It felt like we were fighting the election campaign with longbows while the Tories had sten guns
Sometimes in the Labour Party it can feel like it’s all about the money. It’s the request of most emails you get from Labour and the source of many headaches for constituency Labour parties (CLPs).
Candidates in many of the seats we lost – and several of those we managed to win – talk of the difference between our RISO-produced newsletters that volunteers struggled to deliver, and the relentless paid-for calls and direct mails on glossy paper of our opponents.
Whilst we had the highest contact rates for a generation, as one MP told me, it was as though we had longbows and the government had sten guns.
How we pay our way is never an easy subject to talk about, but we have to if we are serious about equipping activists, candidates and those already elected with the tools they need to win in 2020.
For too long, fundraising activities at a local level have had little connection to the gala dinners and high value work done by the national party, leaving little incentive for local parties to act.
In some key seats, members devoted long hours to setting up events and donation schemes for limited returns. Others had access to donations and donors through networks of which some could only dream.
National fundraising efforts often cross over with those of local and regional parties, with new and old members repeatedly complaining about being asked for varying sums by competing audiences.
What’s more, those who give money to Labour can often feel as though we only value their bank balance – not the relationship they wanted to have with campaigning for social justice which made them donate in the first place.
And whilst, thanks to the work of our talented staff and generous members, we have been successful at small value donation strategies as never before, raising £3.7 million in one year, it is worth remembering that the Tories raised £40 million from intimate policy dinners alone.
Reconnecting fundraising with our campaigns could unlock both grassroots giving and activism. The party has already experimented with match funding arrangements; rewarding key seats that met certain activity criteria with additional resources.
But offering contacts or standard printing in response to activity isn’t the only way to motivate members. Matching funds raised by CLPs if they pledge to hit a certain target with more freedom as to what the funds can be spent on would help make that effort more worthwhile for all concerned.
CLPs and speakers that help others – especially target seats – could benefit from national assistance to run tailored events including small dinners, online actions and large rallies on issues of concern with a wider circulation and help with guest speakers.
Such a national match funding scheme would also encourage CLPs to collaborate in organising these events – and compete to secure this support in a way that could be captured in a leaderboard, with the most active CLPs who do the most for others being rewarded accordingly.
We also need to unlock the potential for CLPs and individual activists to fundraise online, with simple tools that can be properly tailored to local events, products and actions. Members will know how easy a Justgiving or Kickstarter site is to use – it’s time we had the facility to do this for our Labour campaigns too.
Furthermore, given many members and CLPs have great fundraising ideas or products, it’s time for a formal Labour Party marketplace ‘etsy’ style site to help encourage such creativity in the name of socialism, as well as Facebook fundraising assistance for CLPs.
None of these ways of working will replace our relationship with other wings of Labour, including the trade unions who have proudly supported us – and nor should they. But this is about fresh thinking that helps revitalise such links from the grassroots up.
This year the Electoral Reform Society released a new report saying 61 per cent of the public believe the current political funding system is corrupt and in urgent need of reform. Given this, some may say we should focus on renewing our party first and leave the knotted questions of fundraising for later. Others will say we should focus on winning the case for state funding, however unlikely this may seem at present.
But getting it right and being willing to be innovative now is not just about avoiding the reputational risk of getting it wrong. Without cash we cannot pay for staff, print leaflets or even fund the websites that will help us win elections as well as rebuild our party.
It’s time we put our money where our mouth is, stopped seeing members as cash machines, and became a fundraising political movement.
Stella Creasy is the Labour and Co-op MP for Walthamstow and is standing for the deputy leadership of the party. Follow her on Twitter
114 Responses to “Comment: Labour needs to reform the way it is funded”
Mike Brooks
You know it doesn`t work that way. Cameron and his bunch of class warriors will always attract the bulk of donations whatever policies the Labour Party have. I recently donated to a food bank here in rural Suffolk, to help those who are struggling to feed themselves adequately. You and your ilk like to mock those in need with the usual `get off your fat butts and help yourselves`, but tell that to a 25 year-old in Accrington who hasn`t been able fo find work since he left school, and is sick of applying for jobs he doesn`t even get an interview for. We now have rising cases of TB in East London, in what are some of the most deprived areas of the UK, and I honestly believe we could be heading for the politics of the workhouse. I despise the politics of the Labour left, and I dislike the mischief-making of Jeremy Corbyn, but sooner or later the worm will turn.
Johnlinning
Have read a lot of comments sum make sense other don’t all I can say is for me,I’m 68yrs old and not one candidate has talked about the young if we can’t get them to vote we have no chance of winning so start by talking to them ,as for the deputy leadership have not made my mind up yet.
rainsbro15
Half of UKIPS votes came froom ex-labour supporters who resented not being offered and trusted to have their opinions respected with a referendum. None of your contributors mention that. Also, the replacement of socialist policies by surrender to market forces is a turn-off. On average the labour candidates with a socialist policy did better than those without.
David Thomson
I’ve always been a Labour supporter and despite my doubts on the strategy and leadership of the Party at the last election gave generously to get it elected.
In my adult life I have seen the nature of Labour support change from a sector in the ‘Class War’ to a basic conviction that social fairness depends on ensuring equality of opportunity in hand with the determination that whatever talents we bring to this competitive life, we all should ensure our fellow human beings have the opportunity to live a happy and fulfilling life.
Our Tory opponents also provide lip service to these principles as a surface gloss, but in fact can and do rely on the very strong human emotions of greed, selfishness and personal ambition to the exclusion of the needs of our fellow human beings.
In the middle are the majority of the population, honest people concerned with making a living and raising their children, and whose vote goes to whatever party they perceive will give them the opportunity to carry out this prime human and parental duty.
If our Party majors on presenting an idealistic so called ‘left wing’ vision then you will delight not only most of the Party faithful, but also the Tories, who realise that it is those voters in between the two parties that decide the election, and experienced 17 years of power from 1979 because Labour deserted those middle voters to do their ‘Socialist Thing’.
What do these people want – simple – they will cast their vote to whoever they believe will contribute to making the UK economy a success in this competitive world, so they can share the benefits. They will also vote for a Party whose leader is a credible Prime Minister, and lastly one who targets elements in our society they are persuaded are holding back their aspirations.
Given the Scottish disaster, which will probably be a permanent switch of left wing loyalties unless the Scots Nats really cock it up, and the coming redistribution of seats, we need a 1997 scale win to ever get back into Government again.
Hang on, didn’t we have a Party and leader then that convinced those people of the centre that we could be trusted with the economy. Didn’t they put the economy right and then used the resources that released to do the fairness thing? For all the failures caused later by rivalry at the top of the Party, by a desire to support an American position on controlling a World that simply rejected such control, and by a failure to control the greed of bankers which toppled the World Economy over the edge, we did have the winning formula and the right message and leadership to win elections.
Are we going to learn both from both the positives and negatives of history, or are we to going to turn back to the eighties when idealistic leaders led us into the wilderness?
Mark
Raise money on the specific issues and not just a Give Labour your cash generic approach. Crowd funding is a great idea so why not do it locally around key campaigns (e.g. keep an A&E open) as well as nationally (e.g. against Iraq war)