Comment: Labour needs to reform the way it is funded

It felt like we were fighting the election campaign with longbows while the Tories had sten guns

Labour Party Rosette

 

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”

  1. GC Boyadjian

    Suggest you review the need to have lobbying organisations and stop copying the States for Social and Employment Policies. We have enough intellectual ability in this country to come up with our own ideas for solving our own problems. Develop an economic model which can generate real wealth through increases in productivity and one that spreads that very same wealth more equally amongst the population. Reinvest in the NHS and Social Services by raising taxes in an accountable and transparent way so that people can see how much of their tax on average is being spent on these two critical services. Quantify this into a budgeted and promotable ‘per capita monthly figure’ and set your goals accordingly.
    What is the difference between paying for private medical insurance or paying more tax solely directed towards the NHS?

  2. JP G

    I think a fundamental problem with this topic is perception is harder to shake than facts. SOME of Labours policies for the GE were ilthought through. The Mansion Tax was popular, as was the stance against exploitative Zero hours contracts. However very little in policy spoke to the hard working man, who despite economic turmoil has kept his job and wants to know what Labour will do for him, instead of the unfortunate people who are struggling to find work. Sadly Ed’s perception was one akin to Boris Johnson’s here in the North West – a bumbling bafoon.

    (For the record I’m not saying Ed is/was either of those things.)

    There is a perception out there that Labour is no longer in touch with the working people. They have speant so much time in Westminster and Whitehall; they’ve forgotten who they represent.

    Giving ‘political answers’ on issues and blasting people with jargon doesn’t help either. Let the Tories assert their ‘superior status’ by evading questions with statistics and figures. As Labour, we should speak to the general population as though we would speak in the local pub with them; frank, honest and accessible. Let the people find their voice through Labour again.

  3. Jill Price

    Do not want American style politics or policies. Ed Miliband lost because he was crucified by a right wing press. He was a brave man to face it all . The sad thing is, even members of his own party join in to belittle him which shows the power of the written word even if it is prejudiced say it long enough and people will believe it . J

  4. Eileen Grace Peakman

    The problem with Labour policies is that they are not based on modern reality. other countries have moved on with their politics and policies.
    I have lived in other countries and experienced much fairer taxation. For instance this is the only developed country that I know of the at has such and antiquated council tax system. other developed countries base their local taxes on actual property values not this banding system that gives the higher value properties a bargain basement tax.
    If properties were more fairly taxed the poor would not be paying the exorbitant council taxes as they stand, and do not forget the grants that the better off are able to get because they can afford the matching amounts for various grants, the statistics show that far more government money goes to the affluent than is paid out in benefits to the poorer are deducted (more than 50% of the benefit cost as now calculated). The Canadian pension plan now invests so that it actually has a surplus.
    Labour really needs to study how better to set taxes and policies it can be done without setting up combatitive attitudes.

  5. Dive

    Completely agree.

Comments are closed.