Tory finances are always ropey after expensive General Elections and the situation now is no different from 1997 and 2001. A number of rounds of redundancies have already taken place and last week eight out of twenty press officers were 'let go'.
Unfortunately desperately-needed new money is not going to come until the new leader is elected. Donors want to impress the new leader - they have little incentive to pour money into supporting the current lame duck leadership and Central Office team.
William Hague became Tory leader within weeks of the 1997 contest and donors began helping him immediately. The financial situation was particularly dire at that time - after enormous expenditure on the doomed and gloomy 'New Labour, New Danger' campaign. IDS was able to get on with the task of restoring Tory finances three months after the election date. He was elected in early September after that year's delayed June Election. The gap between election day and the new leader being crowned may be six or seven months this time round. That is a big gap for Tory treasurers to bridge and sources tell this blog that it's not proving to be easy.
The fact that you post this, Editor, but do not provide any details, suggests you know more than you are saying. Hints are not enough: come on, out with it!
Certainly I have heard rumours of truly staggering debts that have been amassed - we're talking many millions, much much more than usual. This is mainly because there were precious few gifts in the past few years, mainly 'loans'. If these loans are reclaimed (which they might be)...
The new leader is going to take over what is essentially a bankrupt party. In this case, it seems that financial bankruptcy and intellectual bankruptcy go together. That is what most worries me about the new rules to exclude the membership: the party has lost the ambition to a growing and broad-based membership (no leadership candidate has addressed this) - and with it, it will place itself at the mercy of a few big donors. Result? More owed to the few. Loss of touch with the base. A vicious cyle of moral debt.
Posted by: buxtehude | 28 June 2005 at 12:05
If our party is in debt because it has spent too much it's a scandal. Much of our publicity amounted to shit being poured on hard-working activists. Anti-Labour posters were put up in LibDem marginals where we needed a strong Lab showing. In more cosmopoliutan seats the agressive 'It (is/isn't) racist to be anti-immigrattion" cost us AB class votes. We were often spending money to destroy our chances of winning. If, as is also reported, Lord M Saatchi's companies received much of the party's hard-raised dosh it is also a breakdown of internal controls bordering on unethical.
Posted by: Anonymous | 28 June 2005 at 17:04
So how much debt does the party have? And who are the creditors?
Come on somebody- give us the facts.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 30 June 2005 at 12:40
The accounts to 31/12/03 are up on the party website:
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.accounts.page
They aren't pretty reading. Basically the party has net liabilites (admittedly these are largely to the constituency associations).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 July 2005 at 12:15