Murphy would take his call as the real “Jason Statham” seems to be a rather good dude from all the interviews I have seen.
The real “Jason Statham” should take legal action by suing this third-rate troll who is using his name
Who is Jason Statham? (Don’t tell me: Google exists for a reason).
At the last election the electorate firmly rejected the Tories.
Reform and the Tories may well form an electoral pact, though I doubt it. Reform have been burned by this previously. More to the point, by forming a pact, Reform risks being tainted by the rejection of the Tories, making it more difficult for them to win. That’s why I think Farage will reject a pact.
One might say that it would be hard to taint Reform, given their statements on almost everything. But my feelings is that people want change and are largely ignoring what Reform are saying. Or, perhaps, are being selective in what they hear. This is the same reason, IMO, why so many voted Labour at the last election. The evidence was all there that Labour would continue antisocialist, neoliberal, policies but they hoped, against evidence, for better. I think the same dynamic may now be playing for Reform support.
Hopefully, now there is a viable Green alternative (and hoping that they won’t tear themselves apart over internecine debates on trans rights or other issues), people may vote for them for change (not Reform).
E.F. Schumacher on cranks: “a small element in a machine that makes revolutions.” But given that Schumacher’s interest lay in what a ‘Buddhist economy’ might look like (one for your ‘Economic Questions series?), I think we can safely say he was more interested in non-violent transformation than revolution. In any case, these days it’s more the right-wing cranks than the left-wing cranks who are of practical concern. The latter largely seem to be content with pontificating in intellectual ivory towers, whilst the former are actually out on the streets sowing hatred and division.
I share Schumacher’s view, on revolution, in which people get hurt. They are not compatible with a politics of care when there aree better ways of achieving the outcome.
and who gave ‘him’ 4 ‘up-ticks’? but, as Richard states, at least these people are monitoring his blogs.
How much is the Labour fall about less interest in politics between elections, though that would contradict the rise in membership for some parties and also the idea that there would be more interest if voters felt they had something to believe in. So that probably answers my question.
There is a conspiracy theory that Starmer, a tool of the Esthablishment if ever there was one, was given a mission – make the Labour party unelectable. I’m not sure I believe it, but at times its difficult not to suspect its credible.
Starmer’s withdrawal of local party autonomy by parachuting candidates in and generally meddling, his witch hunt against socialists in the party on fake anti-semitism grounds, indeed his unwavering support for the genocidal Zionist regime in Israel (not to mention the Zionist ‘funding’ (read ‘bribes’) recieved by Starmer and most of his cabinet), his equally unwavering support of a neo-nazi riddled regime in Ukraine…
All these things have helped to gut Labour – not so much a lack of interest in politics, rather an acute awareness of Starmer’s politics and where they are leading. We have to assume that by this stage, anyone who is still a Labour member, MP, etc, knows exactly what Labour has become, and are willing to go along with it.
ET (Establishment Tool) go home!
The Labour and to a certain extent the Tories lost their way when they started to rely on business donors rather than their members for funding. As such they no longer represent their members or their raison d’etre
We are at a cross roads
We either have ‘political’ parties driven by big money as in the USA, and I use the term ‘political’ loosely as they are no more than facilitators for their donors
Or we revert back to true political parties which solely represent their members. So funded by members and with individual donations (not corporate) to say £20k per year, or else equally funded by the government with no donations
I’ll repeat what my son suggested.
Political parties should be solely funded by public funds. No donors whatsoever.
Electors should choose who to support financially. Each elector would have an account, incremented periodically (monthly?). And they could donate to parties or individual politicians, within limits, from this account.
I like it.
I suggest they hold an appeal each week.
Then the public are asked to vote.
If they can do it further Strictly they could do it to allocate funding.
Given whats happened with Labour I would suggest that Reform, The Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru & the Lib Dems need to start planning for being in Government even if as Coalition partners.
Clearly Labour did not and we are seeing the consequences
I hope for change.
But why do we need coalitions?
What’s wrong with parties, and even individual politicians, deciding what to support? That sounds like democracy to me.
The job of parties, the PM and cabinet is to co-ordinate policies on which the majority can agree. They shouldn’t propose legislation they know won’t be supported. This is a difficult (but not impossible) job. I guess that’s why politicians don’t want to do it, don’t want to be consensus seekers.
Confidence and supply agreements, where a group of parties agree not to defeat confidence motions, may be needed. But full blown coalitions don’t seem to work well (ask the Liberal Democrats).
Frankly, I don’t think it matters much if Starmer is replaced. His possible successors don’t fill me with any confidence whatsoever.
Starting to look like none of the political parties will offer the necessary solutions to Britain’s problems including the Green Party which has endorsed “Verdant” with Harriet Lamb and Caroline Lucas on the board of this so-called wolf in sheep’s clothing “Tory” think tank!
I haven’t wasted any of my time nor energy on Farage, so a question to those who have the stomach I don’t.
Does Farage have a manifesto, with pledges et cetera?
Here in the Netherlands Wilders always stood out by not seeming to take politics seriously. He once went into a general election with a manifesto that was 1 A4 sheet!
How does Nigel stand on electoral reform, for instance?
Green policy is decided by direct democracy so the Marxist hardliners will struggle to advance their position there (IMO).
@ Matthew T Hoare
The phrase you failed to use was “informed direct democracy”! What use is a party like the Green Party that fails to understand that the way its country’s monetary system works doesn’t lay it open to blackmail by the City of London as James Meadway pretends?
https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=40562
There is a potential merger that no-one dares mention : that of the Greens and Lib Dems.
Smiley Zack was, of course, a former Lib Dem activist and candidate (although, having said that, so was the Deform UK deputy leader on Durham County Council).
I suspect we’ll see quite a lot of political opportunists eyeing up the Greens in the next year or so.
I don’t see it….
No way. Whilst the Greens and the LDs will work together, their politics are very different and as both believe in PR and collaborative working there is no need for a merger.
apologies for 2nd post – I had not engaged brain – many Conservatives vote that way because their parents did – I have asked those who profess to this, and that is frequently the answer – with one person saying that her Mother was a Conservative councillor!
I resigned from the Labour party as soon as Keir Starmer was made Labour leader. Some while ago I posted here what Diane Abbott had to say about him.
During the various campaigns running up to the last election, I wrote to all of the candidates standing for High Peak (where I live) with a list of questions – the only person who replied was the Green Party candidate. As @Tim Kent says above, hopefully there is a viable Green alternative. We certainly need a politics of care which the present government does not understand.
Who really runs this country? If we call it the ‘establishment’, it hasn’t changed very much in the last 200 years. The establishment always wants a gov they can control. They seem to prefer right-wing govs because they really do fear people power, usually centre or left of centre. They usually have to buy off left of centre govs because their interests do not align. They would surely never allow a real left wing gov to take power, but wouldn’t be bothered by an extreme right-wing one.
A trawl through history shows this to be fairly accurate. The establishment control most of the media, so you only need look there to find out how they want things to play out.
They were sympathetic to fascism in the 1930s
They opposed unsuccessfully the modern welfare state, deciding to dismantle it at a later date.
They supported Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, opposed Wilson, Brown, Milligan, Corbyn and Starmer. Now they favour Badenoch or Farage, avoid criticising Trump or Putin.
They’ve always disliked Europe except for their holiday homes.
Who exactly are they? It’s easier to identify who they are not.