Tory membership down to 247,394*

David Cameron, Spring Forum 2006: "We’ve signed up 20,000 new members – at a time when other parties are losing support."

According to the BBC at the time of David Cameron's election there were 253,600 Tory members.

For the 2000 ballot - during William Hague's leadership - membership equalled 302,443.

* Based on participation in the Built to Last referendum.

4pm update: CCHQ has just issued this statement: “There is a three month eligibility rule to vote in ballots, so the large number of new members who have joined since our local election success in May will not have had the opportunity to vote.  In addition, the Conservative Party has a decentralised membership system, and we rely on constituency associations to provide updated membership data to the centre.  Associations are most active at updating their membership records in September to ensure that their membership data is able to be transferred on to the new register of electors which is published at the end of the year. Registered Party membership is therefore higher in the autumn than it is during the summer.  Conservatives continue to have more members than the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats combined.” 

Comments

[SimonNewman]

Well, I'm a member who hasn't voted on Built to Last, my wife too. I expect there are plenty more.

[Donal Blaney]

It's not the fact that you didn't vote, Simon. It's the fact that, on the Party's own figures, membership is down when we had been told it was on a marked increase. Either there have been a spate of defections from the Party, deaths of older members or the old tactic so often used in student branches in the 80s and 90s (inflating membership data) is being deployed by CCHQ.

[MH]

I always suspected this was the case and that membership was down for a number of reasons. My own association is down from 1275 to 1000 to date this year.

[SimonNewman]

I think it's most likely they have trouble identifying their actual membership, which does seem to be increasing here in Tooting & Wandsworth. Resources seem very limited. My wife and I are both new members who have joined post-Cameron; it took them months to do my wife's membership.

[Nicholas Slide]

The Conservative Party website has been updated this morning - new logo and new colours!

What's the solution to building and maintaining an accurate membership list?

[Dominic Llewellyn]

This discrepency shows that we lost members in between 2000 and now not that DC was wrong in what he said at Spring Forum. We have in fact gained members since DC became leader at the end of last year.

[Sean Fear]

No, membership is down 6,000 compared to the date of the party leadership election, last year.

[threefinkers]

Party membership is down across the board.

Silence can be a great policy.

[henry]

It will drop even further soon. Many, including myself, will not renew our membership in protest at Cameron's anti-English rant in Glasgow on Thursday.
The ignorant English are ditching the Cameron roadshow

[Jack Stone]

So I presume Henry you therefore want a Scot as Prime Minister!

[elrafa]

Cameron is eroding the membership base, thanks to the direction he is taking the party. Those of us who want a Conservative Government implementing Conservative policies are seeing the writing on the wall and giving up thanks to DC. There is little point in subscribing to a party out of pure loyalty when you agree with little the party is offering.

The problem for DC and the new Not the Conservative Party, is that as members drift away who exactly is going to do the leg work in constituencies, who will write leaflets, produce them, deliver them? Who will canvas, who will take the conservative message out to people? All those nice ladies from Kensington and Chelsea?

Here is my prediction, which you can all cut out and keep. The Conservative Party is dying, literately and metophorically. After the Cameron project is at an end, we will have lost four general elections. But more importantly all those who Cameron has put on A lists etc will drift away and those real Conservatives who have been tossed aside like a soiled rag will be long gone.

It's over folks.

www.conservatives.com

[Chad]

Hey, where are all those people who attacked me a couple of months ago for noting that I suspect that Tory membership was falling not rising?

A few polite apologies would be most welcome.

[James Maskell]

Just gone onto the updates Tory website...its bogey green! Its ghastly! Blue and green go together when they are light, not like that though. Also the Conservative Torch is being flattened!

The vote is an expensive waste of time. Only 1 in 4 actually voted! The result is completely meaningless because no side can claim to have won the vote. The almost 75% who didnt vote could have gone either way...

[threefinkers]

A scot in charge of the UK... Oh what a shame.

[And There's More]

So did the Leader lie, or did CCO give him bogus stats when he made his demonstrably false claims about membership?

[James Maskell]

Perhaps Maude would like to comment on this...hes the Chairman!

[Prodicus]

What are the numbers if one includes people who have tried several times to join without any response from the party? [cf. previous thread]. Act. Get. Together. Your.

[henry]

Jack I do not care what nationality the PM is. Isn't this the Unionist Party?

Why would you object to Scots? Are you one of the ignorant little englanders who do not show Scots enough respect, that Cameron referred to on thursday?

[Chad]

This new number is consistent with both the 20,000 claimed increase last December off the back of Cameron's election euphoria, and another stat quoted here before by a Tory party member of the 30,000 annual natural wastage due to death etc.

ie, about 10,000 down on the year.

So, it would seem that apart from that initial boost the month after being elected, Cameron has not been able to stop the slide in membership of the Tory Party.

[MH]

Chad - your maths is impeccable. Ok, I am an ex-member and hope Cameron fails. The sadder point is the continuing slide in political participation which - over time - could wholly undermine the ability to maintain a healthy democracy. And the parties have a burden to bear here: yes men/women and party apparatchiks are not appealing to the wider public as they come across as remote androids.

[Gareth]

The 2000 figure should be treated with great caution. That was back in the days of multiple counting of membership and trusting assocs to give accurate figures. Many included 'members' whose subscriptions had lapsed years earlier.

[Andy Stidwill]

Despite everything that Cameron stands for, the fact remains that the average Tory party member is pretty elderly, (especially outside London).

And since old people unfortunately tend to die, the membership will inevitably decline over time, as these new figures show.

[Andrew Woodman]

I would have thought it was quite plausible that 20000 new people joined between December and the Spring forum. However, I believe many of the, shall we say extreme right wing part of the membership are letting it lapse. I've heard many a rant from people tearing up their membership. These do though tend to be Peter Hitchins types who criticise everything and can't see that we'll not win enough votes following the agenda they want. Whether they come back when the policy groups report remains to be seen. The increase in membership subs won't help though.

[elrafa]

membership down because he is trying to face every way. The people he is cultivating - the green loonies - are more likely to join pressure groups than a political party.

He is motivating a minority of members, who are either differential, deluded, agenda led or all three.

There has been post after post from reliable sources saying members are leaving in droves. I know for a fact one constituency in the north has lost well over 100 members since DC became leader. They are now scrambling around trying to get members to get back over the 300 mark and avoid the forced primary.

As Euripides warned, "whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." Well the Conservative Party is mad, mad with Cameron.

[Editor]

And There's More (13:43): I don't think there's a lie here but it does appear that non-renewals have exceeded new recruits.

[James Maskell]

I see CCO is blaming Associations for not sending ballots out...its a bit rich talking about responsibility then passing the blame onto Associations...

[Sean Fear]

I received my ballot directly from CCHQ. Didn't everyone?

[Richard Weatherill]

I certainly received my Ballot directly from CCHQ. Maybe they're blaming the Associations for not providing them with up-to-date membership lists? (I haven't seen the criticism myself.)

[James Maskell]

Could someone please explain what BlueChip is...

The criticism is in the 4pm update. They are partly blaming Associations for not keeping up to date records.

[Richard Weatherill]

Bluechip is the CCHQ-preferred software package which many (?most) Associations use to maintain their membership records, pledge database etc.

[Chad]

The harsh reality is that people are continuing to turn away from politics, deserting all political parties, and Cameron is no different from the others.

This B2L was always an ersatz mandate, and I can only assume that those who voted against did so because they were even more annoyed that those that sat on their hands and ignored it and thus wanted to register their anger.

It was a meaningless waste of everyone's time, as no-one doubted the result, or the margin, and the only unknown was how many people could be bothered to take part in what was a pr charade like a Saddam Hussein election result.

For Cameron to say "Today's result confirms that the party has changed" was so dishonest, as by that he suggests that Tories did not hold those vague feel-good values before he was elected.

Of course they did.

It is exactly this kind of spin that leads to the distrust of politicians.

[James Maskell]

Can CCHQ access the BlueChip to see the current number of members?

[Richard Weatherill]

James - I don't think (unless it's now more of a web-based product than it used to be) that CCHQ can go poking around in an individual association's BlueChip database. In that regard, each system is, in effect, 'stand-alone'. I believe that CCHQ is still dependent on the associations providing them with current membership figures in order to arrive at an overall total - but I could be out of date.

[christina speight]

Chad - As one who has taken plenty of PERSONAL stick - not political - from the Cameroons here, don't expect apologies for being right.

Elrafa is right - well almost! Cameron is not just killing the party - that's what he MEANS to do. MI5 stooge?

Andy - the old may inconveniently for the party die - but they used to do a hell of a lot of work in the meantime!!! :-)

[James Maskell]

Hmmm, thanks Richard.

[Jamie Douglas]

I completely disagree with elrafa.

It has become quite clear over the last few years that the environment will be a major problem (and therefore a major issue) in the coming years. The people who can't see this are the real loonies.

I suspect elrafa is old enough not to have to care about this, as s/he will probably have died by the time it becomes a problem. whereas people like myself (age 27) care deeply about what kind of environment we will have in 50 years time, as we will be the ones living in it.

The plain fact is that carrying on as we were was only appealing to older voters, and as they die, the party would have done the same.

I for one am thankful that DC has come along to drag the party kicking and screaming into the realms where ordinary people feel they can vote for us again.

He may have some policies that the older generation scorn, but in the long term, these policies will ensure that the party carries on when the aforementioned generation is no longer with us.

oh, and i've been a supporter for 12 years, and a member for 5 years.

[Sean Fear]

CCHQ's explanation for the apparent drop in membership reminds me of a builder my parents employed, to construct a kitchen. His excuse for the gas supply regularly cutting out was that the tide had gone out in the North Sea.

[Adrian Owens]

This drop in membership is not at all surprising - I told a friend a few days ago that I would wager a princely sum that membership had fallen, if only someone would take my bet.

The small fall accords with our local figures, though we have set about trying to boost them again.

The road back to power is a long hard slog and this reminds us of the work ahead.

[Rob]

The 'new' website is hardly different at all. Just got the new logo and an amended colour scheme. Shame that - it's clear they didn't spend loads of money on it. We'll have to think of something else to criticise. Those colours don't quite coordinate do they.....

[Rob]

Well said Jamie Douglas. It's a waste of time hoping for something that will never happen.

[James Maskell]

Its the green...its a horrible green used for the text. Blue and green can work if they are both very light, perhaps lighten it with a bit of yellow. But you cant have them in their slightly darker forms. It just doesnt work as you say.

[David Belchamber]

Only just under 25% voting ought to provoke thorough investigation but, as we approach the conference, with criticism of DC getting more vociferous (from conservatives), might I requote what I posted on the earlier thread to make a suggestion as to what might be done at conference to calm things down a bit?

I can understand that there are three good reasons for not getting into defined policies yet (i) because the policy review groups have been given a generous timetable in which to research the issues properly, (ii) DC knows that Blair (or possibly GB) will immediately pinch ideas that are within the ambit of Nulab's thinking and (iii) there could be 2 or 3 years to go before the next GE.
All that is fair enough but the conservative party is a very broad church and, to be successful, it must appeal to right, centre and just left of centre, it must speak to young and old, to the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish, to the North, as well as to the South.

All it needs is a form of words, not a formulation of defined policies, at the conference for all to feel that the core issues - studiously off the agenda at the moment - will be addressed by policies that do not conflict with traditional toryism.

If a current way of life is good for the nation, conserve it; if it is not, reform it.

Posted by: David Belchamber | September 19, 2006 at 12:25

[John]

To blame David Cameron or any party leader for the drop in party membership is pointless. The days of community involvement of any sort is over. Trying to get people to be school governors is a nightmare, all over this country organisations of all sorts are going through their swan songs. People will not leave their warm comfortable homes to join and belong anymore. The Political Party in its present form is dead, nothing anyone can do will ever revive it.

[Chad]

Francis Maude has publicly and recently stated that "His long-term target was one million" members so it seems relevant to raise the fall in members and ask for an update on how this is proceeding.

[James Maskell]

David Cameron has put himself as the face of the Conservative Party. Y0ou must've noticed how it was Cameron doing the talking on the key issues to the sidelining of the other spokesman, say for Osborne. Its the cult of personality at work. Cameron is the big man so the Party utilises him to persuade others to join. Hes the big man at the centre and this has been designed to be so. In fact there were some people complaining on here, including Francis Maude, that we werent using Cameron enough...

[Wallenstein]

So. After all the nonsense and hype from "Dave"s steadily dwindling fan club we learn what we knew all along; membership is in freefall. The Cameron effect is hot air and bullsh*t.

Isn't it magnificent how the glorious sun of truth banishes the foul fogs and damps of falsehood and "spin"

Looks like the wheels are beginning to come off the "moderniser" bandwagon.

[Tim]

Not suprising membership falls a year after a general election,

Clearly if DC is sucessful in getting into the power, membership will fall further as the decisions made to govern the country alienate various interest groups

[Martin Cole]

Tory membership down to 247,394!

That is a truly impressive number considering the recent past of the party, the calibre of the leadership and the clear lack of backbone among the sitting MPs who remain so silent as a once great party self-destructs.

Enjoy the magnitude of your present membership, and consider realising the real estate value enjoyed in so many Constituency Associations ....... neither can last!

Pity really.

[adam]

Membership of the party should be the responsibility of all members not just the leadership. I don't follow the argument that the buck stops with Cameron or Maude. If every member makes a determined effort to recruit one additional member, the numbers would rise and quickly.

Those who run associations up and down the country are content with the status quo of having a limited number of elderly members which allows them to cling on to their posts but which is extremely detrimental to the Party especially at election time as the elderly can only do so much. Its also the reason why changes to the selection of candidates are being forced upon associations as many are stuck in a time warp and haven't yet realised that we aren't living in 1979.

If Associations actualy did something instead of holding monthly/quarterly or annual meetings where the total raised from coffee mornings etc are discussed more people would become involved.

It easy to blame the lack of membership on the leadership but as members we should also be responsible for going out and doing our bit to increase membership.

[Hoots]

Most of the members in my assoc. are too old to do anything more exciting than run a coffee morning. You can hear the creak of walking sticks at 100 paces.

The most exciting thing that happened recently was when some old biddies had a row and one threw hot coffee at the other.

Sadly the lib-dims are able to produce much younger members. Ive seen them all at the count.

Its all very depressing really. Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all.

[James Maskell]

Our Association holds weekly membership drives as well as getting involved with local organisations. How much more can we do to attract people? The crux of this is policy. We need the policy to attract people...we dont have the policy to attract people though, so we come to a halt...

[Bill Melotti]

Quote: "Can CCHQ access the BlueChip to see the current number of members?

Posted by: James Maskell | September 19, 2006 at 16:45 "

BlueChip is a hideous old stand alone system for recording membership, canvassing records, survey returns and a few other things to support the association processes.

CCHQ cannot look into it and are entirely reliant on assocs to keep it up to date and provide the figures to them from time to time.

Thankfully it is being replaced shortly with a centralised web based system, which will be a great relief to many of the users...

[Anoeumouse]

I wont be renewing my membership until they remove themselves from the EPP.

Drinking Bolls, pissing green

[James Maskell]

Funded by the members through the membership sub increase no doubt... Centralisation too...New Tory!

[Local Tory]

Chad - that target was registered supporters not members.

In my association we have over 500 members, of whom only 350 qualify for the ballot so if that were true across the country the real membership is probably nearer 400,000.

If we look at registered supporters the number (including all members) is currently around 650 but we have not gone on the drive yet.

[Chad]

"so if that were true across the country the real membership is probably nearer 400,000."

But it's not, obviously.

[Ben Redsell]

I don't understand how we can accept any figures from CCHQ on membership. The way the membership is dealt with currently is appalling, and 'Son of BlueChip' cannot come fast enough - in fact should have been out 5 years ago IIRC.

In terms of membership, there is a certain amount of churn, and this does raise some concerns. Some of the new members are very inexperienced, and some of the old members who haven't renewed were very hard workers. But every cloud has a silver lining - I can remember being told that the way I wanted to campaing in Ipswich in 2004 wasn't the way they did things in Ipswich. It clearly wasn't - we kicked Labour out of control for the first time in 25years. They have been kept out. But the change was resisted. Ultimately change is needed when the old ways demonstrably don't work. Is there anyone who thinks we lost the last three General Elections by being too middle ground, by not appealing to the right wing enough?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Let’s not take too much notice of UKIP supporters – fewer than 8,000 bothered to vote in their recent Leadership election.

As was noted on this site recently, Associations cannot be trusted to sign up members; people who apply to join often have their requests ignored by their local association – CCHQ’s membership department is little better! There are thousands of people who want to join the Cameron revolution but we ourselves, be it locally or nationally, make it difficult for them.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Am I alone in thinking Chad should be banned from this site?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Perhaps Justin, we should be grateful that the Editor (and the Deputy Editor) allow freedom to non-party members and party members to debate freely without resorting to the sort of control freakery and downright moneygrabbing unlike similar sites which, say, charge people for the privilege of leaving comments.

Besides which, teasing Chad amuses me when you don't post here for a while.

[Mike Clarke]

Justin Hinchcliffe @ 23.47

Yes you are! Freedom of speech is great; don't knock it.

[Antony Calvert]

There are more members of CF than there are of Chad's newest party

[Tam Large]

It seems most Constituency Conservative Associations have around 1000 members, and I see one above quoted as having 500. This is for a major national political party which has been in government.

Back in 1997 the Referendum Party where I stood (Mid-Sussex) had over 1100 members, all joining in the 7 month period before the election. That was on the "single issue" of the EU (which Dave Blameron shuns...)

Kind of puts Conservative membership figures in perspective, doesn't it.

[Councillor Harry Phibbs]

I think it's quite likely that in a leadership election local associations would make an effort to send through their up to date lists but wouldn't bother for this sort of exercise. That's understanable.
I am more concerned that when a new member joins nationally, for instance via the website, and CCHQ send details to their local association the details just sit in the local association's Inbox and no local contact is made to the new recruit.

[Chad]

"Am I alone in thinking Chad should be banned from this site?"

No, you're probably "just alone" Justin so feel like taking it out on someone.

Go out make some friends... ;-)

[Hoots]

Justin seems to have an extremely dictatorial and bigoted attitude to other posters.

I was not at all surprised when a google search on his name immediately revealed the following

"Mr Hinchcliffe was himself suspended by party chiefs in 1995 for his outspoken views on the elderly and the unemployed and was the real life inspiration for comedian Harry Enfield's Tory Boy character."

[Chad]

Serious though, cooperation not confrontation is the way for conservatives to actually deliver their goals.

Take a look at the joint signatories to a letter in the Times today of the EU seeking to remove vetoes.

Nigel is listed along with many Tories and one DUP.

This cross-party cooperation is key to actually delivering conservative (small c) values.

Conservatives in all parties should be friends and allies, so we can point our guns at the socialists.

[CM]

I just wanted to point out, as regards BlueChip, that CCHQ should get a full set of data electronically on a monthly basis from each and every association. It's for rolling registration on the electoral roll, which the IT department at CCHQ administers.

[Monday Clubber]

"Conservatives in all parties should be friends and allies, so we can point our guns at the socialists"

Chad, I couldn't agree more.

I have already outlined the desirability of our party working closely with UKIP and the DUP, thus linking the main non-racist centre-right parties.

I think it's going to happen and the sooner the better in my opinion.

[Chod Nable]

Chad Valley is my favourite Pub Bore. For someone who hates tories so much why is he so concerned with our internal machinations?

Perhaps he should spend some time trying to halt the exodus of UKIP members? They have dropped from 29,000 to 16,500 members in just 2 years.

Perhaps UKIP members are sick of finding 85% of their donations being gobbled up by 'expenses' before being passed onto UKIP or finding by-election donations being paid onto an MEPs credit card - or the £170,000 of taxpayers money squandered on an aborted petition campaign?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I'm all for free speech - that's one of the many reasons that I joined the Party. I just find it incredibly dispiriting that Chad, a UKIP supporter who makes Edward Leight look like a wet, posts here to knock the Conservative Party and promote UKIP or his latest political party. People not familiar with this site would assume that he was a Conservative Member. Tempting as it is, I am not going to respond to personal attacks on me.

[christina speight]

All those worrying about membership records are not living in the real world.

HOW does an association deal with someone whose sub is 2 months overdue - 3mnths? 5 mnths ? Strike them off ??? (and upset a loyalist even if a disorganised one!) Write letters ??? (WHO is to do that and WHO pays the postage?)

Any voluntary organisation is a messy business. It's not like a corporate body. It's run by volunteers and bureaucracy has to take account of that.

Maybe if some of the Cameroons here worked one day a week in their constituency office - if there IS one - the organisation might run more smoothly. But NO! The core members are the ones who did the work and many have stopped doing that.

[Chad]

Justin,
81% of members here support mine and UKIP's stance against state funding of political parties.

Many conservatives support EU withdrawal (see BetterOffOut supporter list), a passionate low tax agenda, more grammar schools, oppose positive discrimination etc,opposed the Iraq War etc.

Conservatives are learning to work for shared values not a rosette; look at Nigel's unequivocal pledge not to stand against a better placed BOO.

I'm not anti-conservative, I am a conservative.

I'm not trying to get tories to join UKIP, and trying to get us to work together to actually deliver our values.

What's the real difference between the Tory Party and UKIP? Tories are eurosceptic conservatives (ie reform is possible) and UKIP are eurorealist conservatives (reform not possible withdrawal is the way forward).

UKIP may be low in membership now but it shares more than a million voters with the Tory Party.

Yes, I oppose Cameron's agenda. It is not a fusion of trad and prog con, it is an imbalanced approach that seeks to win using left-wing arguments.

I want conservatives to be proud to argue for conservative values and to not seek to float on current popular opinion, but to actually change the direction of the wind and to win people around to our values.

If you don't like that, tough.

[johnC]

I also abstained from the vote on Built to Last because although there was much I supported and welcomed (particularly the idea that public services should be guaranteed but not necessarily run by the state) the economic stuff with its nonsensical ideas about 'putting stability before tax cuts' and 'sharing the proceeds of growth' was so derisory and hopeless that I could not possibly endorse it. I agree with Tim that the main defect of Cameronism is the lack of a tax-cutting economic growth agenda.

I also agree with the criticisms of the new party website which I glanced at yesterday. When I logged on the writing was so small as to be barely legible and it took me quite a time to realise that the 3 'A's in the top left corner adjusted the font size to normal: surely it would be better to have the largest font size as the default ?
I also felt that the shades of blue and green clashed badly. Cameron's campaign website which was in blue only looked much better. There was also a wide empty white margin down the right hand side of the screen, but perhaps they are still working on that.

[Gareth]

Christina,

You constantly talk about your fellow-feeling for 'core' members. How the 'core' members have slaved for the party for years; kept it afloat in hard times; are now being trampled upon etc. etc.

Like many on here, I know our 'core' members because I'm one of them. I tramped the streets in the dark days of the 1990's, desperately trying to hold onto council seats we'd held for decades; taking abuse on doorsteps; watching membership slide and activists disappear; canvassing in the 1997 general election etc. etc.

During that time YOU abandoned our party and joined our opponents. You weren't in the trenches with us when times were really hard - you were on the other side. You were one of the members whose lectures I listened to on doorsteps as you refused to renew your membership, not one of the loyalists who kept going and collected those subs. So please, show a little humility when attacking those of us who happen to support Mr Cameron and stop setting up this entirely false dichotomy between 'cameroons' and 'core' members.

[malcolm]

Good post Gareth.For once I agree with you! I don't believe that the 'core' members who spew their hatred for our leadership ever louder on this blog are actually that great in number. If they were, I suspect that far far more would have taken the trouble to vote against Built To Last than actually did so.
Whilst yesterday was no triumph for Cameron because of the low turnout it was in my opinion also a bit of a disaster for those who instinctively oppose him.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Chad, why are you so concerned with the Conservative Party? Surely you'd be better off promoting UKIP or your own party? But not on THIS bloody site! If we wanted to know about UKIP and such other fringe parties, I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to be able to visit their websites and investigate.

[Chad]

You're not bothering to read are you Justin. This is "conservativehome" not "CameronHome".

Conservatives are not necessarily members of the Tory Party.

That's simple enough for you isn't it? What was it you said that led to you being suspended from the party btw?

[christina speight]

Gareth - I'm sorry but the "dark days of the 1990s" you talk of were after the party had gone off the rails and betrayed our country. If you, in those very recent times, still supported it you were supporting a very evil man in Major.

What I mean by "core" includes those who fought Wilson and Callaghan AND WON! (I'll not dwell on getting rid of the neo-Communist Attlee government which we also won). I also was agent to the candidate in Motherwell in the 40s (where to be a Tory was a dangerous occupation)and to the extraordinary candidature of Jimmy Edwards (remember him?) in North Paddington.

The 90s were a time when the party was so disgraceful it deserved to lose.

[Gareth]

Thank you Christina.

You last post reveals precisely why we can now safely dismiss all you have to say on the subject of our party.

"John Major was a very evil man ..." *falls on floor laughing head off at absurdity of the hyperbole*

[malcolm]

I'm not laughing Gareth... it's sad.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"You're not bothering to read are you Justin. This is "conservativehome" not "CameronHome"."

Actually Chad, this blog is ToryDiary. Justin is not alone in wondering why you spend so much time here instead of working to promote your latest party on your site.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

This is indeed ConservativeHome, not UKIPHome or ChadHome.

[Chad]

Oh grow up both you!

It's Tim's blog and thus why not leave the running of it to him, rather than seek to drive off posters with views that you personally object to.

Conservatives in different parties are working together, (as we saw on the veto issue today) and will continue to do so.

Why not do something constructive and lay off the personal attacks?

[Robert Winterton]

I have to agree with Christina that Justin and Daniel need to grow up. Sadly it seems the Conservative Party has lost its nerve, and believes in rebranding its image as it has fallen for 'fighting the last war' by adopting the cult of the personality over substance. We should be 10% and more ahead of the polls if we really had a set of policies and values that we could galvanise people. This is the real reason for the poitical disconnect,the ability and conviction to persuade has been lost to feeding what people want to hear. But 'heh ho' as in the early 70s we have decided to fall into the same trap politically. And yes John Major was a poor PM - probably the second worst after dear old Ted. He sat on the fence and failed to provide any creditable leadership over many issues particularly the EU as he had no bottle to challenge the adopted wisdom of the Tory hierarchy.With regard to membership it does not surprise me that it is down when we offer no alternative to New Labour, whilst Lib Dems are still more left-wing and redistributive. Whoever wins the next election will have some very hard decisions to make!

[Robert Winterton]

I have to agree with Christina that Justin and Daniel need to grow up. Sadly it seems the Conservative Party has lost its nerve, and believes in rebranding its image as it has fallen for 'fighting the last war' by adopting the cult of the personality over substance. We should be 10% and more ahead of the polls if we really had a set of policies and values that we could galvanise people. This is the real reason for the poitical disconnect,the ability and conviction to persuade has been lost to feeding what people want to hear. But 'heh ho' as in the early 70s we have decided to fall into the same trap politically. And yes John Major was a poor PM - probably the second worst after dear old Ted. He sat on the fence and failed to provide any creditable leadership over many issues particularly the EU as he had no bottle to challenge the adopted wisdom of the Tory hierarchy.With regard to membership it does not surprise me that it is down when we offer no alternative to New Labour, whilst Lib Dems are still more left-wing and redistributive. Whoever wins the next election will have some very hard decisions to make!

[christina speight]

Gareth - If you dfon't know why Major was an evil man ask Teresa Gorman (or read her book) and ask Teddy Taylor. What he did to get the Maastricht treaty ratified went way beyond bullying.

He refused us a referendum on the Treaty and - worse - refused to let MPs see the Treaty they were voting on. This has led to a schism in the party which will never be closed till we leave the EU - See a more important thread -"Tory backbenchers protest plans for loss of UK veto on criminal justice policies" -where we are discussing the final destruction of our centuries-old liberties

Major's personal behaviou ON the record was a disgrace and his record in splitting the party alone justifies the term I used to describe him.

[Gareth]

Pol Pot was evil. Adolf Hitler was evil. Robert Mugabe is evil. John Major is not 'evil' and you reveal a lot about yourself in calling him that.

You left our party when times got tough. Some of us stuck around and saw it through to better times today. Personally, I could never betray friends and colleagues in the party by joining an opposition party and campaigning against them. It seems you can and did.

[MH]

Err, Gareth. Riding to Christina's defence, but I was one who kept the faith during the Major years (although in retrospect Christ knows why). Cameron is the reason I left after 20 year's service as a councillor and Association Chairman. There are 300 like me who have left the Conservative Association to which I belong since Dave took over.

[Gareth]

People are perfectly entitled to leave the party MH (although 300 really? shurely shome exaggershion??) I object though to Christina's self-righteousness about 'core' members when she deserted the party when times were hard. She ought also not to escape her absurdly hyperbolic comments re: John Major being a 'very evil' man.

[MH]

No - 300 straight up. Down from 1275 to 975 and counting. Don't think Major was evil. Just the architect of the Conservative Party's terminal decline.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

John Major was - and remains - a very decent man. He was treated very badly by his own Party and by the public. Let's not trash the Major years - they were, in many respects, very successful. People like Christina campaigned for fringe candidates like UKIP and the Referendum Party, helped unseat Conservative many MPs and allowed real Labour and Lib Dem federalists to win - they made the walk back to power much longer than should have been the case. They deserve no sympathy now.

[Richard Weatherill]

It's worse than we thought! I don't know how you arrived at your figure of 247,394, Tim, but my calculation, based on the total number of votes cast (65,889) being 26.7% of the Party's membership, gives an overall membership figure of 246,775.

Maybe most of the 619 'missing' members live in MH's constituency. ;-)

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

John Major was - and remains - a very decent man. He was treated very badly by his own Party and by the public. Let's not trash the Major years - they were, in many respects, very successful. People like Christina campaigned for fringe candidates like UKIP and the Referendum Party, helped unseat Conservative many MPs and allowed real Labour and Lib Dem federalists to win - they made the walk back to power much longer than should have been the case. They deserve no sympathy now.

[G-MaN Wild]

Its hardly down by any substantial number. Barely worth mentioning. Im sure those who have left, and not died due to the many aged members we have, we could probably do without anyway.

[MH]

Justin, I do not know what planet you were on in the 1990s. I agree that the Thatcher defenstration precipitated the decline and we've never gotten over it. My Association had 5,000 members in 1990 and 1300 in 2005. However, Major was a weak, socially insecure man who surrounded himself with Yes men / women. As such we became tainted by economic incompetence and sleaze. Those (legitimate) charges have neither left us, nor been changed in the minds of the public who now associate them with all politicians.

[Sean Fear]

"Im sure those who have left, and not died due to the many aged members we have, we could probably do without anyway."

That's nice.

MH - There's no doubt at all that the drop in membership from 1990-97 was precipitous.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

MH, your membership probably dropped because you were too busy attacking the government rather than collecting subscriptions.

[Sean Fear]

During the period in question, Justin, the loss of membership was experienced by almost all associations.

[christina speight]

Major was evil AND the architect of the Conservative Party's terminal decline.

His personal habits and language were disgusting.

But I left because of his utterly disgraceful and immoral behaviour in pushing the Maastricht treaty through. You seem yto be proud of condoning the betrayal of our country (and less importantly - our party). People who stuck with the party and stiil don't regret doing so, after that betrayal are guilty of betrayal themselves. I have principles and wouldn't stay.

Every single person I met in the short time I was with UKIP was ex-Conservative and ALL left for the same reason.

And I'm proud to have stood up for my country against the traitors who ruined it and the party.