Delusions of the Party Conference

Where do you find cheap slogans, poor merchandise and sleazy men in expensive suits? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this years' party conference season.

bbc.co.uk

As the Lib Dems kick off the season (The Greens started before, admittedly) I'm wondering: what's the point of it all?

The data first; to put it bluntly, membership rates across the three largest parties is in terminal decline.  The graphs below show the declining trend in political party membership, sourced from polling figures held in the House of Commons library:

  Unfortunately, comprehensive data was only available until 2008, but according to the most recent available figures compiled by the government (pdf)  Tory party revenue from subscriptions has decline by over 70% since Cameron became leader, Labour's coffers have risen by around 6% on average since the last election and the Lib Dems- as expected, have seen a phenomenal 90% decline in subscription revenues since 2010. As a proportion, all the major political parties, even during 'peak seasons' lack the same political attraction as they once did just a few decades ago.

That's what makes the conference season interesting- in my opinion, it's no longer a way to refresh party spirits, or even a forum to exchange ideas. Rather, it seems to be a time in which political parties can assure themselves they're still relevant and necessary. It's very much like any trade show or team-building weekend away : surround yourself with enough people who believe in the franchise, and you'll easily be convinced it will succeed.

No doubt that politicians (and especially student politicians) won't think the same, but I think it might be worth looking at this blog written by LSE's Ingrid Van Biezen, which attempts to display trends in Political party membership across Europe.

Biezen's data presents some interesting findings. First, that regardless of how new, or 'established' a democracy is, subscriptions to party models are still in decline - so low that they fail to actually indicate the "organisational capacity" of such political entities- by extension, that makes it quite difficult to make election predictions in the long run, or asess electoral moods.
Using Electoral Commission data, the website Unlock Democracy have shown how donations to political parties have changed since 2001.  You can read the paper here, and I've shown the graph of total donations below:



 Sourced at unlockdemocracy.co.uk : unlockdemocracy.co.uk

 

 

 

 

The graph shows a break down of donors for the major political parties, based on recorded data available. Interestingly, which most of the graph is relatively consistent in terms of breaking down donors, the real dip in individual donations to political parties across the spectrum comes between 2011-12, where the latter figure barely reaches £5,000, 000.

What explains the sudden drop?  For starters, its a lack of faith in party leaders, shown in YouGov's leadership approval poll. The poll shows that party leaders across the spectrum have been consistently polling at negative figures with David Cameron leading both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, probably indicating wider public dissaproval about the main 3 parties as a whole.


Second- and more important, is the means in which people see themselves adequately represented. Professor Tony Wright argues that the decline is representative of the new ways people are identified and represenented. Further, he suggests that social media, particularly in relation to elections and conferences, provide a better platform for participation that is taking the place of party membership and traditional politicking.

Regardless, Political Parties are likely to continue being strapped for cash in the years to come until the system begins 'working for them'. An empty phrase I know, but if one of the party leaders can coherently define that term, they might be in a good chance of succeeding sooner than they think. 

 

The Paradox of Pro-Palestine Demonstrations

“The British and Americans are just doing what Israel tells them. They are nothing more than sheep”.

This was an argument- or rather a statement, posed by a young Muslim I was speaking to a few weeks ago, when discussing the Syrian crisis. I didn't think much of it at the time, but after reading Dominic Lawson's column in the Independent last week, the conversation makes me wonder whether Muslim communities- particularly in the West, use the Israel-Palestine conflict to rather disingenuous ends.

We've seen them before; passionate young Muslims who proudly boast Keffiyeh, wear 'Free Palestine' t-shirts and frequent social media with articles about more shootings, fighting and settlement building in disputed areas. Vociferous and enthralling- they denounce the selling of Israeli produce, and now in the latest brand of political protest, advocate the disassociation of Israeli universities in academic discourse.

Don't get me wrong- I believe that engagement with human rights activism should be applauded. The issue I have with Pro-Palestine demonstrations, and the rhetoric that surrounds it, is that it's far more suited to convey external grievances, preoccupied more by an assertion of identity than liberation and independence. And if that's the case, then regardless of how many meetings and protests Muslim students attend, little is really achieved in the way of Palestinian rights and representation.

In my opinion, much of this  boils down to organisation- simply put, there's no clear objective as to what 'pro-Palestinian' activists actually want.

For example, if we wish to advocate for greater rights for Palestinian Arabs, then what groups do we actually want to denounce? The young student's response to this was “Israel”.  I agree that Israeli government policy should be protested against (particularly in areas such as settlements, welfare and higher education) but should we not also be denouncing Hamas, who according to a report by Amnesty International, continues the practice of torture, ill treatment of detainees and public executions? Indeed, if we are to protest for the right of Palestinian self determination and dignity, then why not publically denounce Gaza police denying young men the right of self expression in what they choose to wear? . Certainly, if we are to advocate greater rights for Palestinians, our focus cannot be so narrowly defined and reduced to simplistic tales of good vs evil.

And for those who advocate the need for a legitimate Palestinian state (like myself), we also face  complicated questions; Yes, Palestinians do deserve a state in which collective identity must be recognised, and the same should hold true for Israelis. “But the Palestinians were there first. The land belongs to them!” the student responds. A good point - and one that I originally endorsed. But unfortunately, it disregards the wider histories of the region. 

Having had the privilege to write my university dissertation on the history of the Palestine prior to the establishment of British Mandate, in which much of my time was spent in the archives of the British Museum and other Middle Eastern institutes, it seemed evident that the land had been inhabited by a vicarious array of peoples prior to the First World War, including the Early Israelites, Romans and Arabs- all of whom remain woven into the fabric of the Levant. So if the claim to legitimate ownership rests on a historical foundation- as such assertions suggest, then both Palestine and Israel posses legitimate claims to their existence within the borders.

To ignore the complexity of the Israel-Palestine conflict- on both sides of the equation- does little but reduce the decades-old conflict to meaningless, and in many ways, condescending slogans. Spending a few hours on a Saturday afternoon chanting “Free,Free Palestine” may do wonders to soothe the moral conscience, but without a much broader understanding of both regular life of Palestinian families, or indeed an intimate knowledge of their history, how can we truly say that we are “speaking for the voiceless”? Should we honestly be part of a struggle in which real human suffering is reduced to ideological point scoring?