You are here: Home » News »

Lib Dem membership plummets

June 6, 2012 2:11 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Who would be a Lib Dem these days? Good question, and a question to which the answer is – far less people than last year, as their membership slumped by 20% in a single year.

Lets take a look at some of their vital statistics. How did trebling tuition fees work out for the Lib Dem Youth wing “Liberal Youth?

Ouch. How about in the constituencies of ministers? Surely being close to power is intoxicating, no? How about in Sarah Teather’s Brent party?

Ouch. Ah well. Sarah has had a tricky year, what with her hilarious gags and everything. How about Nick Clegg, the most powerful Lib Dem in history (think on that, if you will). Surely the people of Sheffield Hallam are drawn to him like a moth to an orange flame?

Oh dear.

Now let’s not pretend that Labour is in a perfect position when it comes to membership. We aren’t. We’re far away from being a mass membership party, and many hundreds of thousands of members away from where we need to be in terms of a fighting force that can win elections on the ground.

But these Lib Dem membership slumps are in a single year.

One year.

Who would be a Lib Dem these days? Good question.

Related posts:

  1. Is 1p youth membership a wasted opportunity?
  2. The perpetual crisis in British EU membership
  3. Building the party: How do we increase membership and change the party for the better?
  4. 21st century Membership and Supporters
  5. Traditional campaigning with a modern membership
  • UKAzeri

    lets not get too excited… come our next manifesto and we just might end up in a similar place if the voice of the grass roots isnt heard.

    • treborc1

      Totally agree and the grass roots labour party seem to me when I get the leaflets and emails are not that happy

      • UKAzeri

        Indeed there is a degree of dissatisfaction but at the same time there is faith in Ed Miliband and in particular his ability to provide something very fresh.
         
         
         
        It seems to me he is testing the ground and the mood of the public in general. However in my private conversations with Labour councillors and even mps there is always a particularly worrying phrase: “electability”.  There is an implicit and sometimes explicit attitude that we have lost the battle on values and the only way to succeed and be in a position to do good (i.e. in Downing Street) is  to cater to selfish needs of Thatcher’s children.  We’ll see what happens  :)

  • UKAzeri

    lets not get too excited… come our next manifesto and we just might end up in a similar place if the voice of the grass roots isnt heard.

  • Mark

    Oh, well. Back to the old alternating two party system then I suppose.

    • Dave Postles

      That’s a bit premature, I think.  Larry, Curly and Moe have apparently joined the LDs, so the membership has been augmented (well, at least in numbers).

  • Dave Postles

    … interesting news on the day that we learn of a letter from a Labour peer to a LibDem peer looking to a co-operative future.  The door should have been closed firmly shut.  Labour should have put them in the situation of, at best, confidence and supply if Labour achieves a majority at the next election.  Compromise with the LibDems is an insult to all those who will have suffered at the hands of the Coalition.

    • aracataca

      At one level you are right Dave. The Fibs have shown themselves (what we have known for years) to be complete shysters in government ( We will abolish, sorry triple, tuition fees). However, we should be trying to split them so that ‘ call me Dave’ can’t depend on them anymore.

      • treborc1

        Split them and then ask them to form a government with labour if the people decide not to vote again and you have another hung government.

        But I do love the way you bring up tuition fees and forget who brought them in and who stated it should be £6,000 what would be the following years £9,000, £20,000 further education is getting expensive.

        • Bill Lockhart

           Like the betrayals of the Forces, it will take a generation for Labour’s lies about tuition fees to begin to fade from public memory.  Until then, it is merely necessary for Labour’s opponents to quote Labour’s own ministers back at them in order to expose the party’s present deep and cynically opportunistic hypocrisy.

          • Luther

            Hold on! There are going to be 20,000 servicemen sacked over the next several years by the Coalition government some of whom have already received redundancy notices while on tour in Afghanistan and Iraq. And as for lies about tuition fees!!! Come on now. As far as lies go both the Lib Dems and the Tories take a hell of a lot of beating! You do not sound the round schilling to me, sir.

        • aracataca

          Yes but as usual you have misunderstood/misrepresented what I said. Clegg, Huppert and the rest of them allowed themselves to be photographed advocating the abolition of tuition fees with big grins on their faces, posters etc. The first thing they did in govt was to triple them. It is the craven dishonesty that has done for them, especially given that a lot of students voted Fib. In respect of Labour’s £6k pledge they said that this is what could be done now. Labour’s policy has not, indeed cannot, be set until the 2015 election in large part because we don’t know where we are going to be financially or economically by that time. If this shower carry on the way they are at the moment we could very easily be in a Japanese (1991 onwards) style depression by then.

    • Mike Murray

      Absolutely Dave. If the Lib Dem parasites think that they are going to piggy back into power on the backs of the Labour Party they are mistaken. I don’t believe that our  membership would wear it given the Lib Dems’  history of principle betrayal.

      • robertcp

        Labour might not have any choice if Lib Dem MPs hold the balance of power after 2015.

        • Mike Murray

          Yes, the  reason we should only go as far as Confidence and Supply. A coalition between us and the Lib Dem stooges after the way they have bolstered up this vindictive Tory led government would be interpreted by the public as an act of gross betrayal. How could our cabinet ministers work with people like Cable and Farron who are happy to support a workfare system that leaves young people sleeping under London Bridge without any civilised amenities? Anyway, I don’t believe the stooges will hold the balance of power because the people won’t allow them to again.  If this squalid Tory led coalition has proved anything it is that coalitions don’t work and that they are inimical to our political system.

          • robertcp

            I mostly agree but for slightly different reasons.  Confidence and supply would suit the Lib Dems as well.  A coalition with Labour would lose them their right-wing support.

            I disagree on coalitions.  This government looks like it will provide stable government for five years whatever we think of it.  Far more stable, for example, than 1974-79 and 1992-97.

          • Mike Murray

            “A coalition with Labour would lose them their right-wing support.”

            Yes, which is why,thankfully,  the Lib Dem leadership would have to rule it out at the start of their G.E. campaign. They would be unable to assume the position of deciding their coalition partners after the announcement of the GE result as they did last time. People simply wouldn’t vote for them without knowing what their intentions would be in the event of a hung parliament. Either way it establishes them firmly as pro Tory.

            As for your second paragraph: there’s still a long way to go until 2015. The reason for the apparent stability is the fixed term parliament lock which is causing massive frustration on both sides of the coalition. I really do not think that the Coalition is anything like  as stable  as you suggest. Have you checked Lib Dem voice recently?

          • robertcp

            I have not looked at Lib Dem Voice recently but it does sound worth a look.

  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    Interesting but unsurprising.  Lib Dem’s have always had an unusual membership and vote base.  Many of their members will have been disaffected left-leaners who didn’t want to join Labour for whatever reason.  Others will have been people who wanted to be involved in politics by backing a protest party – which is all the LDs really were before entering the coalition.

    The LDs have been allowed for many years to be all things to all men – offering completely unworkable policies to the electorate knowing they’d never need to worry about implementing them.  Now their false promises have been exposed and they are paying the price, with former believers realising LibDemism is just fake.

    I’d say to Lib Dem members, have a good long hard think, and either leave politics for good or come and join Labour.

    • Quiet_Sceptic

      But if you were a Lib Dem member you might ask, well what does Labour stand for?

      For those passionate about the tuition fees issue Labour isn’t exactly their natural home.  Labour introduced them, increased them further to £3k/year and kicked off the Browne review that was expected to lead to further increases.

      What’s the current position? We’d have capped them at £6k but that it isn’t a manifesto commitment for 2015.

      Not exactly much of a rallying cry is it?

      • aracataca

        No but repealing the privatisation of the NHS  or the restoration of the 50p rate might be.

        • robertcp

          Yes, but some of Labour’s reforms could be seen as privatisation and the top rate was 40p from 1997 to 2010.  We have very short memories!

          The Con-Lib coalition is a gift to Labour, but Lib Dem MPs might be replaced by Tories and Labour might need the remaining Lib Dem MPs after 2015 to form a government.

  • Brumanuensis

    For the Liberals, there is a real risk this could seriously cripple them. Unlike Labour, who could just about survive local election melt-downs because of a large number of traditional voting strongholds, the Liberals are disproportionately reliant upon local councillors and energetic members to keep them afloat, as aside from rural Wales, the South-West and the Scottish Highlands, they have few natural strongholds. So a vibrant campaigning arm is a even more of a necessity. With record low numbers of councillors and a declining Party machine, they could be reduced back to ’80s or ’70s levels of representation and a long Liberal winter might ensue.

    Here’s hoping (un-generous, I know).

  • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

    So….did we ever actually publish our membership figures for before and after Iraq?

    (and I say this as someone who supported the liberation of Iraq and still loathes Tony Blair in spite of rather than because of it….)

    • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

      To answer my own question:

      Members 
      Change p.a.
      Cumulative

      1997
              405,000

      2001
              272,000
      -8.2%
      -32.8%

      2002
              248,924
      -8.5%
      -38.5%

      2003
              214,952
      -13.6%
      -46.9%

      2004
              201,374
      -6.3%
      -50.3%

      2005
              198,026
      -1.7%
      -51.1%

      2006
              182,370
      -7.9%
      -55.0%

      2007
              176,891
      -3.0%
      -56.3%

      2008
              166,247
      -6.0%
      -59.0%

      2009
              156,205
      -6.0%
      -61.4%

      2010
              193,961
      +24.2%
      -52.1%

      (I am unaware of any annual figures published for 1998-2000 before the Electoral Commission started demanding detailed annual statements from parties).

      So although we never managed the alleged 20% Lib Dem drop in one year we did contrive to lose quarter of a million or 60% of our 1997 members by the end of 2009.

      We should therefore recall Matthew 7:3 (‘And why behold you the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?’) before crowing too hard over the  LDs well deserved loss of members.

      • Mark

        The number of members doesn’t matter, other than in respect to their contributions and subs that is. The Labour Party is an oligarchy whose every particular is decided by a small number of individuals in its upper echelons. The membership’s wishes and opinions don’t count any more. They haven’t really counted since New Labour’s first win in 1997.

        • treborc1

          They did not count for much before that either.

          • England88

            Labour needs more members period. The argument that membership numbers don’t matter is one I’ve seen in action before (CPGB to Democratic Left to New Politics Network to some sort of stump membership in Charter88/Unlock Democracy) it just lead to growing irrelevance of the organisation and concentration of power within a narrow ‘leadership’. Labour needs to reinvigorate the very concept of membership and the way local parties need to be an integral part of the locality (which means the centre respecting the local party). As it stand my memory of Labour Party membership (I left in 2002) was being asked to give cash, asked to help with campaigning, being bombarded with weird offers of insurance for god knows what, and generally feeling like the only function was to get the councillor/mp elected and to help the cash flow to do that. There was little sense of real ideology that lifted being a Labour Party member from being a member of the local rotary club with the difference that the rotary club did not engage in wars that I did not agree with. 

          • treborc1

             I totally agree, yes I remember the dam offers of insurance, both the Labour party plus Unions have to change, Unions are interested in only the money to pay the top table a nice wage, some Union leaders are paid more then the Prime Minister.

            But in Wales for example Labour talked about ending the local parties closing then down and then only re-opening then when needed at election time or at need for example election of an AM or MP.

            They then said a regional officer would  be elected his job would be to keep new members happy, but why the hell would anyone want to join when all your needed for would be to elect MP’s or to canvass at election time with no input at all.

            I do think local labour parties must be given some input into the party, both at local level with councilors to AM to MP’s  and local parties must be the party which selects the local AM to MP with no more people being  placed on the slates with instruction this is the winner, we lost so many members due to this we have not recovered.

          • England88

            Labour has further to go win in 2015 than it thinks I suspect! The British party system will go the way it has in Russia where parties are nothing more than an electoral ‘brand’ for the duration of the campaign, there is no sense of a continuing organic political  culture till the leadership need to ‘win’ an election. Very worrying and leaves our politics vulnerable to the undemocratic forces from lobbying

          • John Dore

            I completely agree with this, culture can win the day, its something that lives all the time.

          • treborc1

             Again it will take a massive u tun for labour the re-founding labour is a total mess and gives more powers to the leadership and really less power to local parties, oh yes we  may have more to say, the problem is who is listening. Lobbing has been in parliament since Cromwell, sadly it will carry on.

          • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

             Damn not ‘dam’

            (sorry I am OCD about this stuff – at least where there is an edit button to correct my own errors)

        • Redshift

          Hmm, whilst influence over policy became increasingly undemocratic under Blair and this has not been corrected – I thoroughly disagree with this statement. 

          ‘Every particular’ – actually in a lot of constituencies, a group of a few people could have a massive influence over a local party; setting campaign priorities, selections of candidates, the nature of local events, the management of finance, etc. The difference is often whether this core group of activists are any good at what they do. 

          • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

            The dismantling of Labour’s internal democracy began well before Blair back in the days of Kinnock and his policy review.

            And even at the Bennite high tide all real power still remained with the unions – a rather different elite but an elite nevertheless.

          • England88

            Agree, the individual member is not valued enough and the set up where power is not shared equally amongst the constituent parts of the party a real block on democracy and genuine policy development that involves all members. I guess its a case of who pays the bills as always like I say it will be a long slog and Labour is in danger of thinking that only ‘tweaks’ are needed.

          • treborc1

             Kinnock was the author if you like of the new labour ideal, he had this idea which he spouted at the local party, when he won the leadership contest most of us  said nope sorry

          • England88

            You’re right in away I can remember some awful scenes where a local Labour branch was run by neo Trots in the 80s. They got stuff done all right just destroying the branch in the process. But the counter to this has resulted in weak party culture (and betraying my old CPGB heritage) party discipline. Local branches should be dynamic and fun places where all members are valued for their contributions. They must have a clear set of goals for the branch and understand how they can and should influence national policy. There is no easy fix for this as the decline in political party membership is linked to a wide range of social factors that did not exist even 20 years ago, but i think the campaigning strategies of non-party pressure groups like the Occupy movment give an indication of how party politics might be in the future. Party leadership will fear it as it means not being in total control and there will be blunders and gaffs but I’d sooner that than just top down agendas.

          • aracataca

            But wasn’t/isn’t Occupy saying ( as evidenced by the array of people at St Paul’s) ‘we are not like you’. In fact to the archetypal bloke in Dartford with a wife, 2 kids and a job-they were saying not only ‘we are not like you’ but ‘we hate you’. If so how is that going to get anywhere (politically speaking)?

          • England88

            They are confused to say the least in their political objectives I used them as an example of the open communciation structures that are more likely to become the norm for political activity in the future as Generation Y matures.

        • aracataca

          Funny debate here. Labour needs more members but of course you’re not going to join. Joining is for someone else. Furthermore, your support of pluralism here is punctuated by your repeated depictions of the Labour party as a uniform and homogenous body. Unfortunately, this depiction bears no relation to reality. The Labour party like most collective bodies is constituted by its members. The days of the political party as a uniform, homogenous block whose policy was dictated by a tiny elite went away with   er…. oh yes…… the CPGB and its sister bodies around the world.

      • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

        If the +image button is working here’s a table of LP membership 1997-2010.

        (I couldn’t find any data for 1998-2000 as the Electoral Commission requirement to report only came into effect in 2001 and previously we only seem to have reported membership figures when they were something to boast about).

        • treborc1

           I left labour in 2010 but I’m still seen as being a member of the party due to my Union affiliation and my political levy, how many others are like this.

        • Charlie Mansell

          Membership rose by about 120,000 in the 94-97 period. At that period you may recall there was a Labour recruitment insert leaflet in many of the Sunday broadsheet newspapers. In 1996 people were invited to vote on the manifesto and this assisted the increase in membership. Membership declined pretty quickly after 1997 so by 2000 was already 120,000 down. Much of the loss was members who did not pay by direct debit. 

  • John Dore

    Lol

  • Joe

    The Young Greens are now about the same size as Liberal Youth, possibly slightly bigger. 3rd party of London AND youth now. Not bad.

    • aracataca

      Yes but the problem is that the Greens never offend anyone. They just say what they think people want to hear. 
      In this respect they are not disimiliar to the Fib Dems.   The record of Greens internationally  in government is less than perfect. In Ireland for instance they formed a coalition government with a bunch of gangsters called Fianna Fail who put the debts of the banks on the government’s  balance sheet thus bankrupting the country. They were wiped out in Ireland’s general election last year. Apparently their running of Brighton Council is by all accounts also p***poor.

      • treborc1

         Fib Dems after 13 years of the Fib labour party….

        • aracataca

          One line sloganeering again Treborc? It’s nice to know some things don’t change.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    The Lib Dems problem is that they are really two parties (at least) merged into one, and also that the leadership of the party is mostly from one of the factions, while the activists and members are mostly from the other.  There are also other factions barely represented in their senior positions, such as the Scottish non-conformist wing, or those with an environmental agenda, but those factions do deliver Lib Dem votes.

    I do not believe it is likely to end well for them.

    • Brumanuensis

      All political parties are coalitions though, so I don’t think the Liberals are unique in this respect.

  • Peter MacDonald

    I agree with UKAzeri – while slightly interesting, I’m not terribly excited about these numbers.  When dealing with percentages, if you’ve got a small number to start with, a small change in numbers looks artificially big.  It will be interesting to see if they manage to stem the tide and add some members before the next General Election.  There is often a dip in membership between elections as the disillusioned leave and those who were excited by being part of the election but lose enthusiasm with the hum-drum of local meetings/lack of campaigns between elections leave.  Let me know the numbers again in 2013/2014 before local elections and the General Election.  If they are still bleeding members then, I’ll be excited. 

  • AlanGiles

    Just a quick thought for the day. Sarah Teather would probably not have been MP for Brent Central if the previous (Labour) incumbent Dawn Butler had not been one of the most brazen of the second-home expenses fiddlers. 

    Good morning.

  • Ex Member

    Quite an ironic smugness here considering the number of Labour members who left when the person they voted for as leader was overruled by the Unions and Ed M installed instead. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Barker/1546990341 Paul Barker

    The reason libdem membership has seen such sharp falls is the same reason labour saw similar falls 1997 – 2001, we are in government & voters dont like governments. This is a problem for everybody in democratic politics, neither voters or activists want to take responsibility for their own decisions.
    On the wider picture the long – term trend for all party memberships is down. Over the last 60 years the tories have lost  more than 90% & labour & libdems about 80%.
    Democratic politics faces a crisis & the answers arent in sight.

Latest

  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Seats and Selections Unions Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    By Paul Wheeler

    It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good.  But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we  witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit  aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker:   Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts  maths too (via [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    By Mark Ferguson

    “Work and home is what One Nation is about – family life, how people live everyday life.” That’s what Jon Cruddas – the man who will in all likelihood write Labour’s next manifesto – told the Guardian the party’s policy review is focused on. And it sounds so simple – doesn’t it? Critics will say it’s too simplistic a definition (and they’d be right – I’m cherry picking here), but it’s also a brilliant example of the distance between most [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s policy process explained

    Labour’s policy process explained

    By Mark Ferguson

    There’s an interesting interview in the Guardian with Labour’s policy chief Jon Cruddas this morning (of which more later), but the Guardian have also sketched out their take on the shape of the party policy review, noting – as I’ve done before – that it will report back in a series of stages. You can see a more sophisticated look at this in the piece Jon Cruddas and Angela Eagle wrote for us earlier this week. Here’s the Guardian’s take: [...]

    Read more →