Green Party leader Natalie Bennett.
Show Hide image

Green Party membership on course to overtake Ukip's

The party's membership has doubled since September to 40,879, just 635 behind Farage's party. 

As the Greens continue to press their case for inclusion in the TV debates (with the self-interested aid of David Cameron), it's worth noting a potential landmark for the party: their membership could soon exceed that of Ukip. The latest figures, compiled by Adam Ramsay of OurKingdom, put the Greens' total membership at 40,879, just 635 behind Ukip (whom the broadcasters have, of course, invited to the debates). He calculates that "at the current rate of growth, the Greens will overtake Ukip within a week, and be ahead of the Lib Dems before polling day ". The party's membership has more than doubled since September when it stood at 20,000.

By contrast, Ukip's growth rate has slowed, with the party gaining just 2,514 members since June. The most recent figure for the Lib Dems puts membership at 44,576, a year-on-year rise but still well down on its 2010 level of 65,038. The greatest success story is the SNP, which now boasts 92,000 members (making it the third-largest party), an increase of 66,358 since the independence referendum. The party will now likely pass the 100,000 mark before the general election. And while the SNP will likely be excluded from any debates on the grounds that it is not a UK-wide party, it's worth noting that it is likely to hold more seats than Ukip after the election (it currently has six and hopes to increase that to at least 20) and possibly even more than the Lib Dems. 

Here are the membership figures in full:

Labour: 190,000 

Conservatives: 149,800 (224,000 including wider party). 

SNP: 92,000

Lib Dems: 44,576

Ukip: 41,514

Greens: 40,879

Plaid Cymru: 8,000

National Health Action Party: 4,691

English Democrats: 2,500

Left Unity: 2,000

Britain First: 800

BNP: 500

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

There's something missing from our counter-terrorism debate

The policy reckoning that occured after the 2005 terrorist attacks did not happen after the one in 2016. 

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.” That satirical lyric about Nazi rocket scientists has come to mind more than few times watching various tech giants give testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the underreported sub-plots of life at Westminster.

During their ongoing inquiry into hate crime in the United Kingdom, committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

One of the many remarkable aspects of the inquiry has been the von Braunesque reaction by the movers and shakers at these tech companies. Once the ad revenue is handed out, who cares what it pays for? That’s not my department is the overwhelming message of much of the testimony.

The problem gains an added urgency now that the perpetrator of the Westminster attacks has been named as Khalid Masood, a British-born 52-year-old with a string of petty convictions across two decades from 1982 to 2002. He is of the same generation and profile as Thomas Mair, the white supremacist behind the last act of domestic terrorism on British shores, though Mair’s online radicalisation occurred on far-right websites, while Masood instead mimicked the methods of Isis attacks on the continent.  Despite that, both fitted many of the classic profiles of a “lone wolf” attack, although my colleague Amelia explains well why that term is increasingly outmoded.

One thing that some civil servants have observed is that it is relatively easy to get MPs to understand anti-terror measures based around either a form of electronic communication they use themselves – like text messaging or email, for instance – or a physical place which they might have in their own constituencies. But legislation has been sluggish in getting to grips with radicalisation online and slow at cutting off funding sources.

As I’ve written before, though there  are important differences between these two ideologies, the radicalisation journey is similar and tends to have the same staging posts: petty criminality, a drift from the fringes of respectable Internet sub-cultures to extremist websites, and finally violence.  We don’t yet know how closely Masood’s journey follows that pattern – but what is clear is that the policy rethink about British counter-terror after the July bombings in 2005 has yet to have an equivalent echo online. The success of that approach is shown in that these attacks are largely thwarted in the United Kingdom. But what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.