Labour party finances look bleak

[SirSamVimesCityWatch]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fcc4cab2-ad3e-11ec-8378-1c1dfedc8742?shareToken=495ceb1f0209153e9fda3096c4bdfeb6

Article in the Times today. Labour are looking for new big money donors to help pull themselves out of a slight financial black hole.

"Labour’s new fundraising drive comes after its ruling national executive committee (NEC) was given a “bleak” financial briefing in July last year, which revealed the party had ended 2020 with an unplanned deficit for the first time since 2006."

...

"Party membership has also fallen by more than 100,000 to just over 400,000 since Starmer took office, although insiders say Labour has recorded a “mini-surge” in recent months following the scandal over Boris Johnson’s involvement in lockdown parties."

Lots of comments. Top ones all about the fact that labour can't tell what a woman is.

I've not been allowed to comment on Guardian articles for months since asking about women's rights to single spaces. Women's rights and free speech used to be left wing issues, The Labour Party and The Guardian have abandoned them.

Ahem, I think you will find that is birth person fuckers. Bigot

@Theunamedcat

You reap what you sow deny 50% of the population your going to lose

I said to an unenlightened relative over a year ago: 'no political party can ignore 50% population forever and get away with it' ....

Could someone suggest to the Labour Party that they do a quick statistical analysis (a head count would do, but by all means make it sound much more "complicated" than it is - they're good at that..) of which sex the members who deserted the cause were? And then have a good long think about why they're all women..?

“It’s quite hard to get people, who have the amounts of money that might be useful to a political party, to donate when you say you want to abolish capitalism.”

It's quite hard for anyone with a bit of aspiration to be a home owner as well lol
There are probably some puberty blocker companies willing to donate.

@CompleteGinasaur

Could someone suggest to the Labour Party that they do a quick statistical analysis (a head count would do, but by all means make it sound much more "complicated" than it is - they're good at that..) of which sex the members who deserted the cause were? And then have a good long think about why they're all women..?

Yes indeed. I left when Corbyn was elected but can't effectively vote Labour where I live anyway. I can now never see myself going back.

Not surprised I stop being a member over what is a woman and now the “hard working families” line. They want to distance themselves from being seen as supporting “welfare”. Didn’t bother well off when they getting 80% forlough though did it. Not everyone can work doesn’t mean if you can’t you should be resigned to a life of endless poverty

Plus local Labour introduced horrendous LTNs which disaster for disabled people like me. They not be getting any more of my money or vote any time soon.

I mean, I even told them to #Expel Me, but eventually I got fed up waiting and expelled myself.. I know there were tens of thousands of us did that, so it's not like they weren't warned..

I was thinking about Labour again earlier today - I honestly think I might vote Tory in the next election. Because it is going to take something really big to get Labour to turn around on this whole gender thing and also just generally, and a huge loss to the Conservatives might be the kick up the arse they need.

They need something to show them that talking absolute bollocks isn't going to wash on the gender issue, and therefore isn't going to wash on any other issue either. That they need to sort themselves the fuck out, that the electorate doesn't care about performative virtual signalling on any issue and they need to stop fannying around and make themselves electable if they ever want a sniff of power again.

Then, and only then, we might start getting something better than the current shower we currently have in government.

@CompleteGinasaur

Could someone suggest to the Labour Party that they do a quick statistical analysis (a head count would do, but by all means make it sound much more "complicated" than it is - they're good at that..) of which sex the members who deserted the cause were? And then have a good long think about why they're all women..?

Indeed.

#LabourLosingWomen
#LabourLosingLoadsofMoney

Maybe some sharp-minded analyst might get a committee together to throw some ideas around and see if these things might be connected.

I refuse to vote for any Party which denies biological reality.

And I can’t vote Tory.

So I’m pondering what we can write on the ballot papers in May? And I KNOW it will be ignored blah blah blah but what if 100,000 voters all write:

Sex Matters. I stand with JKR.

It could be a starting point?

@Snoozer11

Just had my commenting privileges permanently taken away from me by The Guardian, because I said someone who doesn't know what a woman is shouldn't win an election.

You must believe a baseless ideology, or else.

God almighty. I'm like many women I know IRL and here -- the Guardian used to be central to my life, but now I rarely look at it online and actively refuse to buy a copy.

So you're banned for life while misogyny is celebrated.Their shame, not yours.

I think it's a shame they don't formally count or record the number of spoiled ballots, because that would be really telling.

I spoiled my ballot at the last election but I don't want to do it again.

I may have to vote Tory for the first time ever. I'm still not sure how I feel about that. I have voted in every election since I was 18 and, excepting the last spoiled ballot, I have always voted labour or libdem. It's a huge deal to me - to be unable to vote for them anymore because they have betrayed my sex.

Only silver lining is that I now live in a safe Tory seat, so my vote has far less impact than it used to when I lived in a more contested constituency.

@Rubidium

An article from today's Grauniad about the uselessness of Starmer and Labour in general: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/27/keir-starmer-party-opposition-election-labour#comments

Unusually, the Guardian is allowing comments, and there are a couple discussing Labour's inability to define what a woman is and that this might be a problem.

There are an awful lot of deluded Guardian commentators - it's been awhile since I have read anything there even though it is free.
On Women's sex-based rights, I spotted this: Bernese: 'I have read through hundreds of these comments, not all tbf. One thing that struck me was that I didn't see any mention of the fury of many women over gender issues, with eg Labourlosingwomen trending on twitter and many women proclaiming they are going to be single issue voters. Say whatever you like about the issue, but the fact that I didn't find anyone even mentioning it, not in the article itself or in the comments, is bizarre.' stinky: 'No one mentions these things because - apart from a few dozen people out there - no one really cares...'

and there you have it Guardian Labour supporters could not care less about 50% population.....

Quite what did Labour expect to happen to membership when they told women who believed TWANW to leave

@Theunamedcat

You reap what you sow deny 50% of the population your going to lose

I'd love to know what the proportion of men to women is among those who have left.

@Snoozer11

Just had my commenting privileges permanently taken away from me by The Guardian, because I said someone who doesn't know what a woman is shouldn't win an election.

You must believe a baseless ideology, or else.

Me too, a few months ago. When I asked why the said it was due to my GC "rants" (you know, the literal violence of saying TW are men, and so forth)

and a huge loss to the Conservatives might be the kick up the arse they need.

They got that in 2019 though and it doesn't seem to have given them pause for thought about the direction they're going in.

I've had to conclude they aren't serious about being in power and are perfectly content spitting nonsense and sniping from the sidelines.

I'm pretty sure they don't want to be in power they like it where they are all the cash and privilege none of the actual work all they have to do is disagree and poke holes in things

Being the opposition must be a lot simpler.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

Labour just can't shake off the ideologues who'd rather be pure than accomplish anything. In fact they probably like it better--the practical details of running the country would get in the way of their lovely theories

yeah, this. Corbyn was their king

these people HATE Blair. He was practical and he was a winner. two things that are anathema to them.

if it wasn't pretending some men are women, they'd find another way to prove how pure and better they are and render themselves unvoteable for. While they hold the whip hand, Labour will never be in power

There seems to be some misunderstanding here (in the whole thread, not just this post).

What anyone thinks about "the ideologues", about Labour's left vs centre factional war, about Blair or anything else is up to them. But on the subject of this thread, the relationship between all this and PARTY FINANCES is very clear: Labour was at it's financially healthiest, by far, during the Corbyn years. Prior to that it was struggling to overcome a persistent financial deficit. Membership numbers increased enormously under Corbyn (to far higher than they had dropped to under Blair), all those new members paid subs (as well as attending fundraising drives, buying raffle tickets etc.) and that problem was solved.

Since then, the sharp drop in membership has not been due to outrage at Labour's position on TWAW. It's been due to a combination of Starmer ruthlessly expelling left wing members (many of them TWAW-believing wokies) and, particularly, others leaving out of disgust at both the assault on party democracy and the lack of any genuine left wing policies to be proud of.

You may of course believe Blair was sensible Labour, Corbyn and all his supporters a disaster and the Labour party better off without them. But while that may be your take on electability or political ideology, on the specific question of finance it's contrary to the facts. Corbyn - whatever you think of his politics - rescued the Labour party financially. Starmer - whatever you think of his politics - has sunk it again.

Personally I always assumed that Starmer did all this knowing he had some big money corporate donors lined up who just needed to see the socialists gone out the door first. Whatever else, Starmer's not an idiot so he must have had some plan for the economics of it all. If I'm right, then we can look forward to choosing between two parties each in the pocket of the rich and representing their interests at the expense of everyone else. Great.

@OvaHere

and a huge loss to the Conservatives might be the kick up the arse they need.

They got that in 2019 though and it doesn't seem to have given them pause for thought about the direction they're going in.

I've had to conclude they aren't serious about being in power and are perfectly content spitting nonsense and sniping from the sidelines.

That loss was dismissed as being to do with Brexit though, plus the gender issue wasn't at the forefront of many minds then. Another massive loss would be much more difficult to explain away.

Or, you could be right and they could just want to stay as opposition, doing nothing more than taking what they perceive to be the moral high ground.

Oh, and also the payments for the antisemitism lawsuits, which the Labour Party took legal advice about and was told the cases were extremely weak and they should challenge - but which Starmer decided to pay off anyway for political reasons.

@Violetparis

I've not been allowed to comment on Guardian articles for months since asking about women's rights to single spaces. Women's rights and free speech used to be left wing issues, The Labour Party and The Guardian have abandoned them.

Wow, that's proper censorship. We may as well be in a dictatorship.