Michael Howard blamed for Tory debts

Andrew Pierce was a regular source of insider information about the Tory finances when he was at The Times.  He appears determined to add to that reputation from his new journalistic perch at The Telegraph.

Contrary to other reports - now attributed to briefings by outgoing Tory Treasurer Lord (Jonathan) Marland - the party's finances are not in good shape.  The party, writes Mr Pierce, will still have debts of £8m even after it has sold its Smith Square premises for more than £30m.  At the time Michael Howard announced the sale of Smith Square he had promised that much of the proceeds would pay for a long-term endowment for the Conservative Party.  It now looks as though all of the money will be needed to keep the current Conservative Party afloat.

The finances deteriorated sharply under Michael Howard's leadership for two main reasons:

1. The party left 32 Smith Square for its swish and unnecessarily large Victoria Street offices without a buyer in place.  Mr Pierce estimates the cost of that move at over £5m because of the delayed sale.
2. A "lavish" £18m General Election campaign.

Under David Cameron the party's fundraising operation has improved but not as much as some reports have suggested.  The Tory leader is now said to be concerned that reports of the party's financial recovery are undermining other fundraising efforts.

The squeeze is also on expenditure.  CCHQ staff will soon be moving to Millbank but they will be in two separate units in order to trim costs.  Some will be based in New Labour's old haunt - Millbank Tower - whilst others will be at 30 Millbank.  There are concerns at the effect of this set-up on internal communications.

Party Chairman Francis Maude's institution of tough new procurement procedures and renegotiation of the party conference contracts should put the party on a better long-term footing, however.

Comments

[TomTom]

Souldn't Michael Howard be surcharged just like a Councillor ?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Whatever one's view on Francis Maude, you have to give him credit for trying to put the Party's finances on a sound footing.

[Tam Large]

Even "just" the £5-million thrown away by moving out of Smith Square without a buyer represents a waste of around £25 per member: no wonder it is hard to motivate fund-raisers at a local level. Why should they bother when their hard earned cash is treated with such contempt?

[Serf]

A "lavish" £18m General Election campaign.

Was too much money spent, or was the focus of the campaign wrong? They are two very different things.

If we had spent less, would we have gained fewer seats?

[NorthEast Tory]

A "lavish" £18m General Election campaign?

The party raise funds to pay for campaigning, don't knock Howard for campaigning! What else is he to do - horde it?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"Why should they bother when their hard earned cash is treated with such contempt?" - you referring to the UKUP call centre in Ashford, Mr. Large? How is UKUPHome these days? Much traffic?

[thatcherite]

Andrew Pierce and Chros Chope MP (see recent letter to Telegraph linked to on Con Home) are spot on.

It was not just the general election campaign was lavish. I understand that well over £10m (reportedly as much as £16)was spent on the 2004 European Election campaign. That campaign was a disaster (compared to Hague's 1999 campaign) with seats and votes being lost UKIP and the BNP. UKIP got a far larger return for its money, focusing on a clever PR and poster campaign.

As usual, we have the childish Europhile Justin Hinchcliffe taking potshots at UKIP on this thread.

We underestimate UKIP as our peril, especially if the next general election is on the same day as the European Elections. If it is, UKIP (and to a lesser degree the BNP) could cost us between 30 and 50 seats. We could even lose seats that were gained in 2005.

[malcolm]

Morning 'thatcherite', still waiting for evidence of your assertion that large numbers of 'leftwing' candidates from the TRG and Bow group have been selected as PPCs.

[Alex Forsyth]

So all that guff last month about the supposed total turnaound in the party's position was exactly what I expected. Hot air.

Remember the tripe about the "new breed of millionaire" who is supposedly coming forward to save the day?

Thanks to inflation - fuelled by the incompetence of both parties - I and millions like me are now millionaires, so that was a particularly fatuous comment.

More then anything else what I object to about our party's "New Order" is the constant campaign of terminological inexactitudes...

...not to mention downright lies.

Michael Howard is three times the man Cameron is, so it's no surprise that the Camerloonies are now targeting him as a scapegoat for the party's longstanding financial woes, which Cameron has done nothing to improve.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"We"???? With "supporters/members" like
you...

Only Jane Ellison, from the TRG, has, to my knowledge, been selected for a winnable seat. Our time will come.

[Editor]

Keep on the subject of the thread please!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Maybe we could raise some extra cash by charging the CCF market rates for space at CCHQ?

[Perdix]

Tam Large 09.17 - now that you are a member of ukip, why don't you post on their site instead of trying to stir things up on ConHome?

[Ex Staffer]

All that stuff about 32 Smith Square being a "rabbit warren of corridors" where plotting was always taking place is complete rubbish. The place was mostly open plan and the plotting took place elsewhere.
Moving out was an example of superficial modernisation that looked flash, cost a bomb and didn't address the real problems. It's not just Howard who's got his fingerprints on this one, however.

[Adam]

Indeed - wasn't the move out of Smith Square the brainchild of then Party Chairman Liam Fox?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Even "just" the £5-million thrown away by moving out of Smith Square without a buyer represents a waste of around £25 per member

That's just under my average monthly mobile phone bill. If you consider that to be a huge amount perhaps you should reconsider. I certainly intend to contribute more than that this year.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[Gunther]

Henry Whitmarsh should consider those of us struggling to manage on a state pension. This only rises in line with inflation instead of with the average wage due to action taken by the Conservative Party which must surely now be regretted. £25 a month is a lot of money.

[Phil Whittington]

This may be an unfashionable view, particularly on Conservative Home, but I have a lot of time for Howard.

I had reservations about the move from Smith Square at the time, since, as a traditionalist, I loved the symbolism of the link to more successful times for our party as much as anything.

However, having seen inside number 32, I was willing to believe that it was impossible to run the sort of operation from there which we needed to.

But just think back to November 03 - Howard had 18 months to re-instil party discipline, boost morale and to project an image of the party to the public that did not give the impression we were entirely rudderless. True, we didn't make the sort of gains in 2005 that we wanted to, but Howard plugged a good many holes which were causing us to sink.

Major surgery of this sort in such a small space of time costs a lot of money.

I agree with some other posters that the election campaign focussed too much on immigration and Howard must take responsibility for that, but, overall, I think he was a superb leader.

PDW

[toryabc]

I thought it was Satachi's idea to move HQ?
Anyhow the point is that it was a total waste of money and vast sums were spent on the last election.

As an organisation the party raises both nationally and locally between a combined figure of around £30 Million per year. Approx 40% of this is spent on staff costs, the rest being split on operating costs and campaigning.

If you look at the figures available on the electoral commission website for any local party you care to mention, you can see that with very few notable exceptions the sums declared as being attributable to membership subs averaged near to the £15 sub level, ie a £1 a month, which i figure even hard strapped pensioners can afford.

Now even with the new £25 recommended level, the national party still won't receive much more than it did under the old sheme due to changes elsewhere.

The fact is that it is down to the membership to pay for the party,,, if they want us to be the next government they will.

Our role as leading activists is to sell the message, and lay the foundations to victory, whether you are a Dave fan or not,,, the consequences of another Labour government are unimanginable...

[Hardeep Panchhi]

i dont think we would have won fewer seats if we spent less. We should be clever this time round and use technology such as the internet to our advantage, cost wise

[Tam Large]

Justin & Perdix.

I was a Conservative Party member until last month - therefore it was MY money the Conservative Party squandered by moving out of Smith Square. This all shows me how right I was to leave. The money UKIP raises, whether centrally or regionally, is all accounted for and declared - it goes on campaiging, not wasteful property blunders. They will be getting my money from now on instead of the Conservatives.

[TomTom]

Major surgery of this sort in such a small space of time costs a lot of money.

Frankly I found the road lined with billboards of Labour and Conservative slagging each other off nauseating and visual pollution.

I think there should be an Advertising Tax or simply refuse to permit it as a tax-deductible cost.

The Communists called it AgitProp and that is all elections here amount to - a few mindless slogans and huge bungs to Maiden and Clear Channel....that's where the political parties blew their millions just to drive up the Abstention Party

[thatcherite]

I missed Malcolm's earlier invitation but will follow the Editor's request to keep on subject.

If my memory is correct, the decision to leave and sell Smith Square was taken under the Co-chairmanships of Lord Saatchi and Dr Fox. It was, reportedly, Lord Saatchi's proposal. It has proven to be very costly.

The result is that the party has no assets that can be used as security on loans. The cost of borrowing will therefore rise considerably. Loans must be on commercial terms if they are not to be considered as donations.

[James Maskell]

From what Im hearing locally, the changes to membership rates is scaring off current members, who cannot afford it and object to the changes in policy. I know the reactions Im getting when I talk about new Tory policy isnt particularly positive. Theres a mistrust of Cameron.

[James Maskell]

From what Im hearing locally, the changes to membership rates is scaring off current members, who cannot afford it and object to the changes in policy. I know the reactions Im getting when I talk about new Tory policy isnt particularly positive. Theres a mistrust of Cameron.

[Matt Davis]

It certainly is a serious disappointment to discover that the Party's finances are not as healthy as we had previously been led to believe they would be after the sale of Smith Sq. However finger pointing over whose "fault" that is gets us all absolutely nowhere.

Let's also be honest here and accept that all the political parties have debt and funding problems and that, interestingly, these seem to roughly coincide with the general drop in turn outs and voter engagement and the increase in cynicism about all poitical parties and politicians.

So am I the only person who can see that income will increase again if we can manage to capture the imagination and support of the electorate so that they want to fund us because they want us to win?

[James Strachan]

Tam Large says :-

"The money UKIP raises, whether centrally or regionally, is all accounted for and declared"

Unfortunately it would seem that the Electoral Commission does not agree, and neither do the senior members of UKIP who have resigned over thgis issue.

[thatcherite]

James Maskell's claim does not ring true. The subs are affordable. Only the poorest pensioners and students cannot afford £25 a year. Perhaps some are using the increase as a convenient excuse not to renew their subscriptions (before defecting to UKIP?).

The problem for the party is credibility. Those of us who donate substantially are concerned that CCHQ will squander the money. For that reason, I donate a substantial annual sum to my local association.

I also do not wish to contribute to the salaries of Steve Hilton and the Old Etonian cabal that runs CCHQ.

[eugene]

That 'lavish' election campaign got us 33 extra seats when Labour spin and their BBC backed media left us with nothing to say to floating voters (especially on the economy- the picture was deliberately made so hazy that we could not seriously take the media hype on). It was 33 seats out of nothing at all- money well spent.

Michael Howard was the first Tory leader since 1983 to achieve us real net seat gains (the net gain of one in 2001 includes Tatton which can hardly be seen as a 'gain')- the first in 22 years- the man is great.

[eugene]

That 'lavish' election campaign got us 33 extra seats when Labour spin and their BBC backed media left us with nothing to say to floating voters (especially on the economy- the picture was deliberately made so hazy that we could not seriously take the media hype on). It was 33 seats out of nothing at all- money well spent.

Michael Howard was the first Tory leader since 1983 to achieve us real net seat gains (the net gain of one in 2001 includes Tatton which can hardly be seen as a 'gain')- the first in 22 years- the man is great.

[thatcherite]

"Eugene" gives all the credit to Michael Howard and none to the candidates who worked very hard and won seats back. He must be another CCHQ troll.

[Will]

The money that bypassed CCHQ was much better spent and did more to win the 33 seats.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1480120,00.html

[michael mcgough]

"The money that bypassed CCHQ "

Be careful or the Sunday Telegraph will write a smear story.

[Ted]

eugene
I would have agreed with up until about a day after the GE - then I realised, as I believe Michael Howard did, just how badly we had done and how much we needed to change.
Yes in targetting certain marginal constituencies we gained 33 seats but that strategy was matched with "dog whistles" to protect rather than expend our core vote. The election got us an increase of 0.6% against a fall in Labour support of -5.5%.
Michael Howard did succeed in bringing the Party together again, which the leadership election showed with the positive battle of the Davids.

[Ivan The Yid From Bradford]

If M Howard was still the leader now I would be a member again. He was an old fashioned Thatcherite who had firm views on immigration law & order etc who had had experience as well as talking about it (a respected Home Secretary). I have another personal reason for supporting him. Jews in this country felt very comfortable and safe from 1979 to 1990. Thatcher was not Jewish but often sounded like a British Golda Meir. I was not comfortable with Major and his successors and living in Bradistan am of course disgusted by where we are going under Blair. Howard made British Jews feel safe again and pulled the Party back together after the IDS disaster. With Camerloon in charge I am disgusted by the way the Party is going and his mouthpieces are now attacking Howard, his successfull predecessor as leader, who got the Party started on the 'up' he, DC, is now benefitting from !! What a disgracefull way to treat the man who laid the foundations for you to (attempt to ) build on.

[Ted]

Ivan
Not sure whether to take your post seriously but I rejoined the Party under Michael Howards leadership - having been entirely underwhelmed by the Major/Heseltine/Hurd/Clarke regime. I thought he was a good leader and he did lay the foundations.

However under Howard's leadership our expensive election campaign permitted Labour a large majority when they got a smaller percentage than in 1979. He recognised his failure and resigned immediately. The legacy of debt is perhaps a sympton of a badly run party undr his leadership.

[MrB]

I think I'm something of a rare species here- an admirer both of Michael Howard and David Cameron.

I just hope when we finally do win the election, people realise Howard laid the foundations for this- enabling Cameron to become high-profile enough to run for the leadership successfully.

Howard will be the true saviour of the Conservative Party and I hope to see him rewarded with a nice seat in the HoL- who knows, maybe Lord Chancellor?

[James Maskell]

"James Maskell's claim does not ring true. The subs are affordable. Only the poorest pensioners and students cannot afford £25 a year."

There are a lot of members down here who cannot afford 25 a year. Many of them are choosing to quit the Tories rather than cough up so much money for a Party that is appearing to ignore their concerns.

[bill grant]

the strategy was howard saatchi fox and lynton crosby led and was a total disaster. never let any of them into CCHQ again.

[MrB]

Bill Grant, Howard had 18 months to turn around the complete shambles that was IDS' party. That is not enough time to come up with am election winning 'vision' for Britain. People say "His polls wern't that bad", but the truth is he would have been even more hammered in the election campaign than Howard. It's an acheivement we managed to gain the seats we did.