SNP leadership election

[PapofGlencoe]

has to be said if the SNP have lost 50k members in a few years with indy support increasing and Brexit, something has gone awry.

I don't understand what people are suggesting here?  That Peter Murrell will find votes for Humza?  Is that really where we are?  Wings Anon Shamon really has got it's teeth into the movement.  It's even more dangerous because it's interspersed with the odd accurate critique.

[TDYER63]

16 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I don't think counting them is the problem.

 

 

15 minutes ago, aaid said:

HQ will know exactly how many members there are. I’ve no issue with them releasing those numbers but I can’t see what difference it makes if it’s 10,000 or 100,000.   Maybe someone who is calling for the numbers to be released can explain it but I won’t be holding my breathe. 

 

I agree, so what is it people are looking for. I have no idea why they are not realising them as every branch has full disclosure of their numbers, but at the same time I am not sure what it is going to achieve. Not every member will vote so its not like the votes are going to equal the membership. 

[aaid]

1 minute ago, PapofGlencoe said:

has to be said if the SNP have lost 50k members in a few years with indy support increasing and Brexit, something has gone awry.

I don't understand what people are suggesting here?  That Peter Murrell will find votes for Humza?  Is that really where we are?  Wings Anon Shamon really has got it's teeth into the movement.  It's even more dangerous because it's interspersed with the odd accurate critique.

We know that the last published figures were 104k in December 2021 - that was in the annual report for 2021, 2022’s numbers wouldn’t normally be out until the next annual report is released in the summer. 

We know that the peak membership was 125k around 2016.  

I marine a graph of membership we showed sudden spikes due to some political event and then tailing off gradually as people lose interest.  Undoubtedly there would’ve been an impact with Alba forming, they claim 8000 members - which seems high - but I imagine the vast majority would come from the SNP.  Anecdotally people have resigned over the GRR bill but how many is unknown. 

[PapofGlencoe]

5 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

 

 

I agree, so what is it people are looking for. I have no idea why they are not realising them as every branch has full disclosure of their numbers, but at the same time I am not sure what it is going to achieve. Not every member will vote so its not like the votes are going to equal the membership. 

agreed.  Load of nonsense this.  Disheartening to see the main political party in Scotland descend this way.

Peter Murrell should have stepped down a long time ago though.  Independence in perception as well as fact is a well worn and good motto to go by.  regardless of the facts of this case.

 

[Orraloon]

15 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

has to be said if the SNP have lost 50k members in a few years with indy support increasing and Brexit, something has gone awry.

I don't understand what people are suggesting here?  That Peter Murrell will find votes for Humza?  Is that really where we are?  Wings Anon Shamon really has got it's teeth into the movement.  It's even more dangerous because it's interspersed with the odd accurate critique.

The most up to date numbers that I have seen are 103,884 on 31Dec2021. That was down from 105,393 on 31Dec2020. Those are pretty huge numbers for a party the size of the SNP. The official figures for last year are due for release soon anyway, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If there has been a big fall in the last year then that would be the reason for not releasing these figures and nothing to do with the leadership election, IMO. 

[PapofGlencoe]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

We know that the last published figures were 104k in December 2021 - that was in the annual report for 2021, 2022’s numbers wouldn’t normally be out until the next annual report is released in the summer. 

We know that the peak membership was 125k around 2016.  

I marine a graph of membership we showed sudden spikes due to some political event and then tailing off gradually as people lose interest.  Undoubtedly there would’ve been an impact with Alba forming, they claim 8000 members - which seems high - but I imagine the vast majority would come from the SNP.  Anecdotally people have resigned over the GRR bill but how many is unknown. 

Well we'll find out the figures shortly I imagine.  I don't suppose anyone is betting on an increase since 2021.

[PapofGlencoe]

2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

The most up to date numbers that I have seen are 103,884 on 31Dec2021. That was down from 105,393 on 31Dec2020. Those are pretty huge numbers for a party the size of the SNP. The official figures for last year are due for release soon anyway, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If there has been a big fall in the last year then that would be the reason for not releasing these figures and nothing to do with the leadership election, IMO. 

We'll find out soon.  All im saying is it's not a great sign to be losing a noticeable amount of grassroots members at the same time as charging on with supposed defacto referendums.  something to get to the bottom of rather than spin positive. 

 

[Orraloon]

11 minutes ago, aaid said:

We know that the last published figures were 104k in December 2021 - that was in the annual report for 2021, 2022’s numbers wouldn’t normally be out until the next annual report is released in the summer. 

We know that the peak membership was 125k around 2016.  

I marine a graph of membership we showed sudden spikes due to some political event and then tailing off gradually as people lose interest.  Undoubtedly there would’ve been an impact with Alba forming, they claim 8000 members - which seems high - but I imagine the vast majority would come from the SNP.  Anecdotally people have resigned over the GRR bill but how many is unknown. 

In reality it's only a very small proportion of people who leave the party who actually resign. Usually the ones who want to get themselves noticed, for one reason or another. Most folk just don't renew or just stop paying. It can sometimes take a wee while for branches to actually notice that they have gone. And, the abundance of different payment methods also makes it harder to keep track of. There will undoubtedly be folk getting a vote in this election who are not really entitled to it.

[Orraloon]

2 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

We'll find out soon.  All im saying is it's not a great sign to be losing a noticeable amount of grassroots members at the same time as charging on with supposed defacto referendums.  something to get to the bottom of rather than spin positive. 

 

100,000 is a huge number of members for a party like the SNP. That's about a quarter of the total Labour membership for the whole of the UK. The Tories only have about 170,000 members UK wide.

[PapofGlencoe]

1 minute ago, Orraloon said:

100,000 is a huge number of members for a party like the SNP. That's about a quarter of the total Labour membership for the whole of the UK. The Tories only have about 170,000 members UK wide.

I don't disagree but the SNP are a national movement to break up a state (allegedly).  Tories and Labour are run of the mill parties.  There is a difference.

[PapofGlencoe]

22 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

agreed.  Load of nonsense this.  Disheartening to see the main political party in Scotland descend this way.

Peter Murrell should have stepped down a long time ago though.  Independence in perception as well as fact is a well worn and good motto to go by.  regardless of the facts of this case.

 

I would add can anyone point out one or two actions Peter Murrell has done in the last 5 years which has been good for the SNP and justifies his massive salary?

from my perspective, knowing nothing of him personally, he's just been an easy distraction and offers nothing uniquely positive to the SNP.  Honestly if on nothing else, i'd be resigning after becoming aware of his salary alone.

This is not a support of the muppets insinuating rubbish about this vote.  

[hampden_loon2878]

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

It should be pretty easy to work out how many members the SNP has. Every branch has a list of their members and a total, its not exactly rocket science to add them all together. 

My local branch concerned had a thing on today regarding this however he has the numbers of members where I stay wrong

[aaid]

21 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I would add can anyone point out one or two actions Peter Murrell has done in the last 5 years which has been good for the SNP and justifies his massive salary?

from my perspective, knowing nothing of him personally, he's just been an easy distraction and offers nothing uniquely positive to the SNP.  Honestly if on nothing else, i'd be resigning after becoming aware of his salary alone.

This is not a support of the muppets insinuating rubbish about this vote.  

At which point over the last 24 years has Peter Murrell’s position become untenable?

In 2003 when he started seeing Nicola Sturgeon, in 2010 when they married, in 2016 when she became First Minister or in 2019 when Alex Salmond was arrested?

FWIW, I think his salary is probably commensurate with the role.  

[hampden_loon2878]

I can say with pretty much certainty that member numbers won’t be above 80k which makes sturgeons trans begging post insane 

[aaid]

42 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

In reality it's only a very small proportion of people who leave the party who actually resign. Usually the ones who want to get themselves noticed, for one reason or another. Most folk just don't renew or just stop paying. It can sometimes take a wee while for branches to actually notice that they have gone. And, the abundance of different payment methods also makes it harder to keep track of. There will undoubtedly be folk getting a vote in this election who are not really entitled to it.

People move between branches or get moved.   When I joined I was allocated to Headquarters branch.  I worked in London and so it would’ve been better had I been in the London branch as I could’ve gone to meetings after work.  About three years ago - during COVID - they allocated me to London which really isn’t much use to me as I’m hardly in London at all these days.  

[PapofGlencoe]

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

FWIW, I think his salary is probably commensurate with the role.  

Why?  What does he do?

I'm not against people on that salary who deserve it.  

 

Stop trying to insinuate I have an axe to grind here about Salmond.  It's got nothing to do with that.  What was his salary in 2003?  Was that "commesurate" with a Brain surgeon was it?  Pish.   

[aaid]

4 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Why?  What does he do?

I'm not against people on that salary who deserve it.  

 

Stop trying to insinuate I have an axe to grind here about Salmond.  It's got nothing to do with that.  What was his salary in 2003?  Was that "commesurate" with a Brain surgeon was it?  Pish.   

I’m insinuating nothing, don’t get so precious.

It’s rather that calls for Murrell’s head - funnily enough - seemed to coincide with Alex Salmond being arrested.   

Where were the SNP in 2003 - in opposition - and how many members did they have then?  In 2004 around 6000 people voted in the Leadership election.  

[aaid]

As if by magic, nice one ladies.

 

[PapofGlencoe]

16 minutes ago, aaid said:

I’m insinuating nothing, don’t get so precious.

It’s rather that calls for Murrell’s head - funnily enough - seemed to coincide with Alex Salmond being arrested.   

Where were the SNP in 2003 - in opposition - and how many members did they have then?  In 2004 around 6000 people voted in the Leadership election.  

I'm not sure what that's got to do with it, to be quite honest.  I'd be saying this about any "CEO" of any political party regardless of individual.  The role is obviously not the same as the CEO of a profit making business.  The former is not responsible in any real way for its success.  The members are not workers, the success is driven by the politicians.  It's not even a moderately sized admin office.  

I don't think he should be anywhere near £100k paid for by members; that doesn't come from any suspicion about Salmond.  It comes from my sense of fairness.  Bugger all to do with the SNP even.  But it seems particularly poor from a party professing a more equal society based on merit.  It wasn't him that brought about the upsurge in popularity but sounds like he's taken his wedge from it.  

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I don't disagree but the SNP are a national movement to break up a state (allegedly).  Tories and Labour are run of the mill parties.  There is a difference.

For most of its existence the SNP has had less than 20,000 members, and it managed fine. Many folk in the party think the membership has gotten far too big, which makes it difficult to control what's going on. The huge boost in members was a knee jerk reaction by lots of folk after losing the referendum. The numbers were always going to tail off after that. Personally, I would rather see a smaller membership, but those that remain to be more active members. Nowadays the majority of members never even attend a branch meeting. They might go to one and then they are never seen again. Of course, the membership fees are very useful but there are other ways to raise money if required. And, it's not all about money. Not yet anyway. We haven't turned into the USofA just yet.

[PapofGlencoe]

4 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

For most of its existence the SNP has had less than 20,000 members, and it managed fine. Many folk in the party think the membership has gotten far too big, which makes it difficult to control what's going on. The huge boost in members was a knee jerk reaction by lots of folk after losing the referendum. The numbers were always going to tail off after that. Personally, I would rather see a smaller membership, but those that remain to be more active members. Nowadays the majority of members never even attend a branch meeting. They might go to one and then they are never seen again. Of course, the membership fees are very useful but there are other ways to raise money if required. And, it's not all about money. Not yet anyway. We haven't turned into the USofA just yet.

I agree.  I remember the SNPs campaigns in the last century haha.  2007 was a massive change in professionalism and that was on a much smaller membership takings.

SNP must be sitting on a war chest now with membership fees of 100k and more for nearly ten years...

Edited March 16, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[Orraloon]

35 minutes ago, aaid said:

People move between branches or get moved.   When I joined I was allocated to Headquarters branch.  I worked in London and so it would’ve been better had I been in the London branch as I could’ve gone to meetings after work.  About three years ago - during COVID - they allocated me to London which really isn’t much use to me as I’m hardly in London at all these days.  

I don't know how it works in foreign countries, but in Scotland you can ask to move to any branch that you want. 

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I would add can anyone point out one or two actions Peter Murrell has done in the last 5 years which has been good for the SNP and justifies his massive salary?

from my perspective, knowing nothing of him personally, he's just been an easy distraction and offers nothing uniquely positive to the SNP.  Honestly if on nothing else, i'd be resigning after becoming aware of his salary alone.

This is not a support of the muppets insinuating rubbish about this vote.  

Well, he lent the SNP £100K not that long ago. Not sure why, but I guess we might find out soon? 😉

[PapofGlencoe]

9 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Well, he lent the SNP £100K not that long ago. Not sure why, but I guess we might find out soon? 😉

hahahaha.  Yip, got to say what an incredible gesture.  Fair play to him.

 

5 times the membership of 2007's fees coming in and needing a loan.  Quite an achievement.  Surprising he's not been poached by the blue chip merrygoround.

Edited March 16, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[Ally Bongo]

Ash Regan is likely to file a court interdict to suspend the election if the information is not released by 3pm today

In other news my tweet to Mhairi Hunter has made it onto the WoS website (I still dont follow him on twitter) 

It's basically Mhairi Hunter told lies about an NEC meeting today - when there isnt one