The Conservatives spent £49,205,000 during 2010

By Matthew Barrett
^{Follow Matthew on Twitter}

The Electoral Commission today released the financial accounts of all UK political parties and "accounting units". The figures are for the year ending 31st December 2010 and so cover the 2010 general election. The accounts give figures for gross income and total expenditure. 

• The Conservatives had figures of £43,143,000 in income, and £49,205,000 in expenditure
• The Conservatives in Northern Ireland (parties can be registered in GB or NI, but not both) had an additional £408,127 income and £391,359 expenditure
• Labour took in £36,270,000 and spent £33,840,000.
• However, the Co-operative Party (which stands joint "Labour Co-op" candidates) took in £1,079,285 and spent £1,049,290 - so Labour candidates had more campaign financing than the Labour figures alone
• The Liberal Democrats had gross income of £9,637,354 and spent £9,973,077
• The fourth and fifth-largest parties were the SNP and Sinn Fein, who spent nearly £2m and just over £1m, respectively
• All other UK parties either received or spent less than £1m

Continue reading "The Conservatives spent £49,205,000 during 2010" »

Another Buckinghamshire Conservative Association put its money where its mouth is on High Speed Rail

By Jonathan Isaby
^{Follow Jonathan on Twitter}

Last November we revealed Chesham and Amersham Conservative Association - the seat of Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan - had left the "Premier League" of local associations which donate £10,000 to CCHQ in protest at the plans for high speed rail, which would be built through the constituency (ConHome has already covered this morning the exchange in the chamber yesterday involving Gillan on the issue).

In January we reported that the Association in Aylesbury - the seat of Europe minister David Lidington - had followed suit.

I now learn that a third association in Buckinghamshire with a high profile MP is in revolt over the issue of HS2.

The Executive of the Tory association in Beaconsfield, represented by Attorney General Dominic Grieve, has in the last few days voted to donate funds to the anti-HS2 campaign, which may mean supporting a judicial review against the HS2 scheme.

I gather that a number of voices at the meeting wanted to deny funds to CCHQ altogether, but that the association chairman persuaded them not to press that issue at this stage.

Whilst Chesham and Amersham's concerns arise out of the route dissecting the constituency, I understand that Beaconsfield's concerns relate more to the view that HS2 is not a good use of taxpayers' money rather than environmental concerns - although if HS2 were extended to Heathrow, it would most likely go through Beaconsfield.

The move is significant because the Beaconsfield association has consistently been the largest constituency Association donor to party coffers and in the last two years has given over £100,000 to CCHQ, as well directly employing staff in nearby marginal seats.

Additionally, I am also hearing, but yet to get official confirmation, that Buckingham Conservative Association has withdrawn funding  from CCHQ.

> Recently ConHome has carried pieces from both sides of the HS2 debate:

• Matthew Sinclair: Why are the Government taxing ordinary motorists to pay for a rich man's high-speed train?
• Simon Reevell MP: High Speed Rail is about demonstrating that the whole UK is open for business

The Conservatives continue to receive more in donations than Labour (which relied on unions for more than 85% of its latest donations)

By Jonathan Isaby
^{Follow Jonathan on Twitter}

Today the Electoral Commission has published details of donations to political parties during the first quarter of 2011.

The total cash and non-cash donations between January and March 2011 for the three main parties were:

• Conservative Party - £3,878,324
• Labour Party - £2,882,765*
• Liberal Democrats - £810,029

* £2,507,372 of that money to Labour came from trade unions - equivalent to more than 85% of its donations.

Continue reading "The Conservatives continue to receive more in donations than Labour (which relied on unions for more than 85% of its latest donations)" »

Tories send fundraising letter to 300,000 homes and roadtest key messages

By Tim Montgomerie

A fundraiser mailing from CCHQ has just gone out to 300,000 homes. Mine arrived on Thursday. It places David Cameron in the Churchill and Thatcher tradition of Conservatism:

"Winston Churchill promised to "set the people free". Margaret Thatcher said there was "almost nothing" that the British people could not do. And today's Conservatives are saying loudly that we believe in the British people and our power to build a better future together."

Continue reading "Tories send fundraising letter to 300,000 homes and roadtest key messages" »

Second Buckinghamshire Conservative Association quits the Party's Premier League of donors over High Speed 2

by Paul Goodman

Last November, the Chesham and Amersham Association resigned from the Party's "Premier League" - a group of Associations which give substantial funds each year to CCHQ.  The cause of its departure was the Government's High Speed 2 plan.

Now a second Bucks Association has gone, too - Aylesbury, which has contributed some £250,000 to Party funds over the last ten years.  A letter to Stanley Fink, the Party's Treasurer, from Paul Rogerson, the Aylesbury Association's Chairman, explains its reasoning and the process -

"Dear Mr Fink,

Membership of the Premier League

As you know Aylesbury Constituency Conservative Association (ACCA) has been a member of the Conservative Premier League since its inception and has, for over 60 years, continuously donated to Central Office funds.

The announcement by the previous government of a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham (HS2) passing through our constituency raised significant concerns for the ACCA. At this time it appeared from the stance being taken by the Party was that a full and rigorous review would take place prior to any Conservative incoming government taking the proposals forward. On that basis the ACCA based its successful campaign for the General Election.

It was therefore extremely disappointing to learn that the Conservative led Coalition maintained its support for the proposals despite the fact that evidence for the proposal on national, financial and environmental grounds was and remains poor. Prior to and following the recent announcement of Route 3 as the preferred route for High Speed 2, we have had many complaints from our members and constituents about the proposal and the effect it will have upon the protected countryside, cutting across the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, damaging the environment of our towns and villages within Aylesbury Constituency, and the basis on which billions of pounds are to be committed in the ‘national Interest’.

In order to raise these concerns with the Party and government the ACCA, along with other Buckinghamshire constituency associations, met with the Chairman of the Party, Sayeeda Warsi, to discuss the matter. David Lidington MP has written to Phillip Hammond as well as our members, and the ACCA writing to Baroness Warsi, but still the concerns have not been addressed.  It was with this lack of response in mind that the ACCA Senior Management Team decided to gauge the gravity of the issue to the ACCA Constituency by balloting its qualifying members as to whether ACCA should withdraw from the Premier League until such time as an alternative is proposed, a business case is substantiated or the project is cancelled.

The ballot returned a substantial response with an overwhelming number agreeing to withhold the additional discretionary payments and withdraw from the Premier League.  The result of the members’ ballot was taken to the Association’s Executive Committee held on 21st January 2011 which ratified the decision as ACCA policy.

It is with regret therefore that I would inform you that Aylesbury Constituency Conservative Association will be withholding its annual discretionary donation to the Premier League until such time as an alternative is proposed, a business case is substantiated or the project is cancelled. We will of course continue to pay our membership dues/quota.

Yours sincerely

Paul Rogerson

Chairman, Aylesbury Constituency Conservative Association

Cc Rt. Hon. Baroness Warsi, Andrew Feldman, Jeremy Middleton, Rt. Hon. David Lidington MP, Stephen Gilbert, BCC Bucks association chairmen. Bucks regional Chairmen."

The biggest fifty cash donors to the Conservative Party over the last ten years

Tim Montgomerie

Here are the top 20 donor groups to the Conservative Party for the the last decade:

1. Irvine Laidlaw: £6.09m
2. Sir Paul Getty: £5.00m
3. Stuart Wheeler: £3.93m
4. The Bamford family: £3.90m
5. Michael Spencer: £3.83m
6. Robert Edmiston: £3.27m
7. David and Jonathan Rowland: £3.02m
8. Michael Farmer: £2.93m
9. National Conservative Draws: £2.44m
10. The Midlands Industrial Council: £2.14m
11. Stanley Fink: £2.00m
12. Michael Ashcroft: £1.97m
13. Scottish Business Groups: £1.78m
14. RF Trustee Co: £1.69m
15. Leonard Steinberg: £1.52m
16. George Magan: £1.49m
17. Philip Harris: £1.45m
18. Michael Hintze: £1.42m
19. Henry Angest: £1.35m
20. Malcolm Scott: £1.29m

Read the full list of fifty here. ConservativeHome thanks each and every one of them - some, sadly, have passed away.

The research was conducted by the London School of Economics. Their overall conclusion after totalling "the cash donations of some of the party’s biggest donors [and] those of the donors’ husbands, wives, family members, companies and business partners which we have been able to identify" is:

"£72 million – over half of the party’s declared cash donation income – has been donated to the Conservative party from just 50 such ‘donor groups’ over the course of a decade. Perhaps more strikingly, £45.5 million has been sourced from the ‘top 15’ donor groups – amounting to just under one-third (31.9 per cent) of all Conservative Party donation income from January 2001 to June 2010."

My understanding is that during the last few years the party's funding base has been diversified considerably with a large increase in people giving £50,000 or less. The LSE study covers much of the pre-Cameron period when the party was more dependent on a narrower number of big donors.

Hopefully the LSE will soon be turning to Ed Miliband's party where large trade unions account for a more dominant (80%) - and increasing - share of Labour funds.

(Hat-tip to the New Statesman for spotting the LSE research).

The Conservative Party tops the latest quarterly donation league table

By Jonathan Isaby

The latest quarterly political donation figures were released by the Electoral Commission today, relating to the third quarter of this year.

Total donations (cash and non-cash) received by the main parties between July and September were:

• Conservatives -  £3,695,947
• Labour - £2,317,723*
• UKIP - £454,234
• Lib Dems - £350,645

* £1,903,949 of Labour's funding came from trade unions, of which the bulk came from four unions:

• Unite - £818,366
• Unison - £396,515
• Usdaw - £299,654
• CWU - £246,544

The biggest donors to the Conservative Party (£50,000 or over) during the quarter were:

• David Rowland - £1,065,966.52
• Jean Parmer - £200,000
• Vivian Imerman - £100,000
• Barbara Clark - £80,000
• Universal Music Operations Ltd (sponsorship) - £80,000
• Michael Farmer - £76,600
• Richard Hoare - £55,000
• George Robinson - £54,000
• Debbie Florentino - £53,300
• John Dodd - £50,000
• Jeremy Isaacs - £50,000
• JCB Research - £50,000
• Gloucester Research Limited - £50,000
• Richard Harpin - £50,000
• Simon Robertson - £50,000
• James Lyle - £50,000

Update: Reacting to the news that four our of every five pounds of Labour funding is coming from the unions, Conservative co-chairman Baroness Warsi said:

“These figures clearly show that the trade unions are back in charge of the Labour Party.  And now, Ed Miliband’s biggest backer in the leadership campaign, Unite, has elected Len McCluskey, who says there is ‘no such thing as an irresponsible strike’ and has promised to oppose any reform of Labour’s link to the trade unions.  Ed Miliband must end his embarrassed silence on the election of Len McCluskey. Ed Miliband needs to make clear who is running his party – him or the trade unions."

Tory Associations withhold money from CCHQ in protest at HiSpeed Rail plans

Tim Montgomerie

News has just reached me that one of Britain's most prosperous Conservative Associations - Chesham & Amersham (represented by Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan) - has told CCHQ that they will be leaving the 'Premier League of Associations' and ending, therefore, their commitment to contribute £10,000pa to central funds as part of that League. My source predicted that all Buckinghamshire Tory Associations might do the same, in protest at Coalition plans to build a £17bn High-Speed Rail Link (HS2) through the county. The feeling is that private meetings with Transport Secretary Philip Hammond and Party Chairman Sayeeda Warsi have been fruitless. Conversations with Philip Hammond were described as a "dialogue of the deaf".

Local Tory MPs are under enormous pressure to oppose HS2. Websites and online petitions have sprung up opposing the project, arguing that there is no business case, no environmental case and no money for the rail link between London, Birmingham and the North.

Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph quoted the opposition of two ministers and a whip:

“I would defy the party whip – be very, very sure of that. My constituency comes first in all instances. The impact on the whole area would be absolutely phenomenal.” - Cheryl Gillan

“If it came down to it, I would vote against the route as proposed. I am personally against it.” - David Lidington

Whip Jeremy Wright said the proposed link was “not the right one”.

At a meeting of Cabinet last week David Cameron over-ruled objections from Ms Gillan and insisted HS2 would go ahead. Mr Cameron regards the link as an important  manifesto commitment and a symbol of his 'greenification' of the Conservative Party. He also believes that the link is vital to creating a more balanced UK economy, spreading wealth across the UK because journey times between the South East engine of the UK economy and Heathrow will be dramatically reduced for businesses in the Midlands and North.

Philip Hammond, who has visited all but a handful of the constituencies set to be affected, is hopeful that opposition will be reduced once the extent of tunneling and use of sound barriers is known.

The Party needs private money. But it should raise smaller donations from many more people

By Paul Goodman

There's a Catch-22 about politicians and money, as follows.  If they're dependent on private money, they're leeching off vested interests; if they're dependent on public money, they're sponging off the taxpayer.  Nothing, apparently, can bust this iron rule - since politics, like anything else, costs money, and must be paid for.  Either way, MPs (individually) and political parties (collectively) have been found guilty before the trial's even started.

This helps to explain the Daily Telegraph's splash this morning, headlined: "Tories sell access to Ministers for £1000 a head".  It can be argued that the Party's asking for trouble by holding a fund-raising dinner at its forthcoming conference at which donors won't have to declare their identities - because even the most expensive ticket comes in below the £5000 legal limit for declaring donations.

However, even the greediest plutocrat might balk at paying £5000 to sit next to a junior Minister, let alone a backbench MP.  But even if the Party set prices at this level - and donors were wiling to stump up - the media story would change rather than disappear.  The opulence of such an event would be contrasted with the austerity of the times.  It would be held to be an offence against taste - as well as our old friend, fairness.

In such an event, media enquiries would presumably be made about the background of those attending.  Further stories would run about the proximity of Midas Sleaze, Chairman of Greed Incorporated, to Janet Drudge, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Blue and Orange Sky Thinking.  Perhaps the safest course the Party could take is to cancel the dinner and angle for more state funding instead.

But on second thoughts, not so, since more taxpayers' money for political parties would provoke bigger and nastier headlines - including in the Telegraph, the editorial position of which, correctly, is to oppose more state funding for politics.  Why, then, has it chosen this morning to ramp up a story about the Conservatives raising private money - a practice of which, in principle, it approves?

The answer goes wider than any single media outlet, and points to a cultural phenomenon: the push for sales, the decline of Westminster, anger among older voters especially (who feel that though their standard of living may have risen, their quality of life's fallen, because Britain's changed for the worse), contempt for politicians, and a culture that values sensation above reflection.

None the less, there's a way to escape the Catch 22.  Yes, parties and politicians should be paid for by private rather than public money.  But the alternatives for the Conservative Party aren't corruption or closure.  Like the state, it could do more for less.  A great wave of transparency is washing through central and local government, churning up details of spending on items worth more than £500.

There's a strong case for that wave to crash also over and through CCHQ, and for the Party to present more detailed accounts to its members.  Take one example, almost at random: is it really necessary for so much to be spent, before and during elections, on advertising?  A more full financial breakdown would help provide the answer.  We already know that the Party ditched elections ads costing at least £100,000.  Was this value for money?

It should also raise more money from more people - as Tim said here.  A Party spokesman says in the Telegraph story: "We want to sort out party funding but we keep being blocked by Labour because they don't want to lose their massive union donations".  The last point's right, but the Coalition now has the numbers to get reform through the Commons.  It's in the Party's interest to do so as soon as possible.

Jeremy Middleton's proposals on how to regenerate the voluntary party

by Paul Goodman

Jonathan wrote this morning about Jeremy Middleton's analysis of the state of the voluntary party and promised that more on his proposals as to how the voluntary party can be regenerated would follow.

Here is a summary of them.

Jeremy Middleton's document sets out a series of key principles as follows -

"All decisions that can be taken locally, should be taken locally, as it is local units that are best placed to take local decisions and because delegating power encourages personal responsibility and the development of leadership skills."

Key responsibilities that should be held locally include:

1. Selecting local election candidates (and most importantly, on occasion, deselecting them)


2. Selecting Parliamentary candidates, off a centrally approved list, and in line with guidelines approved by the Board


3. Party discipline, including recommendations for suspensions, expulsions, and Supported Status applications


4. Party organisation including mergers and groupings."

It then moves on to make five proposals -

• "To link Political Campaigning and Social Action and make them the mission and purpose of Local Associations...We propose that all Associations adopt the Campaign Team model and set up Social Action Teams and new Policy Forums."

The document says that Associations should be encouraged "to create a standing Campaign Team, appoint a Social Action Co-ordinator in the Team, appoint a Policy Forum Co-ordinator in the Team and invite the Campaign Team leader to join the Executive"; that Area Teams should be encouraged to "appoint an Area Social Action Co-ordinator and a Policy Forum Co-ordinator to offer extra help, guidance and support to local Associations", and adds: "Conservative Headquarters to provide appropriate professional support from the Centre to service a national network of Social Action Teams and Policy Forums".

• To help Associations Broaden their Appeal in their Communities by involving more people including Parliamentarians, Councillors and new supporters...We propose that local Associations set out to involve new people, and that they embrace technology to help manage performance and to reach out into local communities.

The paper suggests encouraging local Associations "to involve all those with an interest in the Conservative cause in their Campaign Teams" and to "encourage Campaign Teams to embrace the latest electronic campaigning methods especially MyConservatives.com; "to attract new people to leadership roles" and "to adopt Key Performance Indicators, as in target seats".  This section also says: "The National Convention to launch a “Campaigning Action Fund” to provide financial support for development initiatives" and 'the Party Board to reconfirm that Local Associations run themselves within the rules set by the Board".

• To Help Area Teams deliver Best Practice to their Associations.

The document says that "the Area Team should be closest to local Associations and is best placed to disseminate best practice to Local Associations; that they should "be encouraged to offer expertise in a wide range of skills"; "be able to access the management information about the performance of all their Associations available through MERLIN", "play a critical role ensuring that the infrastructure of the Voluntary Party is fit for purpose"; "include talent spotting as one of their roles" and "have more authority in some areas – for example Area Chairmen should be empowered to take difficult decisions with non-performing Associations using the full power of the Party Board".

• To Empower Regional Teams to Create a Culture of Accountability, Responsibility and Expectation

The paper reports that "our objective is to help Regional Teams oversee a change in mindset and ensure that their region is focussed on effective political and social action".  It recommends that these teams should be encouraged "to build teams with the right skill set for their Area"; adopt key performance indicators as in target seats, and "to ‘headhunt’ capable people and fast track or co-opt them".  It also suggests "establishing budgets for all Regions in the North and consider for other Regions".

• To provide the professional support needed

The document says that "a step jump in performance demands a significant reallocation of resources", including "the creation of a Voluntary Party Office to build a large outward-looking Voluntary Party...at its heart would be a Senior Professional who will lead the programme to grow and develop an outward-looking voluntary organisation...A field force of campaigners would report to this senior professional". 

It adds that "the Campaign Centres need to be retained and new ones developed"; that the "senior professional should work particularly closely with the Chairman of the National Convention to lead the programme of change that is needed. All staff should continue to report directly through their line management to the Chief Executive as currently.

However, "the Senior Professional should also report to the Chairman of the National Convention on a dotted line basis"..."Similarly Field Directors should also work closely with their allocated Regional Chairman".  "In addition, the volunteer organisation in the country needs a new level of professional support from the Centre to focus on the most important objectives and to drive meaningful change."

"This proposal does not assume any increase in costs – it does assume that staff and associated costs are reassigned to the Voluntary Party Office...This is a serious financial commitment, but it is made with existing resources...There is one proposal that is incremental, the creation of a ‘Campaign Action Fund’. This will operate on the same lines as the incremental funds distributed to target seats who produce a credible plan – and ensures that the money is well spent."

National Convention members have been invited to approve, disapprove and comment on the proposals it contains during a consultation between now and late September.  Subject to their feedback, along with input from the Party Board and the Prime Minister, final proposals are scheduled to be presented to a special conference open to Members of the National Convention in Birmingham on October 2nd, the day before Party Conference proper begins.