Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots

8/22/2019 Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots

1/70James Graham and Alexandra Runswick

Party FundingSupporting 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


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


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.


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


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


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%.


8/70

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


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:


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).


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


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.


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.


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


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.



16/70

11

5: Any additional public funding should go to local

parties on the basis of local support.

Party (sample size) Agree/AgreeStrongly



Labour (104) 43% 21% 36%


Lib Dems (155) 60% 19% 21%

Other Party Members (31) 42% 23% 26%


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.




Labour (163) 56% 12% 31%




5: Any additional public funding should go to local

parties on the basis of local support.




Labour (104) 43% 21% 36%





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%




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.




Labour (104) 13% 13% 74%




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.



18/70

1

8: Political parties should only be entitled to party

funding if they are internally democratic and open to

anyone to join.




Labour (106) 86% 8% 7%




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



19/70

17


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 .




Labour (105) 43% 16% 40%


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.




Labour (104) 44% 19% 34%




9: Donations to political parties should be subject to

tax relief, just like donations to charities.




Labour (105) 52% 11% 36%





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.




Labour (105) 43% 14% 43%




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.




Labour (105) 40% 16% 45%




14: The amount of money that each candidate canspend in an election should be increased to encourage

local campaigning.




Labour (105) 38% 15% 47%






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.




Labour (105) 1% 3% 96%




16: Trade Unions play an important role in encouraging

participation in our democracy.




Labour (106) 95% 4% 1%




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



22/70

20

member received broad support from both Conservative and

Lib Dem activists.


should be restricted to an affiliation fee of around 5

per member and no more.




Labour (104) 14% 19% 66%


Lib Dems (151) 45% 23% 32%

Other Party Members (31) 42% 16% 42%Other Respondents (84) 38% 29% 33%


should be restricted to around 100 per member and

no more.




Labour (103) 20% 22% 58%




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



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.




Labour (104) 67% 16% 17%Conservatives (73) 40% 10% 50%



20: Individual trade union members should have more

say over how much money is donated to political

parties.




Labour (105) 56% 27% 17%




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



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



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



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.



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.



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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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).


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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

Party Funding Supporting the Grassroots

Documents