Dodos and Boris

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-Labour.html

Dying: membership and activist numbers in the Lib/Lab/Con continue to collapse.

Almost a third of party members have quit the Tories since David Cameron became leader. For only the second time in history, the Conservatives have fewer signed-up supporters than Labour. The membership roster stands at 130,000 – down from the 258,000 Mr Cameron inherited in 2005. Over the same period, Labour’s membership has fallen by only 4,000 to 194,000, according to a report from the House of Commons library.

The study is ammunition for those on the Tory right who believe traditional supporters are being turned off by the Prime Minister’s policies. It is the first time official figures from each party have shown Labour in front. Labour led briefly in 1997, based on estimates only. The Lib Dems are trailing on 48,000. Membership of the three main parties – at 1.1 per cent of the electorate – is at its lowest level ever. In 1983 – the era of Margaret Thatcher and Michael Foot – the figure was 3.8 per cent.

In 1965, when Harold Wilson and Edward Heath led the big two parties, they were backed by a combined 10 per cent of voters. The report suggested the latest figures, which are for 2010, were so low because the mass media now effectively delivers party messages. It added: ‘Funds gathered from wealthy donors and the state make parties less dependent on individual members’ subscriptions and small donations. Parties may even see a vocal membership as an electoral liability.’

Membership of smaller parties such as UKIP, the Greens, and the Scottish National Party has risen since 2005. The National Trust, the RSPB and similar organisations have also become more popular, suggesting that people like to get involved, just in a non-political way. The National Trust has 3.8million supporters, up from about 300,000 in 1971.

Only Poland and Latvia have lower political participation rates. Party membership is declining across Europe except for Greece and Spain, which had dictatorships until the 1970s. A Tory spokesman said she did not accept the report and its conclusions were ‘total nonsense’. ‘Party engagement continues to increase through our Friends of the Party scheme, which currently stands at more than 500,000 registered individuals,’ she added.

Labour Party - 194,000 (down)
Conservative and Unionist Party - 130,000 (down)
Liberal Democrats - 48,000 (down)
UK Independence Party - 19,000 (up)
British National Party - 4,000 (down)

It won't be long before we are finally free of the three dodo parties which are held in place by a voting system, low voter turnout and state funding - activists continue to leave them in droves and in many places around the country they are detested and loathed (with good reason). That said, even the UKIP numbers aren't amazing enough (although they are up at least which breaks the trend) which shows just what the main parties have done in that so many people simply want nothing to do with any of it anymore.

Boris Johnson is being tipped as a possible successor to David Cameron.

Also - Boris Jonhson. There has been talk in the media over the past week or so of Boris Johnson potentially becoming Conservative Party leader with the backing of Rupert Murdoch who wants it done by 2014. Now whilst the media portrays Johnson as a 'conservative' (something I used to believe), a little digging into his record will show the following..

- Johnson supports our membership of the EU.
- Johnson supports Turkey (population of 80m, relatively poor) joining the EU with open borders.
- Johnson supports an amnesty for illegal immigrants which will simply attract even more.
- Johnson supports wasteful public spending such as on Olympics, public bicycles and zip-wires.

.....so the solution the Conservative Party comes up with to halt its decline? replace David Cameron with somebody who is exactly the same as him, but whom has more entertainment value.

I'm not fooled.

Thoughts?

[Chippiewill]

Replace David Cameron with somebody who is exactly the same as him, but whom has more entertainment value.

It's still an improvement, did you really expect a proposed replacement to be very different politically to the predecessor?

Also I'm failing to see how the public bikes are a waste, cutting down congestion in the capital is one of the main issues that the London Mayor has to tackle for London to thrive, freeing up space on the roads for trade purposes can only be seen as beneficial.

And in all honesty if you dig far enough you're always going to find a couple of opinions which someone has which goes against the stereotypical label they belong to e.g. Conservative, because the label is just a generalisation not an accurate depiction of individual opinions or political position. It's not enough to say that someone's not conservative because they're non-conservative on certain issues, the only people who are "truly conservative" are only conservative so they can display it as an accolade, not because they think it's a good stance.

[Dean]

Wasteful public spending? Oh whatever. The Olympics being hosted here in London will boost the economy and part of it is funded by sponsorship. Public bicycles, which I assume you mean Barclays Cycle Hire, which will make its money back over time and it's also part funded by Barclays. Finally, the "zip wire" you're on about - I also assume you mean the Emirates Air Line? Once again, sponsored. It's also a huge tourist attraction and during the Olympics it will take in a lot of money. The first time I went, there were huge queues of people wanting to go on it, just for the ride back and forth. It was also built under budget. :-)

[xxMATTGxx]

- Johnson supports wasteful public spending such as on Olympics, public bicycles and zip-wires.

What's wrong with having the Olympics? The Olympics has been fantastic so far. The opening ceremony was good, the games itself have been great. A lot of people have been attending, a lot of people have been watching the great coverage by the BBC. Unlike other countries who are having crap coverage.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's still an improvement, did you really expect a proposed replacement to be very different politically to the predecessor?

Also I'm failing to see how the public bikes are a waste, cutting down congestion in the capital is one of the main issues that the London Mayor has to tackle for London to thrive, freeing up space on the roads for trade purposes can only be seen as beneficial.

If the Mayor wanted to cut congestion he'd remove the congestion charges and numerous traffic light stops around the capital which cause congestion by making people go round the congestion zone.

And in all honesty if you dig far enough you're always going to find a couple of opinions which someone has which goes against the stereotypical label they belong to e.g. Conservative, because the label is just a generalisation not an accurate depiction of individual opinions or political position. It's not enough to say that someone's not conservative because they're non-conservative on certain issues, the only people who are "truly conservative" are only conservative so they can display it as an accolade, not because they think it's a good stance.

I never said all conservative thought is the same, not at all. But when you have a party (and politicians) who support comprehensive education, radical constitutional reform to our parliaments (devolution, House of Lords), liberal interventionism overseas, sociological approaches to crime and disorder, the abolition and surrender of centuries worth of power to a foreign and left wing body - these are not just simply not conservative, they are to the hard left.

If Johnson does get to leadership of the party though, you'll all flock back to the Conservative Party because of his entertainment value and tell me just how he's going to overturn Labour policies in government - just like many on this forum did with David Cameron before 2010.

Wasteful public spending? Oh whatever. The Olympics being hosted here in London will boost the economy and part of it is funded by sponsorship.

Every Olympics is sold as that and as far as i'm aware, every Olympics has produced a net loss.

Public bicycles, which I assume you mean Barclays Cycle Hire, which will make its money back over time and it's also part funded by Barclays.

Why is the state funding bicycles? if you want a bicycle, go and buy one with your own money - don't request that the taxpayer pay it for you and subsidise your bicycle. In relation to the Barclays part, if it were such a good idea that will produce a profit then why aren't private sector companies flocking to start it up?

Finally, the "zip wire" you're on about - I also assume you mean the Emirates Air Line? Once again, sponsored. It's also a huge tourist attraction and during the Olympics it will take in a lot of money. The first time I went, there were huge queues of people wanting to go on it, just for the ride back and forth. It was also built under budget. :-)

The Olympics was also built 'under budget' after they'd moved the goal posts several times of what 'under budget' actually constituted.

What's wrong with having the Olympics? The Olympics has been fantastic so far. The opening ceremony was good, the games itself have been great. A lot of people have been attending, a lot of people have been watching the great coverage by the BBC. Unlike other countries who are having crap coverage.

I suppose around 2004 people such as me in Greece had our concerns shunned away like this, being told how wonderful and fantastic the Olympics are and that we should simply ignore the trillions in debt in which we owe - even, as Dean has shown, repeating the myth that Olympics produce a profit and lead to a healthy economy. For Greece a few years later after the 2004 Athens Games, the chickens have come to roost - we are not exempt.

We're in this much debt yet I see we're still not taking it seriously.

[Dean]

The Olympics will definitely bring in money on the long term though...

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Olympics will definitely bring in money on the long term though...

Based on..?

Fireworks and publically funded sports days by a heavily indebted state don't increase investment, what increases investment (both at home and overseas) is low taxation and minimal regulation.

[Chippiewill]

Only the locations themselves are publically funded and they're still around after the olympics to be sold/reused.

[LiquidLuck.]

The London Olympics failed. They gave away tickets for the teams and lots of people, and they just didn't turn up. They should have kept those tickets and sold them to turists because that's why they went to London. Now there are people wanting tickets, and the seats are empty.

[Ardemax]

The London Olympics failed. They gave away tickets for the teams and lots of people, and they just didn't turn up. They should have kept those tickets and sold them to turists because that's why they went to London. Now there are people wanting tickets, and the seats are empty.

I have to disagree completely with "the London Olympics failed". On what do you base that on? Yes there were empty seats, but that was only for the first few days. Every event apart from football was sold out (I think) which is an Olympic first and there have been more tickets sold for the Paralympics than ever before. Hardly "failing" in that sense. Or maybe you're talking about our medal tally? Oh no, we did quite well there too. How about the impact of the Olympics on our society? Early signs are showing that sports participation rates are increasing and the government has pledged to put more money into sports in the UK. Tourism increased (obviously) throughout the Olympic period helping the local London economy. Aside from being over-budget (by quite a fair margin, I'll admit) I don't think the Olympics "failed" at all and hopefully this will be unlike any other country in that the legacy will continue on.