Date post: | 08-Aug-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | unlockdemocracy |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 70
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
1/70James Graham and Alexandra Runswick
Party FundingSupporting the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
2/70
Party FundingSupporting the Grassroots
James Graham and Alexandra Runswick
The loans for peerages scandal has once again broughtthe debate about the funding of political parties to thefore. Part of the problem is that parties are caughtin a vicious circle: faced with declining numbers ofmembers and particularly activists, they depend uponlarge donations to fund professionally run electioncampaigns. This fuels perceptions of sleaze andreduces citizens commitment to parties still further.
The answer has to be the revival of parties as effective,locally-funded campaigning entities, able to trulyrepresent the communities they come from. Thispamphlet brings together our most recent researchon the case for state funding to support local politicalactivity, and explores how it might be implemented.
7.50ISBN 978-0-9555523-0-4
New Politics NetworkCharter88
UnlockDemocracy
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
3/70
Party Funding
Supporting the Grassroots
James Graham and Alexandra Runswick
ISBN 978-0-9555523-0-4
Design, editing & layout: Emily Robinson, Printed: CGI Europe
Published by The New Politics Network, March 2007, 6 Cynthia Street, London, N1 9JF
2007
London
New Politics NetworkCharter88
UnlockDemocracy
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
4/70
About the Authors
James Graham
As Communications and Press Officer for Unlock Democracy,
James is responsible for campaign materials, web activities
including PartyWatch and is the main point of contact for any
media queries.
Prior to working for Unlock Democracy, James was a twice-elected
sabbatical Communications Officer for the Liberal Democrat Youth
and Students, Campaigns Officer for the Liberal Democrats in
Leeds and Press Officer for an MEP.
James personal interests include new media, green politics and
alternative economics.
Alexandra Runswick
Alex is Parliamentary and Policy Officer at Unlock Democracy.
She is responsible for developing links with MPs and managing
parliamentary campaigns. Alex is currently working on the Elect
the Lords campaign, reform of the royal prerogative and party
funding reform.
Whilst working towards her MA in Social Policy, Alex interned at theFawcett Society where she did research on gender and poverty and
wrote the Womens Budget Group response to the 13th Household
Below Average Income report.
Alex is the author of Life Support for Local Parties - an analysis of
the decline of local political parties and the case for state support.
She has also worked with the British Council to produce People
and Policy-making - a guide for Political Parties, a resource for
local political parties on how they can involve the public in policymaking.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
5/70
Contents
4 Introduction
Alexandra Runswick
11 Party Funding: The View from the Grassroots
James Graham
26 Local Politics: A Case for Treatment?
James Graham
40 Preserving the Link, Promoting Transparency
Alexandra Runswick
48 Appendix A: Sample Trade Union Membership
Form
50 Appendix B: Sample Trade Union Renewal Letter
51 Appendix C: Summary of Survey Results
64 Appendix D: Glossary of Terms Used
66 Recent Publications
68 Join Unlock Democracy
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
6/70
Introduction
Alexandra Runswick
The loans for peerages scandal has once again brought thedebate about the funding of political parties to the fore. British
politics is caught in a vicious circle whereby allegations of
sleaze discourage people from participating in, and certainly
from funding political parties, which combined with the
increasing number and cost of elections - makes parties
more dependent on large donations from wealthy individuals,
which in turn fuels the perception of sleaze.
Allegations of corruption are nothing new, and have tainted
governments of all colours. They only serve to exacerbate
the publics distaste for politics and politicians. But amid all
the headlines we are missing the real crisis in British politics:
the lack of activity on the ground. It is easy to get caught up
in the millions that wealthy individuals can donate to political
parties and not realise that many local parties have an income
of only a few thousand pounds, even in an election year.
The New Politics Network, now working with Charter 88
as Unlock Democracy, first became involved in the party
funding debate because we were concerned about the state
of politics in the UK at a local level. Falling electoral turnouts
were ensuring a debate about participation nationally but the
inability of many local parties to field candidates in all wards
at local government elections went unreported. The decline
in party membership and income has not changed the rolesthat political parties play or their influence on society but it
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
7/70
Introduction
has brought into question their ability to function properly as
local campaigning entities.
This pamphlet brings together our most recent research on
the case for state funding to support local political activity,
and how this might be implemented.
The problem
In 2006 we received funding from the Joseph Rowntree
Reform Trust to investigate the state of local parties. Weconducted a survey of experience of local political activity
and views on party funding reform. More than 500 people
took part in the survey, including more than 330 local party
activists from the three main parties Local Politics: a case for
treatment? explores the issue of local party activity and shows
clearly that in most constituencies the level of campaigning in
the 2005 General Election was at a derisory level. In particular,
Unlock Democracy found that, in the consitutiencies which
were respresented in the survey:
20% of Conservative Associations and 40% of Lib Dem
Local Parties have fewer than 100 members per constituency.
Conservative Associations in the North of England typically
have fewer than 50 members per constituency.
34% of Conservative Associations, 50% of Constituency
Labour Parties and 73% of Liberal Democrat local parties
received less than 5,000 in income in 2005. 32% of Conservative Associations, 44% of Liberal
Democrat local parties and 50% of Constituency Labour
Parties distributed less than one leaflet per household in the
2005 general election
At least 67% of survey respondents received no personal
contact from any of the three main parties in the 2005
general election. In solid Labour seats, this figure increased
to 82%.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
8/70
Introduction
At a very basic level, a party with fewer members is less
likely to be representative of the views of the community at
large. One of the key roles of political parties is to aggregate
views and present policies based on their shared values to
the electorate. If fewer people are actively participating in
political parties then they are exposed to a much smaller
range of opinion. It also becomes more likely that the local
party will be dominated by a small group of active members
who campaign on their own priorities. This is not healthy for
local democracy.
For democracy to work we need healthy competitive politicalparties at a local level offering different policy platforms
and fielding candidates. We need to accept that political
communication between parties and the public is absolutely
essential, and that many traditional methods of organising
this are under-resourced and expect too much from too few
people. But centralised campaign techniques such as the
Conservatives use of Voter Vault at the last election, which
get out the core vote but deliberately exclude large numbersof voters, are not the answer. Political communication and
campaigning cannot be done with anything like the same
effect if they are conducted only by central party headquarters
and rely upon expensive advertising rather than personal
contact.
It has been apparent for some time that where there are
active and competitive local parties, voter turnout is higher
than where there is little competition or activity. The clearestexample of this is the relationship between the turnout and
marginality of a constituency. In the 2005 general election
there was a 17% difference in the turnout between the safest
and most marginal seats.
If politics were a business it would have gone bankrupt years
ago, largely due to it having stopped investing in localised
marketing campaigns and having not recruited any salespersonnel for over two decades. There are a number of ways
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
9/70
7
Introduction
that party funding could be reformed to bolster local party
activism and allow new interests and parties to develop locally
rather than simply funding the national party operations.
Possible solutions
In order to campaign and engage the electorate local parties
need both people and money. State funding is in no way
a substitute for activists, but it can be used to encourage
political engagement at a local level.
Local Politics: a case for treatment? outlines a range of
policy solutions. Some, such as extending freepost to local
elections, to help parties communicate with voters; others,
such as matched funding, to incentivise political engagement;
and finally some, such as caps on donations, to address the
perception of corruption.
Unlock Democracy has argued for targeted state funding
to support local activity. Schemes such tax relief on small
donations or matched funding up to an agreed limit - perhaps
around 100 - could be used to encourage parties to seek
out lots of small donations rather then a few large donations.
Incentivising this low net worth fundraising would also
encourage parties to engage with their communities outside
of elections and to hold social events to raise money. This
kind of state support would go some way to recognising small
donations to political parties as being of value to society byputting them on a par with donations to charity.
We were interested in the views of local activists because
they have direct experience of both the finances and political
activity of local parties, and are also the people who will be
called on to operate any new scheme. The second part of our
survey asked for their views on specific proposals for party
funding reform and found:
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
10/70
Introduction
This shows that, among activists at least, there is already a
broad degree of consensus about how to move forward.
Implementation
Many of the proposals for the funding of political parties are
not new; there are reports on this subject dating back 30
years, but their proposals for new funding mechanisms have
not been taken forward. The fact that Review of the Funding
of Political Parties is seeking to build consensus between the
political parties is a source of renewed hope. If reform is to
succeed it has to be on the basis of what will improve British
democracy as a whole and not just be in the interests of one
party.
However each party inevitably has its own culture, history
and experience of fundraising. For the Conservatives this has
historically been donations from wealthy individuals and bigbusiness, increasingly it is from unincorporated associations.
A clear consensus for reducing spending limits to 15
million, introducing a cap on individual donations at
around 50,000 per year and tax relief on donations to
political parties.
Significant support for matched funding on donations
and money-per-supporter schemes such as the Power
Inquirys voter voucher proposal.
Overwhelming support for restricting public funds to
parties that are internally democratic and open to anyone
to join (this would exclude racist parties such as the BNP
which limit membership to those who belong to certain
ethnic groups). Significant cross-party opposition to banning donations
from trade unions (including nearly half of Conservative
activists), but also strong cross-party consensus that
individual union members should have more say over how
their money is spent (including more than half of Labour
activists).
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
11/70
Introduction
The Labour Party has the historic link with the trade union
movement, which remains its main source of income.
The simplest mechanism for ending the perception that
money can buy political influence is to introduce a cap on
large donations to political parties. Unlock Democracy would
prefer a cap set at a very low level around of 5,000 but it
is likely that the consensual position will be 50,000. This
received cross party support in our survey of local party
activists.
However while there is a broad consensus that individualsshould not be able to make very large donations, should
donations from membership organisations on behalf of its
members be treated in the same way? This immediately brings
into question the Labour Partys links with the trade union
movement and in particular the affiliation relationship. Unlock
Democracy is concerned not just with innovative policy ideas
but also with how our proposals could be implemented.
In our submission to the Review on the Funding of Political
Parties chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips, we suggested that
trade unions should be able to act as brokers, collecting
small donations on behalf of their members. Preserving the
Link, Promoting Transparencyoutlines how this model could
work in practice. These proposals aim to bring openness and
transparency to the funding relationship but also to respect
and maintain the link between the trade union movement and
the Labour Party. This issue threatens to block any attemptat reforming the funding of political parties. It would be a
travesty if by seeking to maintain the status quo the trade
union movement allowed multi-millionaires to continue to buy
political influence.
It was hoped that the introduction of Political Parties Elections
and Referendums Act in 2000 would herald a new era of trust
in politics. But openness and transparency about donationsto political parties are not enough in themselves to end
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
12/70
10
Introduction
allegations of sleaze and restore public confidence in political
parties as institutions of civil society. We need to both support
local political engagement through targeted funding and
end the possibility of corruption by capping donations. It is
essential that we seize this opportunity for reform because, as
our survey of local party activity, shows the status quo is not
sustainable. The price of political campaigning - both during
and between elections is the price of democracy. We cant
continue to expect to get democracy on the cheap.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
13/70
11
Party FundingThe View From the Grassroots
James Graham
Summary
In the summer of 2006, the New Politics Network surveyed
activists of political parties about their views on party funding
and the level of activity within their local parties. On the
matter of activists' views on party funding, we have found
the following:
A clear consensus for reducing spending limits to 15
million, introducing a cap on individual donations at around50,000 per year and tax relief on donations to political
parties.
Significant support for matched funding on donations
and money-per-supporter schemes such as the Power
Inquiry's "voter voucher" proposal.
Overwhelming support for restricting public funds to parties
that are internally democratic and open to anyone to join
(this would exclude racist parties such as the BNP).
Significant cross-party opposition to banning donations
from trade unions (including nearly half of Conservative
activists), but also strong cross-party consensus that
individual union members should have more say over how
their money is spent (including more than half of Labour
activists).
Overall, we believe these findings suggest that a cross-party
consensus on reforming the way political parties are funded
is within reach.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
14/70
12
Spending Limits
Activists from all three main political parties support loweringnational spending limits. There is a clear consensus among
Labour and Conservative activists for a cap of around 15
million, while the Liberal Democrats would go further still.
1: The amount each political party can spend
nationally in a general election is currently restricted
to approximately 20 million. Do you th ink this should
be changed? If so, what to?
Party (sample size) Median Figure Excludingantis*
Labour (104) 15 million 15 million
Conservatives (72) 15 million 15 million
Lib Dems (153) 10 million 10 millionOther Party Members (32) 7.5 million 5 million
Other Respondents (88) 10 million 10 million
* This figure excludes the responses from those who were
opposed to a limit at all.
Cap on Donations
There is a clear consensus for a limit on individual donations
of some kind. There is less consensus on what that limit
should be, however 50,000 would appear to be a best fit
as it is favoured by Labour activists and is Conservative Party
policy (even if the majority of Conservative activists would
favour a higher cap).2: Some people argue that there should be a limit or
cap on donations to political parties. Do you agree
with this?
Party (sample size) Yes No Dont
Know
Labour (104) 64.4% 32.7% 2.9%
Conservatives (72) 60.3% 39.7% 0%
Lib Dems (154) 90.3% 8.4% 1.3%
Other Party Members (32) 75% 18.8% 6.2%Other Respondents (88) 81.8% 13.6% 4.5%
The View from the Grassroots
13
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
15/70
13
Principles
Not surprisingly, there is a strong consensus that the financial
health of parties is fundamental to parliamentary democracy.
This is one of the main assumptions that Sir Hayden Phillips'
Review is based on.
Both Liberal Democrat and Labour activists feel that public
funding is necessary, although the Conservatives dissentfrom this view. There is also broad agreement that public
funding should be directed at a local level; a large minority
of Conservative activists disagree with this but they do not
constitute a majority.
3: The financial health of our political parties is
fundamental to the health of our parliamentary
democracy.Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (107) 91% 6% 3%
Conservatives (75) 83% 8% 10%
Lib Dems (155) 84% 11% 3%Other Party Members (32) 69% 9% 22%
Other Respondents (89) 53% 16% 31%
1
2a: If you do support a cap, how much should
donations from individuals be capped to per year?
Party (sample size) Median Figure Excluding
antis*Labour (97) 50,000 10,000
Conservatives (67) 250,000 50,000
Lib Dems (150) 10,000 10,000Other Party Members (32) 10,000 10,000
Other Respondents (84) 10,000 5,000
* This figure excludes the responses from those who
were opposed to a limit at all.
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
16/70
11
5: Any additional public funding should go to local
parties on the basis of local support.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (104) 43% 21% 36%
Conservatives (72) 39% 17% 45%
Lib Dems (155) 60% 19% 21%
Other Party Members (31) 42% 23% 26%
Other Respondents (88) 45% 32% 24%
It is not surprising that a large majority of Labour activists believe
that funding systems should respect the existing history and
structures of political parties. This has been one of the basic
tenets that Labour has been pushing with regard to its roots in
the trade union movement and system of affiliate organisations.
Significantly however, there is broad agreement from the othertwo main parties on this issue.
4: Increased public funding of political parties
is necessary to help encourage democratic
engagement.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (163) 56% 12% 31%
Conservatives (74) 33% 5% 61%
Lib Dems (154) 67% 12% 19%Other Party Members (32) 53% 16% 31%
Other Respondents (88) 41% 11% 48%
5: Any additional public funding should go to local
parties on the basis of local support.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (104) 43% 21% 36%
Conservatives (72) 39% 17% 45%
Lib Dems (155) 60% 19% 21%Other Party Members (31) 42% 23% 26%
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
17/70
1
6: Any system of party funding must respect the
history and structures of political parties.
Party (sample size) Agree/
AgreeStrongly
Neither
agree/disagree
Disagree/
DisagreeStrongly
Labour (105) 79% 11% 10%
Conservatives (73) 44% 25% 32%
Lib Dems (152) 40% 29% 31%Other Party Members (30) 27% 37% 36%
Other Respondents (88) 14% 41% 45%
The idea that political parties should be able to opt out of
the funding system - not be subject to caps but subsequently
not be entitled to public funding - has been mooted by
the Conservative Party nationally. There is overwhelming
disagreement from the other parties however and Conservative
activists themselves are split on the issue.
7: Political parties should be allowed to opt out of
public funding: if they dont receive any public money,
they shouldnt have to introduce limits to how theyraise and spend their money.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (104) 13% 13% 74%
Conservatives (73) 39% 23% 39%
Lib Dems (154) 13% 12% 76%Other Party Members (31) 19% 23% 58%
Other Respondents (89) 25% 15% 61%
We were surprised and encouraged that an overwhelming
majority of respondents agreed that party funding should be
restricted to parties that are internally democratic and open
to anyone to join. This would exclude racist parties such as
the British National Party, the constitution of which excludes
certain ethnic groups from being able to join the party.
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
18/70
1
8: Political parties should only be entitled to party
funding if they are internally democratic and open to
anyone to join.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (106) 86% 8% 7%
Conservatives (74) 74% 11% 15%
Lib Dems (155) 91% 5% 5%Other Party Members (32) 81% 6% 12%
Other Respondents (87) 78% 8% 14%
Proposals
We proposed six possible options for changing the way
in which parties are funded and can spend their money.
Of these, one option emerged as a strong contender for
consensus while two others enjoyed a significant degree of
support.
Tax relief on donations was supported by a majority of activistsfrom the three main parties; surprisingly it was most popular
among Conservative activists who were broadly opposed to
all other systems of state support.
Of the other options, money-per-supporter (where voters
could choose to allocate a small amount of public funding
to the party of their choice to fund local campaigning) was
broadly supported by Labour and Lib Dem activists, and
broadly opposed by Conservatives. A majority of Lib Dem
activists supported a matched funding system which also
enjoyed significant support from Labour activists, but was
opossed by a majority of Tories.
Money-per-vote was supported by a majority of Lib Dems,
but Labour activists were split and this option was particularly
opposed by Conservatives (again, this is at variance to
their party policy in support of such a system). Subsidisingcampaign expenditure and increasing local spending limits
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
19/70
17
The View from the Grassroots
were both broadly opposed.
11: Small donations should be matched with public
money, pound for pound, to encourage parties to
engage more with the public .
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (105) 43% 16% 40%
Conservatives (73) 29% 18% 53%
Lib Dems (154) 55% 24% 21%
Other Party Members (31) 42% 29% 29%Other Respondents (84) 27% 24% 49%
10: Individuals should be allowed to decide if they
want a small amount of public funding to be given to
the party of their choice to be used by that party for
local activity.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (104) 44% 19% 34%
Conservatives (72) 30% 22% 48%
Lib Dems (153) 47% 24% 30%Other Party Members (31) 32% 16% 52%
Other Respondents (85) 45% 25% 30%
9: Donations to political parties should be subject to
tax relief, just like donations to charities.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (105) 52% 11% 36%
Conservatives (74) 77% 7% 16%
Lib Dems (154) 62% 10% 28%Other Party Members (31) 48% 10% 42%
Other Respondents (86) 44% 8% 48%
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
20/70
1
12: Political parties should get public funding
proport ionate to the number of votes cast for them at
the previous general election.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (105) 43% 14% 43%
Conservatives (72) 24% 14% 63%
Lib Dems (154) 52% 15% 33%Other Party Members (30) 27% 13% 60%
Other Respondents (86) 27% 10% 62%
13: Election candidates should have 50% of their
election expenditure paid for by the state so long as
they got at least 10% of the vote to encourage local
campaigning.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (105) 40% 16% 45%
Conservatives (72) 25% 11% 64%
Lib Dems (154) 48% 19% 32%Other Party Members (31) 32% 16% 51%
Other Respondents (85) 29% 24% 47%
14: The amount of money that each candidate canspend in an election should be increased to encourage
local campaigning.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (105) 38% 15% 47%
Conservatives (71) 35% 17% 48%
Lib Dems (153) 34% 24% 43%Other Party Members (31) 19% 23% 58%
Other Respondents (84) 23% 32% 45%
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
21/70
1
Trade Unions
We decided to ask a specific set of questions concerningtrade union donations because we are particularly concerned
that this issue threatens to derail the whole review process.
We were therefore pleasantly surprised by the results and feel
that, among activists at least, there is a real chance at gaining
a consensus across the main parties.
Unsurprisingly, an overwhelming majority of Labour activists
oppose banning trade union donations and feel unions play
an important role in promoting participation. Significantly
however, a majority of Lib Dem activists also oppose a ban.
There is no clear consensus among Conservatives.
15: Donations to political parties by trade unions
should be banned.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (105) 1% 3% 96%
Conservatives (74) 47% 11% 42%
Lib Dems (153) 25% 19% 55%Other Party Members (31) 42% 16% 42%
Other Respondents (86) 27% 13% 59%
16: Trade Unions play an important role in encouraging
participation in our democracy.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (106) 95% 4% 1%
Conservatives (73) 26% 18% 56%
Lib Dems (153) 46% 28% 26%Other Party Members (32) 34% 38% 28%
Other Respondents (86) 47% 20% 32%
The Power Inquiry's proposal of restricting trade union
contributions to around 100 per member enjoyed no supportfrom any party, but a much lower cap of around 5 per
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
22/70
20
member received broad support from both Conservative and
Lib Dem activists.
17: Donations to political parties by trade unions
should be restricted to an affiliation fee of around 5
per member and no more.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (104) 14% 19% 66%
Conservatives (70) 45% 19% 37%
Lib Dems (151) 45% 23% 32%
Other Party Members (31) 42% 16% 42%Other Respondents (84) 38% 29% 33%
18: Donations to political parties by trade unions
should be restricted to around 100 per member and
no more.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (103) 20% 22% 58%
Conservatives (68) 15% 15% 70%
Lib Dems (147) 18% 29% 54%Other Party Members (31) 39% 29% 32%
Other Respondents (82) 30% 26% 44%
The results that surprised us the most however were that a
majority of Labour activists both supported the idea of trade
unions acting as brokers - encouraging their members todonate to the party directly and treating such donations as
individual contributions - and also that individual members
should have more say over how much is donated to the party.
Just 17% of Labour activists disagreed with the notion that
union members should have more say.
The objection to trade union funding has always been that
it is undemocratic and in the hands of very few people. The
fact that so many Labour activists agreed with the statement
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
23/70
21
that union members should be given more say over how their
money is spent indicates that trade union claims that such
criticisms are politically motivated and do not match reality
are wide of the mark.
19: Trade unions should be allowed to collect money
from their members on behalf of the political party
of their choice. Money raised in this way should be
treated as individual donations.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (104) 67% 16% 17%Conservatives (73) 40% 10% 50%
Lib Dems (153) 56% 11% 33%Other Party Members (30) 60% 17% 23%
Other Respondents (86) 48% 15% 36%
20: Individual trade union members should have more
say over how much money is donated to political
parties.
Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly
Neitheragree/disagree
Disagree/DisagreeStrongly
Labour (105) 56% 27% 17%
Conservatives (71) 80% 6% 14%
Lib Dems (153) 88% 8% 4%Other Party Members (31) 94% 3% 3%
Other Respondents (87) 80% 13% 8%
Conclusions
Unlock Democracy supports the Review of the Funding of
Political Parties and in particular its objective that the funding
system must contribute to greater democratic engagement.
For some time now we have been considering how the
funding system might be designed to do this and we have
published a number of pamphlets on the subject including
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
24/70
22
Strong Parties, Clean Politics (2003) and Life Support for
Local Parties (2004).
We are keenly aware however that for a system to be
introduced it must enjoy broad support amongst both political
parties themselves and the public at large. While a number
of opinion polls have been conducted in recent years, with
mixed results, very little research has been conducted to look
at what party activists think. They will after all be expected to
make any new system work.
Our survey of party activists suggests there is more consensusat the grassroots than the rhetoric of senior party politicians
might suggest.
Funding Systems
There is a clear consensus among party activists for reducing
spending limits to 15 million, introducing a cap on individual
donations set at around 50,000 and introducing tax relief.
We believe that these views are broadly in line with publicopinion and are thus realistic.
Other options for changing the system would be more
controversial. Given the broad support they received amongst
both Labour and Liberal Democrat activists however, we
believe that matched funding and money-per-supporter
systems (including the Power Inquirys voter voucher) are
still worthy of consideration and wider debate. The Electoral
Commissions proposal for a hybrid system combining taxrelief with matched funding for donations from non-taxpayers
(e.g. pensioners on a fixed income) could certainly form the
basis of a consensus.
The key test must always be whether the proposals would
promote engagement. We believe that such schemes would
achieve precisely this as they would encourage political parties
to sign up and thus actively engage with as many members ofthe electorate as possible. However, the price that parties
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
25/70
23
would have to pay for any system that is more generous than
that would be tighter spending limits and caps on donations,
both of which enjoy substantially more support amongst the
public than in political parties themselves.
The Conservative Party has made a lot of running in calling
for a money-per-vote system. We are critical of such systems
as we believe they will do nothing to encourage engagement
and may create a culture of dependency between the party
and the state. It is clear from this survey that party activists
are not keen on such proposals either - and are opposed
by two-thirds of activists of the Conservative Party itself.We therefore believe that the Review should not seriously
consider such a system.
Trade Unions
The degree of agreement on trade unions surprised and
encouraged us. We believe the way forward is now clear and
would enjoy the support of party activists across the political
spectrum.
Legislation affecting trade unions should be changed so
that members are regularly informed about how the unions
political fund works and are given the opportunity to opt out
simply and without fuss (i.e. ticking a box on a form or sending
an email, not having to phone a helpline and negotiate with a
member of staff).
So long as it can be demonstrated that union members havegiven their informed consent to contribute to the political
fund, there is no need to either cap donations from unions
or for the existing legislation requiring unions to ballot their
members on the issue every ten years. The amount that each
individual contributes via their union should be auditable and
subject to the cap on personal donations.
Eligibility for FundingFinally, we believe that the overwhelming support we found
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
26/70
2
for public funding to be restricted to internally democratic
and open parties means that the Review should look into
excluding racist parties such as the BNP.
We are aware that this survey has not covered all issues,
mainly for the sake of simplicity, and a number of these issues
will be explored in our final submission to the Hayden Phillips
Review. In addition, we received the following submissions
from members of the following other political parties:
Party Total
RespondentsBritish National Party 2
Common Good 1
English Democrats Party 1
Green Party / Scottish Greens 5
Liberal Party 1
Mebyon Kernow 1
Plaid Cymru 9
Scottish National Party 9
Ulster Unionist Party 1Did not say 3
Methodology
We conducted this survey in association with the Joseph
Rowntree Reform Trust as part of our submission to the
Hayden Phillips Review on the Funding of Political Parties.
We posted a copy of the survey to the local parties of thethree main political parties and more than 200 identified Plaid
Cymru and Scottish National Party activists and councillors.
In addition, the survey was accessible online.
See the table below for a breakdown of the responses we
received from each of the three main political parties, including
their respective roles in their local party.
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
27/70
2
Respondents from the main political parties
Party
TotalResponden
ts
Role in local party
Chair
Secretary
Treasurer
Membership
Secretary
OtherLocalExec
PrimaryCouncillo
r
Parish/TownCll
r
Candidate
Agent
Conservatives 75 40 4 2 2 9 15 2 4 6
Labour Party 106 12 39 10 9 16 11 3 4 3
Liberal Democrats 155 12 5 7 93 14 24 20 14 1
Notes: Primary Councillor includes all members of County, District, Metropolitan
and Unitary Councils. Candidate includes all approved Parliamentary and
Assembly Candidates. Some individuals may perform multiple roles within their
local party.
Finally, we also received contributions from a number of non-
party members. They expressed support for the following
parties:
Party TotalRespondents
British National Party 1
Conservatives 11
Green Party / Scottish Greens 12
Labour Party 11
Liberal Democrats 17
Plaid Cymru 1
Respect 1
Social Democratic and Labour Party 1
United Kingdom Independence Party 3
Did not say/support no party 30
We regard the number of responses from the three main
political parties as sufficient to provide a rough snapshot of
grassroots opinion. However, we do not regard the survey
results from minor political parties and other individuals as
particularly representative and are including these results for
the sake of completeness only.
The View from the Grassroots
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
28/70
2
Summary
Of those parties that responded to our survey:
3% of Constituency Labour Parties, 20% of Conservative
Associations and 40% of Lib Dem Local Parties have
fewer than 100 members per constituency. Conservative
Associations in the North of England typically have fewer than
50 members per constituency.
34% of Conservative Associations, 50% of Constituency
Labour Parties and 73% of Liberal Democrat Local Parties
received less than 5,000 in income in 2005 meaning they
had less than 7 pence to spend per elector in that year. By
contrast, Conservative Associations in Conservative-held
constituencies typically received more than 50,000 in 2005.
32% of Conservative Associations, 44% of Liberal Democrat
Local Parties and 50% of Constituency Labour Parties
distributed less than 1 leaflet per household in the 2005
General Election.
At least 67% of the population received no personal contact
from any of the three main parties in the 2005 General Election.
In solid Labour seats, this figure increased to 82%.
Constituency Labour Parties typically hold just 2-3 social
Local PoliticsA Case for Treatment?
James Graham
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
29/70
27
and fundraising events per year. This contrasts with at least
12 such events per year held by Conservative Associations in
their held seats, at least 4 per year by all other Conservative
Associations and at least 4 per year by Liberal Democrat
Local Parties where the party either holds the seat or is in
contention for it.
Constituency Labour Parties report a big drop in membership
and activism levels compared to 5 years ago, and a slight dip
in income levels. Conservative Associations report a slight
improvement in membership and income. Liberal Democrat
Local Parties report a slight dip in membership, but animprovement in activism and income.
Activity levels during the last General Election was extremely
low in the majority of constituencies in Great Britain. In a
typical solid Labour-held constituency, no political party
delivered more than 1 leaflet per elector.
Methodology
This project is an attempt to take a snap shot of the health
of local constituency parties during the 2005 general election
year. It is intended to help us to draw up a picture of the state
of political parties across Great Britain.
The local constituency parties of the Conservatives, Labour,
Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National
Party were sent a survey asking them on their views on party
funding as well as their local party activity. Members of all
political parties were also free to fill in the survey online. The
results of the first part of this survey, on opinions about party
funding, was published in August 2006.
We received useable data about local activity from 286 local
constituency parties (70 Conservative, 76 Labour, 129 LibDem, 5 Plaid Cymru, 6 SNP). We have subdivided the results
Local Politics
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
30/70
2
Local Politics
of each party into four categories, depending on marginality:
Solid - the party won this seat by more than 15% ahead
of their nearest rival in both the 2001 and 2005 general
elections.
Held - the party won this seat in the 2001 and/or 2005
general elections but it is not considered Solid.
Close - the party came within 15% of the winning party of
this seat in the 2001 and/or 2005 general elections but did not
win in either.
Other - all other constituencies.
See Figures 10a-d1 for a breakdown of constituencies by
region for each party.
This categorisation enables us to compare like with like.
Where a constituency changed hands in 2005, both the party
that lost the seat and the winner are listed as a held seat
because it is assumed that they both contested the seat
strongly. Because of the different performances of political
parties, each party has a different share of seats in these
categories. For example, more than a third of Labour seatsare classified as solid, while 80% of Lib Dem count as
other. In combination, there are numerous different types
of constituencies, but almost two-thirds fit into three main
types: solid Labour-held constituencies, solid Conservative-
held constituencies and Labour held constituencies where the
Conservative Party are close (figure 10e).
Because the number of responses we received from the Plaid
Cymru and Scottish National Party were so low, we havenot attempted to draw any clear conclusions about them.
However, we have included what date we received in the
results tables.
Some of the sample sizes we have for the other parties are
also quite low. However, in all cases we have had responses
from more than 10% of the total number of constituency local
parties. Overall, we regard these figures to be reflective of1 All Figures are available in Appendix C, below
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
31/70
2
the current state of local politics; if anything we would expect
respondents to over-estimate their local constituency party's
activity levels.
The Results
Membership
It is clear from this data that while there is a clear
correlation between membership numbers and vote share,
it is most pronounced in the Conservative Party and least
pronounced in the Labour Party (Figure 2). While thetypical Conservative Association in a solid constituency
reports having a membership in excess of 500, the median
result for Associations in other constituencies was between
100 and 199 members, while the mode result (i.e. the
most common single response) was less than 50. This
contrasts with Constituency Labour Parties where safe
constituencies typically reported having 300-399 members
other constituencies reported having 200-299 members.
These figures suggest that in the seats where the Conservative
Party is out of contention, the party has literally died off
and there is little sign of any new blood. This will severely
restrict the partys ability to expand. Labour, at least, have
a broader base from which to build in their moribund areas.
The results of our survey suggest that while just 3% of
constituencies nationwide have fewer than 100 Labour
members, 20% have fewer than 100 Conservative members
and 40% have fewer than 100 Liberal Democrat members.
However, a clear majority of all Constituency Labour Parties
reported membership going down compared to five years
ago. Reports from the other parties were more mixed,
with a majority of Conservative Associations in held
and other seats reporting an improvement (Figure 10a).
IncomeAs with membership, there is a wider variation of income levels
Local Politics
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
32/70
30
Local Politics
amongst Conservative Associations than there is amongst
Constituency Labour Parties (Figure 3). Indeed, the range is
even more pronounced, with Conservative Associations typically
reporting income levels in excess of 50,000 and even 100,000.
It is striking to note the difference in income levels
between Constituency Labour Parties and Conservative
Associations. In a contested Labour-Conservative marginal
constituency, the local Conservatives have, on average,
five times the spending power of their Labour opponents.
As we will see with some of the other results, Constituency
Labour Parties are very dependent on the central party for
funding and campaigning. This model served Labour very wellin both the 1997 and 2001 general elections but they proved
vulnerable to the Conservatives strict targeting approach
in the last general election and this looks set to continue.
These figures suggest that 73% of Lib Dem Local
Parties, 50% of Constituency Labour Parties and 34%
of Conservative Associations have an annual income
of less than 5,000 a year, which itself would only givea political party around seven pence to spend on each
constituent in a typically-sized constituency (around 70,000).
A majority of Conservative Associations in held seats report
an improvement in income over the past five years, while
a majority of their close seats report that things have got
worse (Figure 10c). This suggests that income has been
targeted more in recent years, as we have seen with Lord
Ashcrofts decision to fund target seats of his choice directly
through his company Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd.
Staff
Given the low levels of income, it is unsurprising therefore
that most local constituency parties cannot afford to employ
staff (Figure 4a). Once again, it is notable that even in
held and solid Labour seats, Constituency Labour Parties
employ very few members of staff. However, they also report
relatively little support from other paid staff - just 47% ofheld seats reported being supported in this way (Figure 4b).
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
33/70
31
The Conservative Party tends to employ staff in their target
and held seats, and subsequently supports them less with
staff from elsewhere. However, Conservative Associations
in areas with relatively low voter support do report
significantly more support than their Labour counterparts.
The Liberal Democrats tend to both employ staff
locally in target and held seats, and provide such seats
with more help from elsewhere. Only 25% of other
constituencies report receiving help from other paid staff.
Leaflets Delivered
Our results from the local party survey (Figure 5a) correspondfairly well with our results from the General Election Monitoring
Project that we undertook last year (Figure 5b). Both
surveys suggest that in their target and held constituencies,
the Liberal Democrats produce the most election leaflets,
followed by the Conservatives. However, as the Liberal
Democrats have fewer seats in which they have a realistic
chance of winning, overall the number of leaflets they
distribute nationwide is much lower than this would imply.As suggested by our results on income levels however, a
very large number of constituency local parties in non-target
areas produced minimal quantities of election literature.
According to our survey, 50% of Constituency Labour Parties,
44% of Lib Dem Local Parties and 32% of Conservative
Associations distributed fewer than 40,000 leaflets. A
typical constituency has around 40,000 households. Given
that the Royal Mail is legally obliged to deliver at least one
leaflet to every household, this suggests that in these areasthe local parties themselves did not deliver a single leaflet.
Canvassing
Local constituency parties across all categories report very
little personal contact with voters (Figure 6a), and this is borne
out from our survey of voters themselves (Figure 6b). The
results of the latter suggest that Labour personally contacted
just 16% of the population, the Conservatives contacted 13%and the Lib Dems contacted 7%. Combined, this suggests that
Local Politics
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
34/70
32
Local Politics
approximately 67% of the population had no personal contact
with a politician from the main parties during the general election
campaign at all. This is almost certainly an under-estimation as
parties will undoubtedly have concentrated their efforts in the
same marginal areas, meaning that a high proportion of people
contacted will have been contacted by two or more parties.
Activism
The proportion of members who are actively engaged
in the party seems to be consistent between 10% and
24% across all categories (Figure 7). Only Constituency
Labour Parties in other constituencies reported less thanthis and Lib Dem Local Parties in close constituencies
reported more than this, at around 25% to 49%.
We also asked local constituency parties to estimate whether
activism levels have improved or got worse over the past five
years and here there is more significant difference (Figure
10b). A clear majority of Constituency Labour Parties in
all categories report a worsening of activism levels. Only
Conservative Associations in close constituencies report afalling off of activism, while in held seats a majority report
things improving. A majority of Lib Dem Local Parties in both
close and held seats report an improvement in activism
levels.
Newsletters
As we saw with election leaflets, the Liberal Democrats are the
most keen on delivering local newsletters in their target seats,
while Labour deliver the fewest of this kind of campaigningliterature (Figure 8).
Extremely roughly, we can estimate that according to these
figures, around 40% of the UK population receives at least
two newsletters from the Conservatives, around 36% receive
at least two per year from Labour and around 35% receive
at least two a year from the Lib Dems. Even more roughly,
this would suggest that around 25% of the population never
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
35/70
33
receive anything at all (as with the canvass estimation above,
this is likely to be an under-estimate due to the tendency
of parties to target the same areas). Furthermore, two
newsletters per year is not that high and if we had asked
about more frequent deliveries, the results would have almost
certainly been significantly lower.
Meetings
Constituency Labour Parties tend to hold the most executive
and organisational meetings, followed by the Lib Dems and
then the Conservatives (Figures 9a & 9b).
As implied by their relatively high levels of income, Conservative
Associations are much better at holding frequent social and
fundraising events (Figure 9c). Conservative Associations
in solid and held seats typically reported holding monthly
events of this type, compared to their Labour equivalents who
tended to hold just two social or fundraising events per year.
Even Conservative Associations in non-target areas typically
reported holding twice as many meetings of this kind as theirLabour equivalents.
Both Labour and Conservative local constituency parties
typically hold policy discussion meetings at least quarterly in
their target and held seats (Figure 9d). This contrasts starkly
with Liberal Democrat Local Parties who typically hold half as
many. This may be of surprise when we consider that Liberal
Democrat Local Parties have more direct say in their partys
policymaking process than their main rivals.
North-South Divide?
All three parties tend to have fewer members in the North
of England (North West, North East and Yorkshire and
Humber), than they do in the rest of England (Figure 10). The
contrast is most stark in the Conservative Party, with a typical
Conservative other constituency in the North reporting fewer
than fifty members. The Conservatives also have the biggestdifference in terms of income levels and number of leaflets
Local Politics
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
36/70
3
Local Politics
delivered between North and South: Conservative other
constituencies have roughly a quarter of the spending power
of their counterparts in the rest of England.
Conclusion
Political parties perform important roles without which
representative democracy could not exist. They offer alternative
policies from which voters choose at elections, organise
campaigns to mobilise voters and perhaps most importantly
they field candidates for public office. Political parties maybe unpopular but there is simply no better alternative model
for organising democracy. They are still the only effective
mechanism by which normal people can have any personal
contact with the body politic, but as this research shows they
are now nearing critical condition in terms of their ability to
perform the set of tasks we require from them.
Activity in typical constituenciesUnder our classification, of solid, held, close and other seats
there are three most common types of constituency: solid
Labour (223), Labour-held seats where the Conservatives
are close but the Liberal Democrats arent (110) and solid
Conservative (79) seats. Combined, these types make up just
under two thirds of all British constituencies.
In a typical solid Labour-held constituency, all three of the
main political parties struggle to distribute just one leaflet per
elector; the Conservatives tended to distribute just one leaflet
per household. In this type of constituency the three local
parties have a combined income of less than 20,000, no staff
between them and at least 82% of the electorate receive no
personal contact at all from the main political parties. 59% of
constituencies in the North of England count as solid Labour
seats. The Conservatives are at their least active in these
areas, typically having fewer than fifty members in this typeof constituency.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
37/70
3
In Labour held seats where the Conservatives are in contention
but did not win in 2005, the two main political parties are more
active, but not by very much. In this type of constituency,
Labour and the Conservatives typically distributed one or
two leaflets per elector. Membership and income levels are
higher, but Constituency Labour Parties typically still lack
the resources to employ staff and even the Conservatives
typically only have someone working part time. At least 57%
of the electorate receives no personal contact during elections
in this type of constituency.
In the third most common type of constituency - solid
Conservative constituencies - Conservative Associations are
much better off, with incomes of more than 50,000 and more
than 500 members. They typically have more than one full time
member of staff working for them. But while the Conservative
Association in this sort of constituency is actively engaged in
holding social events for their members and supporters, they
appear to be doing very little to actively engage with the widerelectorate. Their political rivals, not surprisingly, are even less
active in this area. At least 80% of the electorate in this type
of constituency received no personal contact from one of the
three main parties in the last general election.
According to the respondents to our survey in these three
types of constituency, the level of political campaigning was
so low that many people will have barely noticed the general
election. There certainly are constituencies where the levelof political campaigning was high - indeed the seats that
changed hands between the Lib Dems and Conservatives in
2005 were very hotly contested. However, there are just eight
constituencies of this type; they are very much the exception
not the rule.
Trends within the main parties
The high income and membership levels of ConservativeAssociations in Conservative-held constituencies clearly
Local Politics
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
38/70
3
Local Politics
show that under certain circumstances, political parties can
be self-sufficient at a local level, but this model is difficult to
sustain in areas where the party lacks an MP. Indeed, our
survey results suggest that at a time when the party nationally
appears to be enjoying a bit of a renaissance, local parties
in close constituencies are continuing to decline. These
are constituencies where the party continues to enjoy a high
share of the vote but has not had electoral success for some
time. In these constituencies, a majority of Conservative
Associations reported that membership, activism and income
levels have all got worse in the last five years, in stark contrast
to Associations in held seats.
Conservative Associations in seats with an even smaller share
of the vote seem more optimistic, but membership levels in
this category of Association are extremely low, especially in
the North. Overall it is clear that at a grassroots level, the
Conservatives have not only failed to recover from the knock
they took in the mid-90s, but they have continued to slide.
Labour are in many ways the exact opposite. Their membership
is much more evenly spread across the country, but
paradoxically their local parties are much less independent.
There is far less of a culture of fundraising and holding social
events in Labour and significantly less local campaigning.
In theory this would suggest that Labour constituencies are
extremely vulnerable, but in practice they have very little
competition in most of their strongholds.
Liberal Democrat Local Parties tend to be more independent
than Constituency Labour Parties, but their strongholds are
much less self-sufficient than those of the Conservative Party.
However, in the vast majority of constituencies, their activism
levels are quite low, although not typically to same extent as
Conservative Associations in constituencies where they have
a low share of the vote.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
39/70
37
National Wealth, Local Squalor
For all the talk of the last General Election setting a record
in terms of national campaign expenditure, it is clear that
very little of this money ended up in most constituencies. To
misquote J. K. Galbraiths famous phrase, our party political
system exists in a state of national wealth and local squalor.
Money raised nationally is spent nationally, on direct mail,
billboard and print advertising, market research and rallies.
Direct mail played a key role in the 2005 General Election
campaign. The Conservative Party spent 4.5 million
on direct mail which, according to them, was spent ontargeting just 800,000 individuals nationwide. Sophisticated
targeting techniques such as the Conservatives Voter Vault
database work by only targeting floating voters in marginal
constituencies. Rather than working on the principle of
convincing as many voters as possible of the party's argument
through time consuming personal contact, it targets people
who - on the basis of statistical data - are likely to support
the party. The Conservatives were by no means alone in usingdirect mail or targeting particular voters. The Labour targeted
specific groups of the population such as schoolgate mums.
However the other parties did not use this tactic to the same
extent as the Conservatives.
It cannot be over-emphasised that targeting itself is a
major contributing factor to increasing voter alienation and
disengagement. Research in the US suggests that face-to-
face contact can raise turnout by 9.8 percent, as opposed
to a 0.6 percent increase for direct mail ('The Effects of
Canvassing, Telephone Calls and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout:
A Field Experiment' by AS Gerber and DP Green, American
Political Science Review, 94:3 pp 653-663[2000]). While local
parties across the country struggle to spend seven pence per
elector, eighty times that amount was spent on these target
voters in direct mail by the Conservative Party alone.
That parties will vary the amount of attention they give any
Local Politics
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
40/70
3
Local Politics
particular seat depending on its relevant importance to them
is an obvious and natural element of political campaigning
strategy. What we need to question is whether the minimum
level of campaigning in lesser target seats is providing a
sufficient level of communication to the electorate to sustain
good, informative, participatory democracy itself.
For democracy to work, we need healthy competitive political
parties at a local level offering different policy platforms and
fielding candidates. In order to campaign, local parties need
both people and money. We are caught in a vicious circle: the
more political parties centralise their campaign operations,the more local activism dwindles, meaning that parties have
to centralise and target resources even more. Elections are
being determined by an ever decreasing group of people.
Policy Solutions
If this slide is to be stopped, or even reversed, we needto provide three things: incentives for parties to campaign
locally, disincentives for campaigning nationally and measures
that will act as a safety net to ensure that a basic level of
campaigning goes on at a local level. These include:
Incentives
Tax relief on political donations up to, for example, 200, to
encourage parties to pursue small donations.
Matched funding - similar to tax relief, but pound-for-pound
matched funding would provide even more of an incentive.
Money-per-supporter - either through a voter voucher
system as proposed by the Power Inquiry, or through the
voter registration system to encourage parties to sign up
supporters locally.
Money-per-member to encourage recruitment.
Increase constituency spending limits to encourage local
campaigning (matched with a reduction in national spendinglimits).
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
41/70
3
Rebates on constituency campaigning to encourage parties
to spend money locally.
Recognise political activity as voluntary work as part of
existing return-to-work and education schemes to reduce
the official stigma of this kind of community-focused, skills-
acquisitive activity.
Involve political parties in voter registration drives - use
parties to maximise registration and, in the process, engage
with the electorate (this could only be done if the UK adopted
a secure system of individual voter registration to minimise
fraud).
Consider engagement in planning issues - the design ofbuildings can obstruct engagement (e.g. gated communities,
lack of external letter boxes, etc). The planning system should
require developers to take these issues into consideration.
Disincentives
Caps on donations to prevent political parties from relying
on major donors.
Reduce national election spending limits and introduce annualnational spending limits to discourage national campaigning.
End loopholes that enable spending in individual constituencies
to count as national spending, thereby bypassing local
spending limits.
Safety nets
Extend the freepost system - allow parties to send out
more than one election address per elector via the Royal Mail
during Parliamentary and Assembly elections. Extend thissystem to local elections.
Voter information packs - more extensive information about
the election should be included with polling cards.
Election websites - a one-stop shop where voters can learn
more about the election, the candidates standing and their
policies.
Local Politics
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
42/70
0
Preserving the Link,Promoting Transparency
Alexandra Runswick
Introduction
Allegations of sleaze are once again damaging British politics.
one of the simplest ways of ending the perception that money
buys influence is to cap donations to political parties. While
there is a broad consensus that individuals should not be
able to make very large donations, should a donation from a
membership organisation on behalf of its members be treated
in the same way?
The Conservative Party argues that all donations from
organisations and companies should be banned and that
donations from individuals should be capped at 50,000.
The Labour Party is concerned that a cap on donations is
simply another mechanism to try and break the link between
that Labour Party and the trade union movement.
In our submission to the Review on the Funding of Political
Parties chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips, we suggested that
trade unions should be able to act as brokers, collecting
small donations on behalf of their members. This paper
outlines how we believe this model could work in practice.
These proposals aim to bring openness and transparency to
the funding relationship but also respect and maintain the link
between the trade union movement and the Labour Party.
This issue threatens to block any attempt at reforming the
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
43/70
1
Preserving the Link
funding of political parties. It would be a travesty if by seeking
to maintain the status quo, the trade union movement allowed
multi-millionaires to continue to buy political influence.
Trade Unions and the funding of political parties
The Labour Party grew out of the trade union movement.
There is a shared culture, history and political philosophy that
links the political party with the wider movement.
Trade unions engaging in political activities are required toestablish a political fund approved by a ballot of their members,
regardless of whether they are affiliated to a particular political
party. Initially payment into the political fund was compulsory
but the 1913 Trade Union Act gave members the right to opt
out of the fund. During the 1980s and early 1990s, when the
Thatcher governments passed a wide variety of legislation
to restrict the activities of trade unions, the regulations on
political funds were extended. In addition to a resolution to
create the fund, all union members had to be balloted, by
post, every ten years to decide whether the political fund
should be retained. This was intended to break the funding
link between the Labour Party and the trade unions.
The definition of a political act, for which a political fund was
required, was also extended to include activities such as
the registration of voters, even where a particular party or
candidate is not being endorsed.
There have now been three rounds of political ballots. They
have all been passed with significant majorities but have been
very expensive for trade unions to run and have done little, if
anything, to give individual trade unionists influence over the
way the fund is operated. Trade unions are heavily regulated
and certainly in terms of their political activities are treated
differently from other membership organisations. No othermembership organisations running political campaigns, even
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
44/70
2
Preserving the Link
those that are affiliated to a political party, are regulated in
this way.
Trade unions and political activity have always been inextricably
linked - campaigning for improvements in pay and conditions
has often involved lobbying to change national government
policy. There are two distinct issues which have become
entwined:
Unlock Democracy believes that trade unions should be able
to participate fully in the political process but that any system
of affiliation needs to be open, transparent and based on the
active consent of the individual.
The Issue what does afliation mean?
Although it should be noted that not all unions are affiliated to
the Labour Party, the largest unions are. It is this affiliation that
complicates the issues of caps on donations. Is a donation
from an affiliated union a collection of membership fees or
small donations from its members or a corporate donation
from an organisation seeking to buy influence?
There are three levels of affiliation: a union can affiliate at a
Labour Afliation Fees - Current Rates
National 3 per member
Regional 12.5p per member
Constituency Party 6p per member (minimum 6)Source: TULO.
Trade unions carrying out political activities to raise
awareness of their campaigns and further their members'
interests.
Trade unions funding, supporting and campaigning forone particular political party.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
45/70
3
Preserving the Link
national, regional and constituency level. The union pays an
affiliation fee for each member that they affiliate at each level
and receive rights within the Labour Party accordingly, such
as participating in the policy making process.
We believe that in order for this to be seen as a collection of
small individual donations collected by the union, there has to
be active consent on the part of the individual member and
they should have the choice of contributing to an affiliated or
general fund.
We do not believe that this fundamentally challenges orchanges the relationship between the union movement and
the Labour Party. Indeed we have heard affiliation being
described in these terms. However for some people this
undermines the collective nature of affiliation.
Unlock Democracys proposal
Unlock Democracy is not seeking to undermine the relationship
between trade unionists and the Labour Party. Affiliation is
unique and in many respects reflects exactly the kind of local
grass roots political activism, which we seek to encourage.
We recognise that trade unions are political organisations
and have a right to lobby government and political parties to
further their members' interests. However this must be based
on the active consent of the individual trade union member.
This is already the case for UNISON, one of the Labour Partyslargest donors. We recently conducted a survey of local party
activists' views on party funding. Of the Labour respondents
58% agreed that individual trade union members should
have more say over how much money is donated to political
parties.
Our criticism of the relationship rests solely with the degree
of control which union executives and general sectaries
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
46/70
Preserving the Link
exercise over the political fund. The decision of the RMT in
2002 to reduce its contribution to the Labour Party from over
90,000 to just over 20,000 is a good illustration of this
problem. This decision was not based on a reduction in union
members, in those paying into the political fund, or on any
decision of individual union members. Instead, the decisions
were based primarily on policy disagreements between the
unions leadership and the Labour Government. The sense
that an individual or small group of individuals can wield
such disproportionate influence over a national political party
or Her Majestys Government is offensive to most peoples
sense of fair play.
Unlock Democracy believes that trade unions should be able
to act as brokers for their members, collecting donations and
passing them on to the affiliated party. The union must also
pass on the contact details of each affiliated member to the
Certification Officer of the party so that this can be audited
and shown to be open and transparent. Individuals should
have the clearly stated right to opt out of affiliation but not ofcontributing to the unions political and campaigning activities
through the political fund.
At the moment trade unionists have the legal right to opt
out of political funds. However to those who are not already
aware of this right it is not always easy to exercise - the
extent to which this is explained on the membership form
varies widely. We believe that rather than opting out of the
political fund entirely, a trade unionist who doesnt wish tosupport the affiliated party should be able to contribute to a
general political fund. This is already the case for one of the
largest unions, UNISON, and while we are aware that it was
a particular set of circumstances that brought this about, we
think this model could be replicated.
For affiliated unions this would in effect mean having two
political funds. A certain percentage of each subscription,determined by the union as at present, would be paid into the
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
47/70
Preserving the Link
political fund. The individual member would choose which
fund to pay into when he or she joined the union. A model
membership form is included in Appendix A to demonstrate
how this could work. The amount of money paid into the
political fund would remain the same regardless of which
fund is chosen. The affiliated political fund could be given as
a donation to the affiliated party or it could be used for third
party campaigning activity.
Those members who chose to be affiliated would pay a levy in
addition to their contribution to the political fund which would
have to cover the cost of any affiliation fees, at any level. Thelevel of the additional levy would be determined by the union
concerned. We have suggested 50p per month as this would
cover the national affiliation fee as well as affiliations at a
lower level but is unlikely to act as a disincentive to affiliation
(a female UNISON member on median earnings currently pays
a monthly subscription of 14). The surplus raised could be
used at the unions discretion to affiliate at other levels or as a
donation to the Labour Party. If the union campaigned duringan election as a registered third party this activity would have
to be funded by the affiliated political fund. We are not trying
to hinder affiliation but to ensure that the general political
fund is not used to subsidise affiliation fees or activities in
any way.
Each member should receive an annual reminder of their
membership, as already happens with those paying by direct
debit. This should tell them which political fund they arepaying into and how this can be changed if they wish. It could
also include information about the union's recent activities. A
model membership renewal letter can be found in Appendix
B. If these changes were made we believe there would be no
justification for keeping the political fund ballots.
For a non-affiliated union all members would pay into a
general political fund which would be used to promote theunions campaigns and its members' interests but not to
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
48/70
Preserving the Link
campaign on behalf of one particular party. The political
fund would not be regulated i.e. there would be no need for
a political ballot and how it is spent would be determined
by the union. However if the union decided to affiliate there
would need to be a ballot of all members to agree this and if
the union decided to donate money to any political party then
the cap would apply.
How it would work in practice
An individual decides to join a union which is affiliated to a
political party - they have 2 choices:
Paythe standard
subscription rate, eg.14 per month*, which
includes a contribution tothe General Poli tical
Fund.
Paythe standard
subscription rate, eg.14* + 50p per monthto become an affiliatedmember of the political
party
x^of this membershipfee is given as a
contribution to theGeneral Political Fundwhich is not alligned to
any political party.
x^of this membership feeis given as a contributionto theAf filiated Political
Fund which can be used tocampaign within or on behalfof the affiliated political party.
The extra 50pafilliation fee is given
directly to the affiliatedparty with the contactdetails of the member.
EITHER:
OR:
* 14 based on the subscription rates of a female UNISON member onmedian pay.
^ x would be determined by the union's own internal structures.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
49/70
7
Preserving the Link
Recommendations
Notes
Sixteen Trade Unions are currently affiliated to the Labour Party Amicus,
ASLEF, BECTU, BFAWU, Community, CWU, GMB, MU, NACODS,
NUM, TGWU, TSSA, UCATT, Unison, Unity, USDAW see http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/aboutus2.html for more information
See TULO factsheet 5 How do Trade Unions participate in the party?
http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/
When joining an affiliated trade union, members must begiven a clear choice on the membership form to contribute
to the affiliated or general political fund (see Appendix A);
If they choose the affiliated fund they should pay an
additional affiliation fee that would be determined by the
union but we have suggested 50p per month;
The contact details for affiliated members must be passedto the Certification Officer of the party to which they are
affiliated;
All union members should receive a letter when their
membership is due for renewal with some form of annual
report telling them which political fund they contribute to,
what the fund has been used for, and how to change their
contribution if they wish (see Appendix B); and
The requirement for a political fund ballot every ten years
should be repealed.
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
50/70
Please ll in this form in BLOCK CAPITALS using black ink and give it to your
rep or steward or post to the address below.
SECTION ONE: YOUR PERSONAL DETAILS
Please tick or ll in the boxes below
Mrs Ms Miss Mr Other
First name O t h e r
initial(s)Surname/Family name Date of
Birth
/ /
Address
Postcode
National Insurance number (from your payslip)
o
Please tick this box if
you require materialsin a different format (eg. large
print or Braille) - be sure to
supply contact details below.
Please give a telephone
number / voice / text / email
address for us to contact you
- indicate if work or home.
How would you describe your ethnic origin?
Bangladeshi
Chinese
Indian
Pakistani
Asian UK
Asian other
Black African
B l a c k
Caribbean
Black UK
Black other
White UK
Irish
White other
Contact tel / voice / text / email
SECTION TWO: YOUR EMPLOYMENT DETAILS
Employers name
Your job title / occupation
Department / section
Workplace name and address
Postcode Payroll number (from your payslip)
M e m b e r s h i pForm
Appendix A: Sample Trade Union Membership Form
8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots
51/70
SECTION THREE: WHAT YOU WILL PAY
Please tick the appropriate box for your earnings before deductions.
Tick Here Annual Pay Your monthly subscription
Up to 2,000 1.30
2,001 - 5,000 3.50
5,001 - 8,000 5.30
8,001 - 11,000 6.60
11,001 - 14,000 7.85
14,001 - 17,000 9.70
17,001 - 20,000 11.50
20,001 - 25,000 14.00
25,001 - 30,000 17.25
30,001 - 35,000 20.30
over 35,000 22.50
Please tick this box if you are a student member in full-time education (includingstudent nurses and Young Apprentices). Your subscription is 10 per year.
SECTION FOUR:
POLITICAL FUND
SECTION FIVE:
YOUR AUTHORISATION
AnyUnion is afliated to the Labour Party.AnyUnions Afliated Political Fund (APF) isused to campaign for and promote our policiesand members interests within the LabourParty, locally and nationally, in Parliament andEurope. If you choose to join this fund youbecome an afliated member of the Labour
Party.Afliated members pay an additional 25p
per month as an afliation fee to the LabourParty which gives you rights within the party.
AnyUnions General Political Fund (GPF)is used to pay for campaigning at branch,regional and national levels of the union andfor research and lobbying in Parliament andEurope. It is independent of support for anypolitical party.
It is important that you indicate a choiceof fund by ticking one of the boxes on theright. If you do not tick a box the defaultposition is that you wish to become anafliated member.
I wish to join AnyUnion and accept itsrules and constitution.
I authorise deduction of AnyUnionsubscriptions from my salary/wages at therate determined by AnyUnion in accordancewith its rules to be paid over to them o