The Lib Dems' money woes are growing

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

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.

Entering government has cost Clegg's party money as well as votes. Photograph: Getty Images

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.