I don’t want this to be an attack piece. I’m no longer affiliated to any party and I’m not trying to make one look better (or bigger) than another. I’m simply trying to find out the truth of a matter. For that reason, I think this post fits with our remit, to think about Scotland and how it can be better (in this case, by finding out some truth.
So my question is this: how many members do the Labour party have in Scotland?
The reason I ask is that I listened to Harriet Harman at Saturday’s Labour leadership announcement proclaiming that the party had found 30,000 new members since May (UK-wide). I figured SOME of them must be in Scotland, so I looked at the figures published on Labour’s website regarding how their constituency parties voted in the leadership election. That page shows the first preference votes cast for each candidate from each CLP, the total votes cast within each CLP and the total number of ballot papers distributed to each CLP. Now, assuming Labour are democratic (and the electoral college system makes that a debatable point) then they will send a ballot paper to EVERY member in each CLP. Which means from the information given, you can work out how many members there are in each CLP… and how many there are in total.
So I took each of the 60 Scottish CLPs (divided by Westminster constituency – Orkney and Shetland excepted) and put them in a spreadsheet and simply totalled the numbers (see end for the numbers). By my reckoning – using Labour’s own published figures – this would make Labour’s membership in Scotland just 13,135. A far cry from the “near 20,000” they had 18 months ago. Indeed, that article, from January 2009, suggests Labour membership was 26,500 in 2000. If my figures are accurate (and I did put IF there, though if Labour’s OWN figures are accurate then I don’t see why they wouldn’t be) then two questions arise:
1) Â Where has HALF of their membership gone in the last 10 years?
2) Â Where is Scottish Labour’s share of the 30,000 new members since May, cited by Harriet Harman on Saturday?
Now, perhaps my working is wrong, I’ve got the wrong end of the stick from either what Harriet Harman said or from the CLP figures, but I really can’t see it. If someone from Labour wants to tell me how wrong I am – evidence will be required, naturally – I’d be happy to retract this. But to me, on these figures, it seems very much like Labour are a party distinctly in retreat in Scotland.
#1 by John Ruddy on September 26, 2010 - 2:35 pm
Malc,
As a Labour member, I think it is disappointing. Some of the smallest CLPs in the country are in Scotland (again discounting Orkney & Shetland), and even the largest CLP, North Ayrshire & Arran is still medium sized in UK terms.
I think the answer lies in the need for Scottish Labour to be better organised – to turn those who vote and support Labour into being members and being active. Perhaps it has been too complacent in the last decade? Not sure, but what I do know is that it needs to make a push for more members, and not rely on getting back into power at Holyrood as a reason to think that all is well with the membership.
#2 by Malc on September 26, 2010 - 9:23 pm
I’d argue – and I’m trying to be constructive here – that Labour in Scotland need much more focus. I’d argue that that needs to come at Holyrood, and that Holyrood offers the party an opportunity to get back into power soon. But they have to want it – and they have to be smarter with it too, and that means devolving more (some!) power to their Scottish party.
#3 by MekQuarrie on September 26, 2010 - 2:37 pm
I can’t think of any other way of doing it. Sterling work (and serious ramifications)…
#4 by Sam Coates on September 26, 2010 - 2:49 pm
I’ve just done the same for Wales and it comes to just under 11000. If Scotland had the same proportion of the population in Labour they would have nearly 20,000 members.
I don’t any historic figures for Wales unfortunately.
#5 by James on September 26, 2010 - 2:58 pm
Also, I noted that the elected reps section (which I think dates from 1994, i.e. pre-devo) includes just MPs and MEPs.
Given that each of them counts for 608 other members..
.. that means that one Labour MEP carries more weight than four and a half Holyroods full of Labour MSPs all voting the same way would.
#6 by Anon on September 26, 2010 - 3:13 pm
Two possibilities:
1. New members joined after the closing date to take part in the ballot (presumably there was a cut off point early on so that the ballots could be printed).
or
2. The new members are included in those numbers, meaning the party was even smaller before the election.
#7 by Malc on September 26, 2010 - 9:18 pm
Yeah, either could be right. But, 18,500 members on 1 January (see source below) versus 13,100 in October either suggests they LOST 6,000 members and then gained 1,000 back (which might make Harman’s claim accurate) or simply that they lost 5,400 members. That’s quite a lot in 9 months…
#8 by Baron Sarwar on September 26, 2010 - 3:39 pm
I bunged these numbers on GoogleDocs if anyone wants to play about with them:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AnSo3RmrZLxQdGhUZm04dTJJSXByT1Q2YzZHNFpqSlE&hl=en#gid=0
One thing that popped out at me was the relatively low level of membership in constituencies that have recently experienced a by election – Glasgow East, Glenrothes & Glasgow North East with memberships of 161, 201 & 168 respectively. The Scottish average is 219. I would’ve expected there to have been an upswing in members after the by-election circus has swung though town, but no.
And two seats – East Lothian & North Ayrshire & Arran – account for about 8% of all Scottish members.
#9 by The Irn Juq on September 26, 2010 - 3:49 pm
“Now, assuming Labour are democratic (and the electoral college system makes that a debatable point) then they will send a ballot paper to EVERY member in each CLP.”
One caveat I would add is that parties do often have a bit of a cooling period, during which new members are not eligible to vote on such matters to prevent any attempt to artificially increase support by signing new members.
The Herald recently reported that the SNP NEC had lengthened theirs after they noticed a surge in new members shortly before the regional list ballots were due to be distributed.
#10 by Malc on September 26, 2010 - 9:12 pm
The “cooling period” thing is fair (and would explain a lack of uprising in their numbers – answering the second question) but doesn’t answer the first question, namely, where has half Labour’s membership in Scotland disappeared to in the last 10 years?
#11 by Shuna on September 26, 2010 - 4:12 pm
Malc – I have no figures for you – but what I can say is that after the local CLP AGM on Monday night my mum commented on how many new young members there were and how enthusiastic they were.
Have you done a comparrison with other parties? – I am not sure you can say that Labour are in retreat in Scotland unless you can compare them with the others. My, perhaps niaive, understanding is that most of the parties have been suffering from a drop in membership – something a lot of clubs and groups in the country have suffered. It seems committment is a big issue for us as a society at the moment. Getting people to ‘sign up’ is difficult for most organisations.
A bit like saying the Church of Scotland is in retreat because its membership in dropping but try telling that to my hard working congregation!
Sorry still aglow from yesterday’s result 😉
#12 by Malc on September 26, 2010 - 5:48 pm
“I am not sure you can say that Labour are in retreat in Scotland unless you can compare them with the others.”
So a decline isn’t a decline if others are in decline too? Shuna, that’s just nonsensical!
For what its worth, Prof James Mitchell at Strathclyde has done a study on SNP membership (sorry no link, though if you find one let me know!) and the party’s membership has RISEN to over 15,000 (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scottishnationalparty/SNP–reveals-membership-boom.5951268.jp) in 2010, and up 65% since 2003 (which was, I will grant you, a low for the party). Incidentally, that same Scotsman article (1 January 2010) has Labour at 18,500. So where have they all gone?
But as I said in the intro – this isn’t about making them look bad or being negative. It’s about trying to find out what is ACTUALLY true.
#13 by Lost Highlander on September 26, 2010 - 6:09 pm
The problem with just counting membership is that there are members and active members. Labour seems to have lost a lot of people who where willing to go out and do the active canvasing and election work.
I wonder if some of this is down to the changes in how local councillors are elected. Certainly with the PR system and multi member wards a lot of Labour councillors lost there seats in 2007. With this loss these ex councillors are less willing to go out on the doorsteps and so are there families. It has been obvious that this was the case and remains the case. Labour has to reenergise its membership and to make more of its members willing to be active in its cause. Until then the Labour machine has not got all its wheels working.
#14 by Shuna on September 26, 2010 - 6:21 pm
Thanks for the info re SNP membership with that now I can accept your argument. I really have/had no idea how the other parties were doing.
A decline is a decline, I will give you that but without knowing what was happening with the other parties I was struggling to see how looking at the labour stats in isolation was proof they were in retreat – decline and retreat are very different things. Retreat suggests they have given up – a decline does not necessarily mean the same is true.
As a member I would like to know what is true as well!
#15 by Malc on September 26, 2010 - 9:09 pm
Apologies – most times I am very careful with the words I’m using. I didn’t select “retreat” over “decline” for any reason other than it came to head. Perhaps “decline” describes it better. Though maybe “Labour membership numbers are in retreat” would also have been apt.
#16 by Hamish on September 26, 2010 - 8:15 pm
Newspapers trumpet their circulation figures when they are growing, but become coy when they are declining.
Likewise with polititcal parties.
Not just coy, but very selective.
Your approach, Malc, seems an ingenious and entirely reasonable way to get at the real facts. Does anyone have the resource to apply this approach to the whole of the UK to come up with a figure of total Labour membership? (Or any other party).
Re the point of a cooling point period for joining, there is an article in the Sunday Times today in which the wife of Chris Huhne writes that her son joined Labour “last week” so that he could vote in the leadership election. The “last week” may be a slight exaggeration. Estranged wives are prone to that kind of thing.
But all the candidates in the Labour leadership election made a big push to recruit new members (who they hoped would vote for them, natch). So I reckon the electoral roll was pretty much up-to-date.
#17 by Malc on September 26, 2010 - 9:07 pm
If you want to do it for the whole UK party, the info is there. I just pulled out the Scottish figures, bunged them in a spreadsheet and stuck a formula in to count them (so its not MY maths that is wrong if they are wrong!).
#18 by John Ruddy on September 26, 2010 - 9:22 pm
Closing date for new members to join and vote in the leadership election was 8th September. So these figures are as up-to-date as you can get.
#19 by Malc on September 26, 2010 - 9:24 pm
Thanks for that – puts a pretty clear perspective on the numbers then.
#20 by Random Housekeeper on September 26, 2010 - 10:06 pm
Like the approach Malc – nice and simple and I’m interested to see how it compares with membership of other parties so might pinch the method an do the sums if no one else does.
For info – the James Mitchell report has not been published yet, according to an SNP source.
#21 by Malc on September 26, 2010 - 10:16 pm
Ah… okay. That’ll be why I can’t find it online. But I think some of the details from it were in the press clippings above.
#22 by cynicalHighlander on September 26, 2010 - 10:38 pm
I read somewhere that 36,000+ (c15%) spoiled votes and have just heard similar on the radio is None of the above gaining momentum or……
#23 by John Ruddy on September 26, 2010 - 11:17 pm
Apparently most of those spoilt ballots were by not ticking the box confirming that you support Labour’s aims and values. Which probably explains the stories of lib dems and tories claiming to have voted in the election.
#24 by BM on September 27, 2010 - 8:53 am
Maybe the Harman membership figures include youth/junior members. Would such members receive ballots?
#25 by John Ruddy on September 27, 2010 - 10:25 am
All members, including youth members received votes. I think what these numbers show is the low numbers membership reached before the election.
#26 by Indy on September 27, 2010 - 10:32 am
The SNP has exactly 15,945 members. That means there are more SNP members than Labour members. Has to be a first!
#27 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 11:11 am
I think you are probably right – it is a first. But I’d urge caution on another front – the figures are probably the same for May’s election, but Labour got their supporters (who are not members) to vote for them. That’s a bigger tide for the SNP to change.
Though I will say that if Labour have lost 5,000 members then that might make a bit of a dent in their income…
#28 by Caron on September 27, 2010 - 10:55 am
Thanks for doing the work and organising these figures. I’d had a quick look late on Saturday night and wondered which of the Miliband brothers took most of Scotland’s members. Much of David’s 500 majority comes from a few seats where he had a whomping lead – it was much closer elsewhere and I suspect that Ed would have picked up more in subsequent transfers than David.
Interesting that one of David’s key supporters, Tom Harris, couldn’t marshal a bigger majority for his guy in Glasgow South. You also wonder how much influence Thomas Docherty has on the Dunfermline party when his favoured candidate came a distant third.
Very interesting stuff on Labour membership, though. You might be interested to know that Lib Dem membership has gone up by 18% in the last few months.
How many members do the SNP have? This January it was 15644 which, if that’s sustained, would give them 2000 more than Labour.
#29 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 11:15 am
I’m sure you said that before, about the Lib Dem membership I mean. Is that in Scotland or UK-wide? And if its UK-wide, how much of that increase is in Scotland?
The Scotsman link above put Lib Dem membership in Scotland at 4000 in January, which if there was an 18% jump, would put you at 4720.
(Brace yourself for a compliment…)
If that is right (or indeed, even if it isn’t) for a party which has 1/3 of the activists of the largest party by membership in Scotland, to finish second in seats is quite an achievement (FPTP advantages notwithstanding).
#30 by Jeff on September 27, 2010 - 10:58 am
Malc, great post.
Infact, I wonder if you can take credit for this SNP Press Release:
http://www.snp.org/node/17333
#31 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 11:16 am
I think I’ll break out a “behave” for you Jeff. I’m sure the SNP press team were awake to this before I was…
#32 by Chris on September 27, 2010 - 12:25 pm
Do the SNP figures include FSN members and SNP members living outside of Scotland?
Any Labour Students members in Scotland will be counted within the Trade Unions and Socialist Societies bloc and Labour members abroad won’t appear as a separate Scottish figure. And of course Labour Party members who are Scottish but living in England will not appear in the Scottish figures.
#33 by Chris on September 27, 2010 - 12:28 pm
So I guess what we need from the SNP is a comparable figure of SNP members living in Scotland excluding student groups.
#34 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 1:05 pm
I guess that is the problem – we’re almost comparing apples and oranges. I’d imagine they line up roughly even if you take your considerations out of the equation. I’d imagine that yes, the SNP would count ALL members (since this is a membership number). But perhaps this explains some of the missing Labour members.
Why, I wonder, would Labour students not be counted within their branches? I’m pretty sure (but not certain) that FSN and YSI SNP folk are branch members AS WELL as being in their respective organisations, so maybe Labour do the same. I don’t know.
#35 by Chris on September 27, 2010 - 1:14 pm
Students are definitely not. You have to join your Labour Club and can choose whether or not to join your local party separately.
Young Labour members are just local party members who happen to be of the right age. There is no separate membership.
#36 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 1:22 pm
Ok. So, as I said, that might account for some of the drop (that’s assuming they were counted in the first place). But I do wonder how many DON’T join their local branches – why join student association and not a branch? Seems a bit illogical to me.
#37 by Chris on September 27, 2010 - 1:34 pm
Or maybe why bother joining a branch if you are already a member of the Student wing? At least the student wing doesn’t make you sit through endless reports from councillors and listen to boring (old) people drone on for hours…
I suspect the ‘drop’ is between people whose membership subscription has fallen into arrears, but haven’t actually left or deemed to have left due to non-payment yet. There is always a churn in membership so declaring “5,000 new members” is pretty meaningless if you have lost 5,000 too.
#38 by Indy on September 27, 2010 - 2:53 pm
No, the SNP membership figures don’t include FSN or YSI members. It does include all members, wherever they live.
#39 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 3:08 pm
Ah… okay. But don’t you have to be a member of the SNP to be a member of FSN/ YSI?
#40 by elgenio on September 27, 2010 - 3:59 pm
No, you don’t have to be a member of the SNP to be in the FSN/YSI but there must be few who are YSI but not SNP I think.
#41 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 5:08 pm
Okay, so SNP figures are simply members of the SNP, not FSN/ YSI affiliates, but some of them may have joined the party too, or stayed as members of FSN/YSI after joining the “grown-up party”. And Labour numbers (probably) don’t include students, so that might even out.
What about non-Scottish residents? Presumably, Labour don’t count their Scottish members living elsewhere (eg – England) but the SNP have a London branch, which probably WOULD be counted, as would people like Sean Connery, who would be members but probably don’t live here. On that score, would the numbers be very different?
#42 by Indy on September 27, 2010 - 5:41 pm
We do have members outwith Scotland but they don’t have a vote in the list rankings or leadership elections – you have to be resident to vote. Get the number of people who were sent out list ranking ballots and that is the number of SNP members resident in Scotland. Next you will ask me where to get that info – I don’t know. SNP HQ logical choice but whether they would give it to you is another matter.
#43 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 5:47 pm
Yeah Indy, I doubt they just give that info out willy-nilly! I don’t think it matters that much, all I was saying was that the SNP MEMBERSHIP number announced today probably INCLUDES London Branch (and other members outwith Scotland).
But then it is probably unfair for the SNP to compare THAT figure with Labour’s voting list, since the same rule probably applies for them – ie, that you have to be a Scottish resident to vote through a Scottish CLP.
#44 by oldnat on September 27, 2010 - 6:32 pm
The Labour membership groups contain “Northern Ireland” with 275 papers issued and “Labour International” (representing Labour Party members and supporters living outside the UK ) with 716 papers issued. Presumably there a few Scots amongst these.
The SNP figures, I presume, include London Branch and international members too. However, neither of these factors seem likely to dent the thrust of the argument as to the SNP having the largest membership in Scotland.
#45 by Sean on September 27, 2010 - 7:10 pm
I think the Scottish Labour twitter account still proclaims Labour to be Scotland’s largest political party.
I assume they will be changing this at the first available opportunity.
#46 by Alison on September 27, 2010 - 10:37 pm
FSN, YSI and TUG members are almost always members of the SNP. The only exception I can think of is that membership of the SNP is from age 16 (you can be an associate member, without voting rights, under that age) while YSI membership is from the age of 14. I did try to get that changed as YSI Convener!
Membership has been steadily increasing since the membership system was centralised after the constitutional reforms in 2004.
#47 by Malc on September 27, 2010 - 11:07 pm
Thanks for clarifying Alison. I couldn’t remember if you had to be an SNP member to join those groups, or if by being a member of a group you became a member or the SNP, or if you had to opt-in as it were. I think what you’re saying is its the latter, but that most do?
I seem to remember Prof James Mitchell saying at a conference that the SNP didn’t really keep centralised records of membership before 2004, so the membership figures for then are part-known (what the branches told them) and part-guess (based on previous years’ numbers). So comparative with pre-2004 is difficult. But as you say, membership has increased from around 5,250 in 2003 to 15,000+ this year. That’s a massive increase.
#48 by Indy on September 28, 2010 - 10:23 am
We may well have had a larger membership than we knew prior to centralisation. I have to say a centralised membership system has worked really well though I had some reservations at the time. It has freed up branch time for more campaigning – which is how you get more members.
#49 by Alison on September 28, 2010 - 1:06 pm
Indy – I also think it’s made joining and maintaining membership a lot easier for members.
#50 by Kezia Dugdale on September 28, 2010 - 8:59 pm
Hi Malc, I promised on twitter to look into this and try and come up with some sort of explanatoin. I’m no official spokesperson, but what strikes me frm the numbers you’ve posted is that they do not reflect the numbers i know to be true in edinburgh east – so i asked about – the answer is that labour students don’t appear in the clp figures – that’s because they are an affiliated society and therefore counted separately.
These figures also don’t include Labour clubs – that’s the old school ayrshire and east lothian clubs – these people are members of the party and the clubs are affiliated to Scottish Labour Party but not UK so don’t get a vote on UK leader.
Together that will account for a few 1000 people but i can’t claim to know that it’s 7!
(Sorry for typos – struggling with poor signal and kit)
#51 by Malc on September 29, 2010 - 1:11 am
Thanks Kez. I figured someone would know how to explain some of it (and indeed the student thing was mentioned above). I do have a couple of questions though.
1) How can a club be affiliated to “Scottish” Labour and not the wider the party? Isn’t “Scottish” Labour simply a part of the whole (I only ask because I know Iain Gray isn’t “Scottish LEADER” but “LOLITSP”).
2) When you were a student, were you simply a student member, or were you a branch member too? Not knowing you that well but going on your party activism, I’d guess the latter. If that is a common story among students, then they would be counted in the branch figures as well, right? (And, presumably, get 2 votes – one as an affiliate and one as a member… but that’s another issue!).
3) You say that the figures don’t include Labour clubs but that “these people are members of the party”. But isn’t that counter-intuitive? As in, if they are members of the party, they should be members of the party – and allowed to vote?
Internal democracy is so weird!
Pingback: tweets for 2010-09-28 « The Mushkush Digest
#52 by Kezia on September 29, 2010 - 12:54 pm
Well I might struggle to defend it because I didn’t write the rules but will try and answer your points.
The Labour clubs are affiliated to the Scottish Labour Party – they are members and did get to vote for Iain Gray. They bay a levy fee to affiliate and I’d imagine they could affiliate to the national party but have chosen not to – I don’t know why that’s the case.
As for Labour students. I was never a Labour student. I didn’t join the party till I was 22/23 years old.
I know a number of people who are labour students but not members of their local CLP – therefore they are counted separately… Some people are both and get two votes… Internal democracy indeed 😉
#53 by Soo Sider on September 30, 2010 - 2:58 pm
Kezia
Thanks for your explanation, however in my mind it raises more questions than answers.
How can Social Club Members be affiliated to Scottish Labour Party, when there is actually no such entity? According to the Electoral Commission there is only Labour Party and Scottish Labour Party is registered as one of its descriptions. So either they are affiliated to Labour or they are not if affiliated then they are members of the party not some sort of in between pseudo position.
I find it interesting that you try to equate Student Members with Social Club Members how can these possibly be consider in anyway to be similar? One is actively politically and the other enjoys the local social club.
The simple question is surely are these social club members of Labour? the answer is either yes or no if yes then they should surely be entitled to vote if no then why were they allowed to vote for the leader in Holyrood?
Sorry but the whole thing sounds very very dodgy
#54 by Jeff on September 30, 2010 - 3:07 pm
Furthermore, what if someone is a member of the social club and also a member of the Labour party? Do they get counted as a member twice?