Party Funding Supporting The Grassroots

Party Funding
Supporting the Grassroots
James Graham and Alexandra Runswick
Unlock Democracy
Charter88 New Politics Network
Party Funding
The loans for peerages scandal has once again brought the debate about the funding of political parties to the fore. Part of the problem is that parties are caught in a vicious circle: faced with declining numbers of members and particularly activists, they depend upon large donations to fund professionally run election campaigns. This fuels perceptions of sleaze and reduces citizens commitment to parties still further. The answer has to be the revival of parties as effective, locally-funded campaigning entities, able to truly represent the communities they come from. This pamphlet brings together our most recent research on the case for state funding to support local political activity, and explores how it might be implemented.
7.50
ISBN 978-0-9555523-0-4
Party Funding
Unlock Democracy
Charter88 New Politics Network
2007 London
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
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 the Fawcett 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 policy making.
Contents
Introduction Alexandra Runswick
11 26 40 48 50 51 64 66 68
Party Funding: The View from the Grassroots James Graham Local Politics: A Case for Treatment? James Graham Preserving the Link, Promoting Transparency Alexandra Runswick Appendix A: Sample Trade Union Membership Form Appendix B: Sample Trade Union Renewal Letter Appendix C: Summary of Survey Results Appendix D: Glossary of Terms Used Recent Publications Join Unlock Democracy
Introduction
Alexandra Runswick
The loans for peerages scandal has once again brought the debate 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 roles that political parties play or their influence on society but it
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. We conducted 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%.
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 political parties 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 numbers of 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 clearest example 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 sales personnel for over two decades. There are a number of ways
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 by putting 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:
Introduction
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). 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 big business, increasingly it is from unincorporated associations.
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 individuals should 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 Transparency outlines 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 attempt at 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 donations to political parties are not enough in themselves to end
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.
10
Party Funding The 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 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 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.
11
The View from the Grassroots
Spending Limits Activists from all three main political parties support lowering national 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 think this should be changed? If so, what to? Party (sample size) Median Figure Excluding antis* Labour (104) 15 million 15 million Conservatives (72) 15 million 15 million Lib Dems (153) 10 million 10 million
Other Party Members (32) Other Respondents (88) 7.5 million 10 million 5 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) Other Respondents (88) 75% 81.8% 18.8% 13.6% 6.2% 4.5%
12 13
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 10,000
Other Party Members (32) 10,000 Other Respondents (84) 10,000 10,000 5,000
* This figure excludes the responses from those who were opposed to a limit at all.
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 dissent from 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/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (107) 91% 6% 3% Conservatives (75) 83% 8% 10% Lib Dems (155) 84% 11% 3%
Other Party Members (32) Other Respondents (89) 69% 53% 9% 16% 22% 31%
13 14
4: Increased public funding of political parties is necessary to help encourage democratic engagement. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (163) 56% 12% 31% Conservatives (74) 33% 5% 61% Lib Dems (154) 67% 12% 19%
5: Any additional public funding should go parties on the basis of local support. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Agree agree/ Strongly disagree Labour (104) 43% 21% Conservatives (72) 39% 17% Lib Dems (155) 60% 19%
Other Party Members (31) 42% 23%
to local Disagree/ Disagree Strongly 36% 45% 21%

26%
5: Any additional public funding should go parties on the basis of local support. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Agree agree/ Strongly disagree Labour (104) 43% 21% Conservatives (72) 39% 17% Lib Dems (155) 60% 19%
Other Party Members (31) Other Respondents (88) 42% 45% 23% 32%
to local Disagree/ Disagree Strongly 36% 45% 21%

26% 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 other two main parties on this issue. 15 14
6: Any system of party funding must respect the history and structures of political parties. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (105) 79% 11% 10% Conservatives (73) 44% 25% 32% Lib Dems (152) 40% 29% 31%
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 they raise and spend their money. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (104) 13% 13% 74% Conservatives (73) 39% 23% 39% Lib Dems (154) 13% 12% 76%
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.
15
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/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (106) 86% 8% 7% Conservatives (74) 74% 11% 15% Lib Dems (155) 91% 5% 5%
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 activists from 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). Subsidising campaign expenditure and increasing local spending limits 16
were both broadly opposed.

9: Donations to political parties should be tax relief, just like donations to charities. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Agree agree/ Strongly disagree Labour (105) 52% 11% Conservatives (74) 77% 7% Lib Dems (154) 62% 10%
Other Party Members (31) Other Respondents (86) 48% 44% 10% 8%
subject to Disagree/ Disagree Strongly 36% 16% 28%

42% 48%
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/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (104) 44% 19% 34% Conservatives (72) 30% 22% 48% Lib Dems (153) 47% 24% 30%
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/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (105) 43% 16% 40% Conservatives (73) 29% 18% 53% Lib Dems (154) 55% 24% 21%
17
12: Political parties should proportionate to the number of the previous general election. Party (sample size) Agree/ Agree Strongly Labour (105) 43% Conservatives (72) 24% Lib Dems (154) 52%
Other Party Members (30) 27% Other Respondents (86) 27%
get public funding votes cast for them at Neither agree/ disagree 14% 14% 15%
13% 10%
Disagree/ Disagree Strongly 43% 63% 33%

60% 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/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (105) 40% 16% 45% Conservatives (72) 25% 11% 64% Lib Dems (154) 48% 19% 32%
14: The amount of money that each candidate can spend in an election should be increased to encourage local campaigning. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (105) 38% 15% 47% Conservatives (71) 35% 17% 48% Lib Dems (153) 34% 24% 43%
18
Trade Unions We decided to ask a specific set of questions concerning trade 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/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (105) 1% 3% 96% Conservatives (74) 47% 11% 42% Lib Dems (153) 25% 19% 55%
16: Trade Unions play an important role in encouraging participation in our democracy. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (106) 95% 4% 1% Conservatives (73) 26% 18% 56% Lib Dems (153) 46% 28% 26%
The Power Inquiry's proposal of restricting trade union contributions to around 100 per member enjoyed no support from any party, but a much lower cap of around 5 per 19
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/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (104) 14% 19% 66% Conservatives (70) 45% 19% 37% Lib Dems (151) 45% 23% 32%
18: Donations to political parties by trade unions should be restricted to around 100 per member and no more. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (103) 20% 22% 58% Conservatives (68) 15% 15% 70% Lib Dems (147) 18% 29% 54%
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 to donate 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
20
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/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (104) 67% 16% 17% Conservatives (73) 40% 10% 50% Lib Dems (153) 56% 11% 33%
Other Party Members (30) 60% Other Respondents (86) 48% 17% 15% 23% 36%
20: Individual trade union members should have more say over how much money is donated to political parties. Party (sample size) Agree/ Neither Disagree/ Agree agree/ Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly Labour (105) 56% 27% 17% Conservatives (71) 80% 6% 14% Lib Dems (153) 88% 8% 4%
Other Party Members (31) 94% Other Respondents (87) 80% 3% 13% 3% 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
21
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 consensus at 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 public opinion 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 tax relief 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 of the electorate as possible. However, the price that parties 22
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 have given 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 Funding Finally, we believe that the overwhelming support we found 23
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 British National Party Common Good English Democrats Party Green Party / Scottish Greens Liberal Party Mebyon Kernow Plaid Cymru Scottish National Party Ulster Unionist Party Did not say Total Respondents 2 1 1 5 1 1 9 9 1 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 the three 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.
24
Respondents from the main political parties

Role in local party Total Respondents Primary Councillor Parish / Town Cllr Other Local Exec
Membership Secretary
Candidate
Secretary
Treasurer
Conservatives 75 40 4 2 2 Labour Party 106 12 39 10 9 Liberal Democrats 155 12 5 7 93
9 15 2 4 6 16 11 3 4 3 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 nonparty members. They expressed support for the following parties:
Party British National Party Conservatives Green Party / Scottish Greens Labour Party Liberal Democrats Plaid Cymru Respect Social Democratic and Labour Party United Kingdom Independence Party Did not say/support no party Total Respondents 1 11 12 11 17 1 1 1 3 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.
25
Agent
Chair
Party
Local Politics A Case for Treatment?

James Graham
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 26
Local Politics
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 an improvement 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 Lib Dem, 5 Plaid Cymru, 6 SNP). We have subdivided the results 27
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-d 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 seats are 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 Conservativeheld 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 have not 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 of
All Figures are available in Appendix C, below
28
Local Politics
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 the typical 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). Income As with membership, there is a wider variation of income levels 29
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 well in 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 give a 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% of held seats reported being supported in this way (Figure 4b). 30
Local Politics
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) correspond fairly 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 areas the 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 31
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 than this 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 a falling 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 campaigning literature (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
32
Local Politics
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 their Labour 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 biggest difference in terms of income levels and number of leaflets 33
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 may be 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 constituencies Under 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 type of constituency. 34
Local Politics
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 wider electorate. 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 level of 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 Conservative Associations in Conservative-held constituencies clearly 35
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.
36
Local Politics
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 on targeting 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 using direct 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-toface 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 37
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 need to 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 thePower 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 spending limits). 38
Local Politics
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, skillsacquisitive 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 of buildings 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 annual national 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 this system 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.
39
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 40
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 to establish 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 other membership organisations running political campaigns, even 41
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: Trade unions carrying out political activities to raise awareness of their campaigns and further their members' interests. Trade unions funding, supporting and campaigning for one particular political party. 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 affiliation 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 Affiliation Fees - Current Rates

National Regional Constituency Party
Source: TULO.
3 per member 12.5p per member 6p per member (minimum 6)
42
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 or changes 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 Partys largest 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
43
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 of contributing 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 to support 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 44
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. The level 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 during an 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 are paying 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 the unions campaigns and its members' interests but not to 45
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:
EITHER:
Pay the standard subscription rate, eg. 14 per month*, which includes a contribution to the General Political Fund.
x^ of this membership fee is given as a contribution to the General Political Fund which is not alligned to any political party.
OR:
Pay the standard subscription rate, eg. 14* + 50p per month to become an affiliated member of the political party
x^ of this membership fee is given as a contribution to the Affiliated Political Fund which can be used to campaign within or on behalf of the affiliated political party.
The extra 50p afilliation fee is given directly to the affiliated party with the contact details of the member.
* 14 based on the subscription rates of a female UNISON member on median pay. ^ x would be determined by the union's own internal structures.
46
Preserving the Link
Recommendations When joining an affiliated trade union, members must be given 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 passed to 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. 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/
47
Appendix A: Sample Trade Union Membership Form
Please fill 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 fill in the boxes below
Mrs First name Ms Miss Mr Other O t h e r initial(s) Date of Birth / /
Membership Form
Surname/Family name Address
National Insurance number (from your payslip)
E L P M A X
o
Asian other Black African B l a c k Caribbean Black UK Black other White UK Irish White other Contact tel / voice / text / email
Postcode
How would you describe your ethnic origin? Bangladeshi Chinese Indian Pakistani Asian UK
Please tick this box if you require materials in 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.
SECTION TWO: YOUR EMPLOYMENT DETAILS

Employers name Your job title / occupation Department / section Workplace name and address
Postcode
Payroll number (from your payslip)
48
SECTION THREE: WHAT YOU WILL PAY

Tick Here Annual Pay Up to 2,000 2,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 8,000
Please tick the appropriate box for your earnings before deductions. Your monthly subscription 1.30 3.50 5.30 6.60 7.85 9.70
SECTION FOUR: POLITICAL FUND
Please tick this box if you are a student member in full-time education (including student nurses and Young Apprentices). Your subscription is 10 per year.
E L P M A X
14,001 - 17,000 17,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 25,000 25,001 - 30,000 30,001 - 35,000 over 35,000 11,001 - 14,000 8,001 - 11,000 14.00 17.25 20.30 22.50 11.50
AnyUnion is affiliated to the Labour Party. AnyUnions Affiliated Political Fund (APF) is used to campaign for and promote our policies and members interests within the Labour Party, locally and nationally, in Parliament and Europe. If you choose to join this fund you become an affiliated member of the Labour Party. Affiliated members pay an additional 25p per month as an affiliation fee to the Labour Party 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 and for research and lobbying in Parliament and Europe. It is independent of support for any political party. It is important that you indicate a choice of fund by ticking one of the boxes on the right. If you do not tick a box the default position is that you wish to become an affiliated member.
SECTION FIVE: YOUR AUTHORISATION
I wish to join AnyUnion and accept its rules and constitution. I authorise deduction of AnyUnion subscriptions from my salary/wages at the rate determined by AnyUnion in accordance with its rules to be paid over to them on my behalf and I authorise my employer to provide information to AnyUnion to keep my records up to date I authorise deduction of the following Political Fund payment as part of my subscription: Tick one box only o Affiliated Political Fund o General Political Fund
Now please sign and date below

Signature Date / /
I would like to pay by o Cheque o Direct Debit
DATA PROTECTION
AnyUnion will process your membership information together with other information for administration, statistical analysis, conducting ballots and other statutory requirement purposes. If you have signed up to the Political Fund, we will pass your details onto the Labour Party. We may also send you newsletters, journals and surveys and let you know about educational and campaigning matters. We will disclose your information to our service providers and agents for these purposes. Please return your completed form to:
If you do not want any mailings from AnyUnion or the Labour Party besides those required by statute as shown in bold above, please tick this box. We may share your information with organisations with whom we have a business relationship for your benefit. We, or they, may contact you by mail, telephone, SMS, fax or e-mail to let you know about goods, services or promotions which we think may be of interest to you. If you do not wish to receive such information please tick this box. If you have been a member of a trade union before, please state which one
49
Appendix B: Sample Trade Union Renewal Letter

An Individual Member Address 1 Address 2 Address 3 Address 4 Postcode Date Dear Member Re Direct Debit payment originators reference xxxxxxxxxx Thank you for agreeing to pay your union membership fee by direct debit xx will be taken from your nominated account on xxdate. Paying by direct debit gives us a regular source of income and enables us to save on administration so that we can spend our resources fighting for our members rights. We have gone from strength to strength in the last year campaigning for Riustrud et esent nit vullaor iusto odolobore velismolor iriusto od eu faccum dipsummy nostie tatem incil dolobor illutet la augiam volorem dolent wisciduis dunt wismodolore esto diat augiam, se dolore tem delit veniat lumsan hent velent alit am dunt nulluptat. Pit praese modio dolum dolor ad molore magnit, conseniamet lumsandigna cortis nummy nos nos nim in henibh enit adiam niametueros dolorem illa feuipisi. Borem enibh ea ad ming exerit dolortio do con ut alit praessit wisi tisl ut vel ut am del utatis ad tet irit, vendrem dolortissim iriusto del ipit volobore molessim zzrit dolobor irilit ver ad doluptate feugait velenim dio consequatum in henim illut euissequam acin ulla augue mod tat. Quatinim iril dolore tatissecte magnisl ip ea accum quam vel eugait, veniamet, sisi bla aliquam cortie faccum et am, quat, qui eugiatet nullum volum vercinim dunt do er summodolore delit lut Enclosed is our members' magazine detailing all we have done in the last year to ensure that your voice is heard. If you want to be more involved in your unions please contact our membership secretary on xxxxxx Best wishes AnyUnion General Secretary IMPORTANT NOTE: This Union is affiliated to the Labour Party. You are currently paying 50p a month to be an affiliated member of the Labour Party which gives you rights within the party and are paying into the affiliated political fund. If you would like to change this you can either tick this box and return this slip to us at the above address or phone us on xxx xxxx. o I would like to disaffiliate from the Labour Party and join the General Political Fund. Name: members name Membership Number: membership number
EX
E L P M A
50
Appendix C: Summary of Survey Results Note: When compiling the results, for most questions we have calculated the median response (i.e. the middle response if you lined them all up ascending order) and the mode (i.e. the single most common response - where the sample size is small, this is often not relevant). Where the median response is split across two categories (e.g. 100-199 and 200-299) we combined the range (e.g 100-299). In all tables, S stands for Sample Size. Breakdown of Parties Figure 1a: Categories of Conservative Associations in constituencies across the UK
Nation/ Region Solid Held Close Other Total Nation/ Region Solid Held Close Other Total
51
Scot 0 1 11 47 59
Wal 0 3 7 30 40
SW 7 16 22 6 51
SE 30 28 20 5 83
Lon 5 16 14 39 74
WMid 6 12 15 26 59
EMid 7 11 13 13 44
East 15 25 13 3 56
NW 6 4 17 49 76
York 3 6 15 32 56
NE 0 1 2 27 30
Tot 79 123 149 277 628
S 11 16 17 26 70
Figure 1b: Categories of Constituency Labour Parties in constituencies across the UK

Scot 32 14 6 7 59 Wal 22 12 2 4 40 SW 4 12 2 33 51 SE 3 19 12 49 83 Lon 31 24 8 11 74 WMid 25 18 6 10 59 EMid 10 18 8 8 44 East 1 19 17 19 56 NW 43 21 2 10 76 York 29 18 2 7 56 NE 23 5 1 1 30 Tot 223 180 66 159 628 S 30 17 9 20 76
Figure 1c: Categories of Liberal Democrat Local Parties in constituencies across the UK
Nation/ Region Solid Held Close Other Total Scot 4 7 5 43 59 Wal 1 3 1 35 40 SW 2 16 12 21 51 SE 1 7 14 61 83 Lon 2 6 4 62 74 WMid 0 4 2 53 59 EMid 0 1 3 40 44 East 0 3 5 48 56 NW 1 5 4 66 76 York 2 1 4 49 56 NE 1 0 3 26 30 Tot 14 53 57 504 628 S 4 12 13 100 129
Figure 1d: Categories of Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party Local Parties in Welsh and Scottish constituencies 52
Party Solid Held Close Other Total SNP/Scotland 1 5 5 48 59 S 0 2 0 4 6 PC/Wales 1 2 1 36 40 S 0 0 0 5 5
Figure 1e: 12 most common types of constituency

Conservative Labour Lib Dem Other Other Other Other Other Held Close Close Solid Held Held Close SNP/ PC/ Other Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Other/none Number Seats with combination 223 110 79 42 28 27 27 17 14 8 8 5 40 628 of this
Other Solid Close Held Solid Other Held Close Held Held Close Other Held Other Other Held Other Other Held Other Other Held Close Held All other constituencies Total (excl. Northern Ireland)
53 Membership Figure 2: Q: Roughly how many people are currently members of your local constituency party?
Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 500+ 300-399 400-499 Mode 500+ 300-399 400-499 S 10 28 4 Held Med 500+ 300-499 300-399 100-399 Mode 500+ 300-399 300-399 n/a S 15 14 11 2 Close Med 300-399 100-299 200-299 Mode 300-399 100-199 200-299 S 16 8 12 Other Med 100-199 200-299 100-199 200-299 100-199 Mode <50 100199 100199 200299 n/a S 26 20 94 4 5
Income Figure 3: Q: Roughly how much annual income did your local constituency party receive in 2005 (all figures in 000s)?
Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 50100 5-10 20-30 Mode 100+ 2-5 n/a S 9 23 2 Held Med 50100 10-20 20-50 2-30 Mode 50100 20-30 30-50 n/a S 13 10 6 2 Close Med 10-20 2-5 10-30 Mode n/a n/a n/a S 13 7 6 Other Med 2-5 1-2 2-5 2-5 2-5 Mode <1 1-2 2-5 2-5 5-10 S 23 19 79 4 5
54
Staff Support Figure 4a: Q: How many full time equivalent members of paid staff does your local constituency party employ, if any?
Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 1.5 0 0.5 Mean 1.4 0.2 0.8 S 11 29 4 Held Med 1.2 0 0.5 0 Mean 1.2 0.1 0.7 0 S 15 16 11 2 Close Med 0.5 0 0 Mean 0.4 0 0.4 S 15 8 5 Other Med 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0 S 26 19 96 4 5
Figure 4b: Q: Does your local constituency party have access to other paid staff?
Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid 18% 40% 75% S 11 30 4 Held 20% 47% 64% 50% S 15 17 11 2 Close 56% 22% 42% S 16 9 12 Other 58% 40% 25% 25% 40% S 24 20 99 4 5
Leaflets Delivered Figure 5a: Q: During the four months in the run up to the 2005 general election, roughly how many copies of leaflets produced by your party were distributed in your constituency (all figures in 000s)?
Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 80160 40-80 160320 Mode 80160 20-40 160320 S 9 23 3 Held Med 160320 80160 80160 0-160 Mode 160320 80160 n/a 2 S 14 10 7 Close Med 40-80 40-80 80160 Mode 160320 n/a n/a S 13 8 11 Other Med 20-40 40-80 20-80 20-80 40-80 Mode <20 n/a 40-80 20-40 40-80 S 25 19 92 4 5
55
Figure 5b: General Election Monitoring Survey (2005) - leaflets received per houshold
Party Con Lab LD Solid Med 3 2 5 Mode 3 2 n/a S 26 69 5 Held Med 3 3 7 Mode 3 2 n/a S 53 70 22 Close Med 4 2 6 Mode 3 1 3 S 53 22 29 Other Med 2 1 2 Mode 1 1 1 S 90 61 166
For more information see General Election 2005: What the Voters Saw (New Politics Network, 2005).
Canvassing Figure 6a: Q: Roughly what proportion of the electorate in your constituency did you canvass in the run up to the 2005 general election? Only include people you actually contacted.
Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 1049% 1024% 0-24% Mode 1024% 2449% <10% S 10 26 4 Held Med 2549% 2549% 1024% 2074% Mode 2549% 2549% <10% n/a S 14 14 8 2 Close Med 2549% 0-24% 1049% Mode 2549% <10% N/A S 13 8 10 Other Med 1024% <10% <10% 1024% 1024%
56
Mode <10% <10% <10% 1024% 1024%
S 24 20 93 4 5
Figure 6b: General Election Monitoring Survey (2005) - personal contact by phone and on doorstep
Party Con Lab LD Solid % Contact 8.3% 11.3% 25% S 24 62 4 Held % Contact 26% 25% 28.6% S 50 64 21 Close % Contact 22% 22.7% 21.4% S 50 22 28 Other % Contact 4.7% 10.7% 2.6% S 86 56 156
For more information see General Election 2005: What the Voters Saw (New Politics Network, 2005).
Activism Figure 7: Q: Approximately what proportion of your local partys membership was actively involved in the 2005 general election campaign?
Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 1024% 1024% 1024% Mode 1024% 1024% 1024% S 10 26 3 Held Med 1024% 1024% 1024% 1049% Mode 1024% 1024% 1024% n/a S 15 15 10 2 Close Med 1024% 1024% 2549% Mode 1024% 1024% 2549% S 15 8 10 Other Med 1024% <10% 1024% 0-24% 1024% Mode 1024% <10% 1024% n/a n/a S 25 19 95 4 5
57
Newsletters Figure 8: Q: Roughly to what proportion of your constituency does your local constituency party distribute non-election newsletters/leaflets regularly (i.e. at least twice a year)?
Party Con Lab LD SNP Solid Med 5074% 5074% 75%+ Mode n/a 75%+ 75%+ S 9 26 4 Held Med 75%+ 2549% 50%+ 0100% Mode 75%+ 2549% 75%+ n/a S 15 15 10 2 Close Med 1024% 0-24% 2574% Mode 1024% <10% 2549% S 15 8 12 Other Med 1049% <10% 1024% 0-24% 2449% Mode <10% <10% 1024% <10% 2549% S 24 19 96 4 4
58
PC
Meetings Q: How frequently does your local party hold the following types of meeting (number per year)? Figure 9a: Local party executive meetings
Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 2+ 12+ 4+ Mode 2+ 12+ n/a S 10 30 4 Held Med 4+ 12+ 12+ 12+ Mode 4+ 12+ 12+ 12+ S 15 16 11 2 Close Med 4+ 4+ 4+ Mode 4+ n/a n/a S 15 9 12 Other Med 4+ 4+ 4+ 12+ 12+ Mode 4+ 12+ 4+ 12+ 12+ S 25 20 99 4 5
Figure 9b: Other planning / organisational meetings

Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 4+ 4+ 4+ Mode 4+ 4+ 4+ S 10 29 4 Held Med 4+ 12+ 12+ 12+ Mode 4+ 12+ 12+ 12+ S 15 12 11 2 Close Med 4+ 4+ 4+ Mode 4+ 4+ 4+ S 14 9 11 Other Med 4+ 2+ 4+ 4+ 2+ Mode 4+ 1 4+ n/a 2+ S 24 17 93 3 5
Figure 9c: Social / fundraising events

Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 12+ 2+ 4+ Mode 12+ 2+ 4+ S 10 30 4 Held Med 12+ 2+ 4+ 4+ Mode 12+ 2+ 4+ 4+ S 15 9 10 Close Med 4+ 2+ 4+ Mode 4+ 2+ 4+ S 15 9 10 Other Med 4+ 2+ 2+ 4+ 4+ Mode n/a 2+ 4+ 4+ n/a S 23 19 97 4 5
59
Figure 9d: Policy discussion events (open to all members)

Party Con Lab LD SNP PC Solid Med 4+ 4+ 1+ Mode 4+ 4+ n/a S 10 29 4 Held Med 4+ 4+ 1+ 12+ Mode 4+ 4+ n/a n/a S 15 8 10 2 Close Med 4+ 4+ 1+ Mode 4+ 4+ 1+ S 15 9 13 Other Med 2+ 2+ 1+ 4+ 1+ Mode 2+ 2+ 1+ 4+ 1+ S 22 20 97 4 5
Perception Q: Compared to 5 years ago, assess how you feel the following factors affecting your party have changed at a local level: Figure 10a: Membership
Party Solid Held Close Other Overall Solid Held Close Other Overall Solid Held Close Other Overall Held Other Other Sample 10 15 16 25 29 14 9 19 4 9 12 99 2 3 5 A bit / a lot better (%) 40% 67% 25% 56% 49% 3% 0% 22% 0% 3% 0% 44% 33% 26% 28% 50% 0% 60% About the same (%) 20% 20% 19% 24% 22% 14% 7% 22% 11% 12% 75% 22% 50% 39% 39% 50% 100% 40% A bit / a lot worse (%) 40% 13% 56% 20% 30% 83% 93% 56% 89% 85% 25% 33% 17% 34% 33% 0% 0% 0%
Conservatives
60
Labour
Lib Dems Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
Figure 10b: Activism

Conservatives
Labour
61
Figure 10c: Income

Conservatives
Labour
62
Figure 10d: Public Perception

Party Conservatives Solid Held Close Other Overall Solid Held Close Other Overall Solid Held Close Other Overall Held Other Other Sample 10 15 15 25 30 14 9 19 4 9 12 96 2 3 5 A bit / a lot better (%) 50% 87% 53% 64% 64% 17% 0% 11% 0% 7% 25% 100% 67% 49% 54% 100% 100% 60% About the same (%) 20% 13% 20% 24% 20% 27% 14% 33% 32% 25% 50% 0% 25% 38% 34% 0% 0% 20% A bit / a lot worse (%) 30% 0% 27% 12% 15% 57% 86% 56% 68% 68% 25% 0% 8% 14% 12% 0% 0% 20%
Labour
63
North-South Divide?
Figure 11: Comparing membership, income and leaflets delivered between the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber, and the rest of England
Party Con other LD other Lab solid Membership North <50 (13) 50-99 (19) 300-399 (12) Rest of England 100-199 (7) 100-199 (61) 400-499 (10) Income (000s) North 2-5 (13) 2-5 (17) 5-10 (8) Rest England 10-20 (5) 2-5 (50) 5-20 (10) of Leaflets (000s) North <20 (13) 40-80 (19) 20-40 (8) Rest of England 40-80 (6) 40-80 (60) 40-80 (11)
Appendix D: Glossary of Terms Used Matched Funding: a system whereby money donated by an individual is matched by state support. The New Politics Network propose a system for matching the first 100 of each donation pound-for-pound. The Electoral Commission propose a matched funding system for donations from people who do not pay tax and thus are ineligible for tax relief at around 23p for every pound donated. Money-per-supporter: any of a number of schemes whereby political parties get a fixed amount of money for each supporter they sign up. The New Politics Network have proposed a system whereby people could sign up for this on their voter registration form and on demand, as is the case for postal voting. The Power Inquiry have proposed a voter voucher system whereby people would be given a voucher with their ballot paper in a general election. Money-per-vote: any of a number of schemes whereby political parties receive a fixed amount of money for each vote they get in an election. The Conservative Party propose establishing a General Election Policy and Communication Fund that would be based on the votes of the preceding two General Elections. Spending Limits: national political parties are currently restricted to spending no more than 30,000 per constituency contested which comes to roughly 20 million nationwide. In addition, individual candidates have a spending limit of around 12,000. The Electoral Commission proposes reducing the national party limit by around 25% and doubling the candidates spending limit. Tax Relief: donations to political parties (up to a fixed amount) would be eligible for tax relief, which is passed onto the party. This comes to 23p for every pound donated. The Giftaid scheme for charities works in this way and tax relief 64
was proposed by the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards of Public Life (1998), chaired by Lord Neill, which largely proposed the existing system regulating donations to political parties. The Electoral Commission propose tax relief combined with a limited matched funding system for nontaxpayers. The Conservative Party also support tax relief.
65
Recent Publications
The Future of Political Parties

Tony Robinson, Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Chris Huhne MP, Matt Carter The decline in voter turnout, party membership and formal political engagement has been the subject of a great deal of speculation and debate in recent years. Yet no one has yet been able to find an effective solution. This pamphlet is based on a conversation between Tony Robinson, Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Chris Huhne MP and former Labour Party General Secretary Matt Carter. They grapple with the tough questions of why people are becoming less interested in politics, whether the trend is reversible, and how political parties can make a difference. Their conclusions suggest that there may still be time to re-connect voters with political parties...but only if we act quickly. 7.50 from info@unlockdemocracy.org.uk (free to members)
Women in the Chamber
Barriers to female representation in local politics

Benjamin Linsley, Andrea Marie, Rose Martin and Laura Stacey The three main political parties now seem to be agreed upon the urgent need to increase female representation in parliamentary politics. But is local government being overlooked? As well as being an important tier of governance in its own right, local government is also a key training ground for national-level politicians. If the under-representation of women is not tackled here, it seems unlikely that it will be tackled at all. This pamphlet is based on interviews with female politicians at local, devolved and national level. It concludes that reform is needed both within political parties and within the structures of local government. Only then will local government be able to attract and retain a representative number of female councillors. 7.50 from info@unlockdemocracy.org.uk (free to members)
66
People and Policy Making

NPN & British Council UK-SEE Forum CD-Rom & Website: www.uksee.net/policymaking./
The New Politics Network and the British Council's UK-South East Europe Forum have launched a new CD-ROM and website to promote new ways of engaging members and the public in the policy making process for political parties. The guide is the result of an 18-month project in which parties from across South East Europe and the UK participated, including the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. It is intended as a practical guide for local party activists on the myriad ways in which policy making can be used to encourage greater political participation.
General Election 2005: What the Voters Saw

Emily Robinson & Dr Justin Fisher Despite the intense media scrutiny of national election campaigns, very little attention is generally paid to the campaigning material delivered through potential voters letterboxes or to the contact they have with parties on the telephone or the doorstep. This project set out to analyse both the quality and quantity of literature delivered by parties in Great Britain during the General Election campaign of 2005. The pamphlet includes an analysis of the style and content of campaign leaflets; a study of the use of immigration and asylum as election issues; and detailed case-studies of the campaigns in five very different constituencies. 7.50 from info@unlockdemocracy.org.uk (free to members)
New Politics
Our quarterly discussion papers cover a range of subjects, from anti-politics to human rights, and from democracy in the EU to women's representation in Parliament. Past issues can be downloaded free from http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk. 67
Join Unlock Democracy
Unlock Democracy is the campaign for democratic renewal, organised by Charter88 and the New Politics Network. For a minimum payment of 24 per annum, you can become a combined member of Charter88 and the New Politics Network. Both organisations are democratic bodies, controlled by their members. Membership benefits include: a subscription to Citizen, our members magazine; a quarterly edition of New Politics, our regular discussion paper; a copy of all our research pamphlets; the right to participate in and establish local or issue-based groups; the right to attend and vote at Annual General Meetings; and the right to vote and stand for NPNs governing Council and Charter88s Executive. To join or to make a donation to the campaign, please contact us at: Unlock Democracy 6 Cynthia Street, London, N1 9JF 020 7278 4443 info@unlockdemocracy.org.uk www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk
Individual membership rates are: NPN: 12 (minimum), 24 (recommended) and 36 (high wage) Charter88: 12 (low wage) or 24 (standard)
68

Party Funding Supporting The Grassroots

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Party Funding Supporting The Grassroots

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Party Funding

Supporting the Grassroots

James Graham and Alexandra Runswick

About the Authors

Introduction Alexandra Runswick

Party Funding The View From the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

to local Disagree/ Disagree Strongly 36% 45% 21%

to local Disagree/ Disagree Strongly 36% 45% 21%

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

were both broadly opposed.

subject to Disagree/ Disagree Strongly 36% 16% 28%

The View from the Grassroots

Disagree/ Disagree Strongly 43% 63% 33%

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

The View from the Grassroots

Respondents from the main political parties

Conservatives 75 40 4 2 2 Labour Party 106 12 39 10 9 Liberal Democrats 155 12 5 7 93

Local Politics A Case for Treatment?

Preserving the Link, Promoting Transparency

Preserving the Link

Preserving the Link

Labour Affiliation Fees - Current Rates

3 per member 12.5p per member 6p per member (minimum 6)

Preserving the Link

Preserving the Link

Preserving the Link

Preserving the Link

Preserving the Link

Appendix A: Sample Trade Union Membership Form

Surname/Family name Address

National Insurance number (from your payslip)

SECTION TWO: YOUR EMPLOYMENT DETAILS

Payroll number (from your payslip)

SECTION THREE: WHAT YOU WILL PAY

SECTION FOUR: POLITICAL FUND

SECTION FIVE: YOUR AUTHORISATION

Now please sign and date below

I would like to pay by o Cheque o Direct Debit

Appendix B: Sample Trade Union Renewal Letter

Tot 79 123 149 277 628

Figure 1b: Categories of Constituency Labour Parties in constituencies across the UK

Figure 1e: 12 most common types of constituency

Mode <10% <10% <10% 1024% 1024%

Figure 9b: Other planning / organisational meetings

Figure 9c: Social / fundraising events

Figure 9d: Policy discussion events (open to all members)

Lib Dems Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru

Figure 10b: Activism

Lib Dems Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru

Figure 10c: Income

Lib Dems Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru

Figure 10d: Public Perception

Lib Dems Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru