|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 24, 2023 11:22:23 GMT
...but party enjoys financial boost as Tory income falls.
Labour Party membership continued to slide last year even as the party enjoyed one of its most financially successful years in recent history.
Annual accounts published by the Electoral Commission on Thursday show Labour had 407,445 members at the end of 2022, down almost 25,000 compared with 2021.
This was well below the recent membership peak recorded at the end of 2019, when there were 532,046 Labour members.#
But Labour still achieved some of its highest income levels outside an election year, raising £47.2 million and returning a £2.7 million surplus after losing £5.2 million in 2021.
A report from party treasurer David Evans said “difficult decisions” on reducing costs had contributed to returning Labour to surplus, while membership income “exceeded targets” thanks to new members and “an improved rate of retention”.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives recorded a loss of £2.3 million in what the party described as a “turbulent year”.
........Guess It shows that while members are unhappy with Labour becoming a slightly less tacky mirror image of the Conservatives the business donors love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2023 12:02:51 GMT
Maybe down to people cutting back due to cost of living?
|
|
|
|
Post by mowlick on Aug 24, 2023 14:01:42 GMT
Under Corby the Labour party's fees were set at sod all and paid late, so the membership was in the zillions. And they got slaughtered at the polls because the left talks a good battle but never shows up. Next time they will win because Starmer is committed to doing fuck all, which means a lot of erstwhile Tories will see him as a safe pair of hands and either vote for him or stay at home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 14:38:23 GMT
And they got slaughtered at the polls because the left talks a good battle but never shows up. That didn't happen though. The 2017 election saw Labour get their highest vote percentage since 2001. Even in the 'disastrous' 2019 election, they got a higher percentage than they did under Brown or Miliband. The problem with Corbyn wasn't that people didn't show up to vote for him. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 24, 2023 15:23:25 GMT
And they got slaughtered at the polls because the left talks a good battle but never shows up. That didn't happen though. The 2017 election saw Labour get their highest vote percentage since 2001. Even in the 'disastrous' 2019 election, they got a higher percentage than they did under Brown or Miliband. The problem with Corbyn wasn't that people didn't show up to vote for him. Indeed, and his policies have never been more popular with Labour voters and ironically Conservative voters too who now in a majority support the policies of renationalising Trains and utilities. weownit.org.uk/blog/biggest-ever-poll-shows-huge-support-nationalisation About bloody time we got on with it and ensured profits stayed with the British people instead of the German and French Governments. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 24, 2023 15:46:18 GMT
Meanwhile in the land of the Krankies..... www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/snp-deficit-rises-to-800000-and-membership-numbers-fall-party-accounts-show/a681058212.htmlToday at 13:25 The SNP has said it is looking to return to surplus this year, as the latest accounts show its deficit grew to more than £800,000. Accounts published online by the Electoral Commission show the party’s income fell in 2022, while membership numbers were down by more than 8,600 in the first six months of 2023. The SNP’s total income dropped to £4,248,625 in 2022, down from £4,529,960 in 2021. With spending last year amounting to £5,052,284, the party recorded a deficit after tax of £804,278. The deficit stood at £732,072 in 2021. In the accounts, the SNP said “neither this deficit, nor the balance sheet are out of keeping with other years in which nationwide elections were fought”, with council elections having taken place across Scotland in 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by mowlick on Aug 24, 2023 16:09:20 GMT
That didn't happen though. The 2017 election saw Labour get their highest vote percentage since 2001. Even in the 'disastrous' 2019 election, they got a higher percentage than they did under Brown or Miliband. The problem with Corbyn wasn't that people didn't show up to vote for him. Indeed, and his policies have never been more popular with Labour voters and ironically Conservative voters too who now in a majority support the policies of renationalising Trains and utilities. weownit.org.uk/blog/biggest-ever-poll-shows-huge-support-nationalisation About bloody time we got on with it and ensured profits stayed with the British people instead of the German and French Governments. Unfortunately, none of this translated into seats and the brothers and sisters are currently reduced to a few loony lefties muttering into their half pints of nettle beer about the evils of capitalism and whatever bollocks is currently in fashion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 19:45:31 GMT
Unfortunately, none of this translated into seats and the brothers and sisters are currently reduced to a few loony lefties muttering into their half pints of nettle beer about the evils of capitalism and whatever bollocks is currently in fashion. It by and large did translate into seats in 2017. Maybe could have even been a plurality without the hostile press and deliberate sabotage by Labour officials. The main reason it didn't translate into seats in 2019 is Corbyn was manipulated (and Starmer was a chief manipulator here) into adopting a strong second referendum stance. The leavers rallied around Boris with the Brexit party only running in constituencies where Labour currently held. The pro-leave press also backed Boris. Meanwhile, the remain parties like the Lib Dems and Greens did not make any similar offer to help Labour and secure that second referendum that was supposedly all important to them. Of the pro-remain press, the Independent and the Guardian refused to back Labour and the Mirror did so only with open reluctance. So you had Boris as head of a united Leave campaign against Corbyn as head of a disunited Remain campaign. And that’s why Labour lost so many seats. Nothing to do with voters being turned off by Corbyn's lefty policies. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2023 19:56:42 GMT
Unfortunately, none of this translated into seats and the brothers and sisters are currently reduced to a few loony lefties muttering into their half pints of nettle beer about the evils of capitalism and whatever bollocks is currently in fashion. It by and large did translate into seats in 2017. Maybe could have even been a plurality without the hostile press and deliberate sabotage by Labour officials. The main reason it didn't translate into seats in 2019 is Corbyn was manipulated (and Starmer was a chief manipulator here) into adopting a strong second referendum stance. The leavers rallied around Boris with the Brexit party only running in constituencies where Labour currently held. The pro-leave press also backed Boris. Meanwhile, the remain parties like the Lib Dems and Greens did not make any similar offer to help Labour and secure that second referendum that was supposedly all important to them. Of the pro-remain press, the Independent and the Guardian refused to back Labour and the Mirror did so only with open reluctance. So you had Boris as head of a united Leave campaign against Corbyn as head of a disunited Remain campaign. And that’s why Labour lost so many seats. Nothing to do with voters being turned off by Corbyn's lefty policies. Oh please. It was his stupid 'back to the unions running the country' shit that had people running a mile. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 21:12:26 GMT
Oh please. It was his stupid 'back to the unions running the country' shit that had people running a mile. That wasn't an issue in 2017. Where's your evidence it suddenly became an issue in 2019? How do you argue that the Remainers refused to give him the same backing that the Leavers gave Boris (which we have clear evidence for) made no significant contribution to the loss? |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2023 21:17:11 GMT
Oh please. It was his stupid 'back to the unions running the country' shit that had people running a mile. That wasn't an issue in 2017. Where's your evidence it suddenly became an issue in 2019? How do you argue the clear evidence that the Remainers refused to give him the same backing that the Leavers gave Boris made no significant contribution to the loss? Okay data person. My evidence is personal experience and knowing Corbyn was a twat and his garbage was never going to get anywhere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 21:44:33 GMT
Okay data person. My evidence is personal experience and knowing Corbyn was a twat and his garbage was never going to get anywhere. But I'm not arguing you liked him or thought well of his policies. I'm just arguing they were somewhat popular with voters in general as the evidence seems to support. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2023 21:48:27 GMT
Okay data person. My evidence is personal experience and knowing Corbyn was a twat and his garbage was never going to get anywhere. But I'm not arguing you liked him or thought well of his policies. I'm just arguing they were somewhat popular with voters in general as the evidence seems to support. No they weren't popular with voters in general - as the result showed. He lost. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 21:56:12 GMT
No they weren't popular with voters in general - as the result showed. He lost. You don't think the fact that even with most of the press heavily against him, he managed to get a higher percentage of support than Brown, Miliband and even latter-day Blair demonstrates at least some level of popularity for his policies? |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2023 22:07:28 GMT
No they weren't popular with voters in general - as the result showed. He lost. You don't think the fact that even with most of the press heavily against him, he managed to get a higher percentage of support than Brown, Miliband and even latter-day Blair demonstrates at least some level of popularity for his policies? Uh, The Guardian and its ilk were blowing his trumpet loudly. "Some level of popularity" is different to "popular". |
|
