Fundraising duo promise to 'blow Labour out of water'

It was a story we under-reported one week ago but the recruitment of the much-respected hedge fund trader Stanley Fink (estimated worth £116m) to help Tory Treasurer Michael Spencer (estimated worth over £1bn) is a huge boost to the Conservative Party.  The FT certainly realised the significance of the story at the time and splashed it across their front page last Saturday.

The good news comes after a recent round of redundancies at CCHQ and some concerns at poor financial management.

Fink and Spencer are interviewed by The Daily Telegraph's Andrew Porter and their optimism about fundraising will delight every Tory activist:

"Do the money men have a plan if an election is called in the next few months? Could they raise the cash that quickly? Worryingly for Labour, they do.

Mr Spencer says: "We obviously will have an immediate call to arms and we already have sounded out our donors already, in the event of an election, can we count upon you?"

Would that mean £18 million in the kitty?

"Absolutely."

Surely, the aim is to use the money he raises to crush Labour?

The answer is unequivocal.

"We will blow them out of the water.""

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[EML]

Pwned - as they kids say.

I saw two of the recent "Gordon Brown's debt" posters on a dirve out of Birmingham yesterday. I wonder how many more are planted across the marginal-rich West Midlands region.

This money could be spent on many more of these sorts of posters, they're excellent.

[A Tory]

Is this really the side of the party we want to show to the public. We have for years been accused of being the party of the rich and now we fanfare a millionaire and a billionaire using thier connections to get money in.When I am canvassing, those that are politically switched on mention Ashcroft, including some Conservatives, trust me it is not popular.Yes we need the money, but don't fanfare the fact, the public will think we have reverted to type.

Another PR disaster.

[Paul]

A Tory - agree.

1. Do we want to shout about the fact Fink got the vice-chairman job because he made a big donation. Sounds like buying his way into the upper echelons of the party to me.

2. Do we want to give the perception that we are going "to crush" labour because we have more cash than them? No, we want to be able to say that we are going to simply crush them in a battle of ideas.

Although disingenuous (and another blogged showed the stats showing this but can't remember which one), the only positive fundraising news story there can be is the one that Obama generated - i.e. lots of small donations from people who don't normally donate.

[Martin Cox]

We should accept with gratitude the money, time and experience of these two gentlemen, and others prepared to help.
Labour objections would be spurious in view of the many millions contributed by Union members, many of doubtful legality. Union funds include contributions from many foreign workers, who may be barred from making political contributions

[Tim Montgomerie]

A. Tory and Paul,

I completely agree that the party should be investing heavily in internet fundraising and the energising of lots of small donors but - in the meantime - and so long as Labour is receiving multi-million donations from the unions in return for legislative changes - I'm glad we have the likes of Ashcroft, Fink, Spencer and Wheeler to level the playing field.

[John Ward]

I find that the more politically switched-on around here realise that politics — especially at election time — is very expensive, and they certainly don't swant parties to be funded from their taxes, especially in the present climate.

Thus it is really a good news story, and should give confidence to all those who desperately want a change of government but need to be convinced that the Conservatives have the policies, the Ministers-in-waiting, and the resources to pull it off when the time comes.

[Paul]

Tim, I don't disagree with you. Just don't really see the need to go and shout about it.

And just as you don't want the unions to dominate legislative changes on the basis of their contributions to Labour, the same should apply to Ashcroft, Fink, Spencer and Wheeler.

[Hawkeye]

Paul said: "Do we want to give the perception that we are going "to crush" labour because we have more cash than them?"

The cash will be very useful in getting the message out. The message is to list Labour's failures whilst setting out our policy alternatives. As Gordon Brown is finding out, it's not the money that's important, its the lack of money that counts.

A Tory said: "Is this really the side of the party we want to show to the public. We have for years been accused of being the party of the rich and now we fanfare a millionaire and a billionaire using thier connections to get money in...When I am canvassing, those that are politically switched on mention Ashcroft"

The best bargains work both ways. You could mention that we are using the millionaires to get our message out, but if the person being canvassed does not like that then ask him for donation so that the party can reduce its dependence on rich individuals. You can also mention that voting Labour is no solution since they are owned outright by the Union Barons.

[Hawkeye]

Paul said: "And just as you don't want the unions to dominate legislative changes on the basis of their contributions to Labour, the same should apply to Ashcroft, Fink, Spencer and Wheeler"

Agreed 100%

[Gavin]

The financial commitments from our top donors shows the endorsement of DC's Conservative Party. However, our business friends' dislike for our policy on Heathrow is very pertinent. My view, as a loyal Conservative, is that this policy is frankly wrong. It goes against our instinct to develop our economy and make Britain more successful. This policy will come back to haunt us in Goverment and it is totally unnecessary.

[max u]

Wheeler doesnt really level the playing field anymore- he has donated realtively little to the party recently: circa £200,000 since 2005.

All he does is mouth off as if was a really big (£1m plus donor) and demand influence as a result.

Frankly we would be better off without him- although I agree with Tim re the other donors.

[David Sergeant]

Paul said: "Do we want to give the perception that we are going "to crush" labour because we have more cash than them?"

I don't mind on what basis we say we intend to "crush Labour" I am just a bit unhappy that it is the finance guys who are the first to say it. For the future of country and party, this time round, Labour really has to be "blown out of the water". Blair and Brown have now proved beyond doubt that any Labour government wrecks the country's finances and a lot more besides, yet again, a Conservative government is going to have to sort out the mess, take the difficult decisions, be labeled the "nasty" party as a consequence leading to another Labour government. We can't go on like this.

[Jaz Hayre]

I think it's excellent to have such great people fundraising, we need all the help against Labours trade unions.

I really do believe the conservatives.com needs to be reformed to make it more "social" and for fundraising.

[Phil Taylor]

It would be nice if we could compete with the government just using the small battalions. I pay £50 a year to my association for my sub but last year the government spent £391 million through the Central Office of Information on advertising, etc.

This was a rise of £54 million or 16% on the previous year. Having stayed flat through much of the nineties this spending almost trebled in time for the 2001 election, peaked again for the 2005 election and peaked for the third time for the election that never was in autumn 2007. See here:

http://philtaylor.org.uk/?p=1399

[JamesB]

Great that we have funds at our ready but why on earth are we broadcasting it and why are backroom boys even being allowed to be interviewed by the press?

[Cristiano]

The later the election the better for the Conservatives. This press operation seems to be another attempt to frighten Labour from going early.

[Cynical Voter]

We live in a Corporatist Welfare State where financial interests fund political parties so they can go out and harvest votes from customers.

The system is centralised and top-down, and now that the banks have taken over the state and have access to the GDP to fund their operations it seems only reasonable that they should take a more direct hand in marketing campaigns to recruit administrators ie elections for MPs.

Like it or not we are moving into a Corporate State just as in Mussolini's Italy and Party and Finance will work hand in hand. If Brown has already committed 70% Britain's GDP to the financial sector it seems reasonable to let it organise elections and candidates too.

Britain has moved from being a giant hedge fund to being an Island LBO

[Cleethorpes Rock]

A couple of points:

We SHOULD be doing more to attract small scale donations and building up internet networks and supporter databases. Why don't we have a text number on our adverts so people can send their postcode and register their support for £2 or so? I e-mailed CCHQ about this, but they haven't replied to me. I presume my opinion doesn't count as I don't have a £billion lying around.

The textbook cases of internet mobilisation come from America. We should be speaking to people from the Obama campaign and the Ron Paul campaign on how to build up a grass-roots movement on the internet and how to use viral videos, e-mail and small scale donations. What has the party done to this end?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Simply don't believe that Ashcroft ever comes up in objections to the Conservative Party whilst canvassing. He's a non issue.
I would agree with those who wish to increase donations from ordinary people but whilst Labour has the Unions bankrolling them I'm glad we have people like Ashcroft,and Fink around.

[The Bishop Swine]

We need to embrace the ONE NATION if we are going to blow Labour out of the Water.Ashcroft,and Fink, are welcome to their little bit of it. We do have to gard against being just the party of any one group.This is why we would be best served if we promoted a few "Real" "Folk" to centre stage. Conservative's R Us if you like.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

http://gizmodo.com/5070221/tactics-and-strategies-in-the-first-real-internet-election

shows some of the techniques used by Obama, including:

- Buying advertising space within X-box games
- Youtube videos
- Facebook
- Twitter feeds
- Campaign streaming videos
- I-phone applications
- Sending and receiving text messages

I think we're only making progress on three of these areas at the moment.

There's nothing wrong with us accepting these funds from rich donors. I'm sure Lakshmi Mittal, Bernie Ecclestone and JK Rowling's donations are accepted by Labour without reservation, similarly with the unions. Grassroots fundraising is something we should do ON TOP OF LARGE DONATIONS, NOT INSTEAD OF.

[MrDavies]

There is a lot of scope for communicating with younger people on the 'net.

Just recently I was looking at a music forum in which people were bemoaning the gov'ts plans to limit music volume, which would also affect musicians playing live, rather than just DJs at whom the legislation was aimed.

A nice comment I saw was ""This Pay More, Live Less government"".

[Silent Hunter]

Can I just say as a NON Tory that the very LAST thing you should be crowing about is having a RICH HEDGE FUND MANAGER BILLIONAIRE giving the Tories money.

Don't you guys get it yet?

The public LOATHE bankers.

The public loathe Labour because they are the uncritical, unquestionning friends of the Greedy Bankers.

The public STILL have trouble with trusting the Tories precisely because you are also perceived as being the friends of the Greedy Bankers who got us into this mess to start with.

All we want is FAIRNESS!

If you promised to bring the Greedy Bankers to book whilst helping rehabilitate the financial sector who didn't rip us off.....then that would have a far greater resonance with the voting public than simply saying............"Look who we've got bank rolling us; one of those Greedy Banker Types that you all hate so much"

Hells teeth..........what is wrong with you people?