The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

The Lib Dems' money woes are growing

Clegg's party might need a spell in opposition just to balance the books.

Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.
Entering government has cost Clegg's party money as well as votes. Photograph: Getty Images

The Electoral Commission has published its accounts of political party income and expenditure. The table showing the financial state of health of the top 14 - the ones that get £250,000 or more - is available here.

The item that has made a few headlines is the drop in income for the Tories. The party's takings were down by 45 per cent on the previous year - now at the same level they were last at in 2003. That's wilderness income. Of course, the Conservative coffers will fill up again as an election approaches. They always do. But the fall in revenue might also reflect disquiet among big donors at negative publicity attached to the status of being seen to be a Cameron crony (especially after this incident) and irritation at the party leadership's willingness to indulge media bashing of bankers, high pay and fat-cattery.  The Telegraph's Ben Brogan wrote a column earlier this week suggesting donors were sniffing around Boris Johnson as a friendlier protege.

Labour also received less than last year but, thanks to the trade unions, the party's funding stream is a little more stable (although there is a political price to be paid for that dependency ... the subject of another much longer blog another time).

One thing that caught my eye in this year's accounts though was the perennial shortage of cash felt by the Lib Dems. They take in a fraction of the sums enjoyed by the big two and, unlike their rivals, spend more than they earn. One of the cruelties of coalition for the Lib Dems is that power has not suddenly opened up new exciting financing opportunities. Joining the governing big league has not granted entry to some exclusive high rolling donors club. Meanwhile, the party has lost the "short money" made available by the state to official opposition parties. And to make matters worse, Lib Dem councillors traditionally chip in around 10 per cent of their allowances to help fund the party. So the massacres in local elections in recent years have put a further squeeze on income. The Lib Dems, in other words, are utterly broke.

One senior Labour figure recently suggested to me that this would ultimately be the factor that breaks the coalition. The Lib Dems, this theory goes, will have to quit the government a year or so before an election so they can get their short money back. Without it they simply wouldn't be able to mount a campaign. Now that could be spite and mischief from the enemy camp (the shadow cabinet figure involved is no admirer of the Cleggists) but senior Lib Dems themselves don't deny privately that they have serious money woes. Maybe staying in government to the very bitter end will prove a luxury they can't afford.

14 comments

Rev Graeme Hancocks's picture

The Lib Dems' money woes are growing Clegg's party might need a spell in opposition just to balance the books.

Good. 75 years do them?

Barrie J's picture

Well spoken the Reverend - I'll take your 75 years and triple it.

The grand old Duke of talk's picture

Hang on, doesn't this party lecture us all on living within our means.

Johan Stumpe's picture

No they don't. That's your own problem.

The grand old Duke of talk's picture

Actually they do, it's all tied up with their Tory game of blaming Labour for all the world's economic problems, except when the Tories need to blame outside forces that is. I suppose they better start saving too, for all those lost deposits.

Johan Stumpe's picture

Government spending is bigger then ever, so you are talking nonsense.

Johan Stumpe's picture

Westminster rewards a party to be in opposition and the official opposition is owned by a pressure group anyway. Is there anything more stupid than the British political system?

Duncan Stott's picture

Liberal Democrat 2011 income/expenditure figures from the Electoral Commission website:

Income: £6,204,766
Expenditure: £6,504,730

I make that a 4.8% overspend compared to income.

I'll let readers decide whether that means the Liberal Democrats are "utterly broke".

november's picture

I have the solution. they should raise the cost of membership to £9,000 per year, they could say they will only charge that amount to top earners, but in reality they will charge it to everyone in the party. that will help the libdem

november's picture

I have the solution. they should raise the cost of membership to £9,000 per year, they could say they will only charge that amount to top earners, but in reality they will charge it to everyone in the party. that will help the libdem

Lucidus's picture

They can't be that short of money: Energy Minister Ed Davey has just appointed Roisin Miller as a full-time spin-doctor.

She tweeted, “will, in about one month, be working for Rt Hon. Edward Davey MP & Kingston Council LD group as Campaigns and Comms manager.”

j7sue's picture

We're getting closer and closer to political office being something you can just buy, or buy for your friends, who will pass laws to help you. Whatever you think about the LDs, the dependence on rich donors for the tories and union subs for labour is surely corrosive of political independence and integrity.

Benjamin Rae's picture

I see a clear difference between rich people giving the Tories large amounts of money and unions. Unions are made up of millions people. They are a whole lot more valid than a millionaire give a donation for a tax cut or government contract

Indu Pendent's picture

If people wish to give money to Labour then why dont they just join the party? Why do unions subs need to be tied to a political levy?

We should bring in a law that puts a cap on the maximum donations any one organisation or person can make. It would cut the Tory crony donations.

Latest tweets