19th December 2005

Figures just out show Labour and Tories each spent nearly £18 million on the General election while the Lib Dems spent over £4 million. Greens warn this is not democratic.

Stroud District councillor Martin Whiteside, who was the Green party's parliamentary candidate in Stroud, said: "These figures are colossal compared to the Green party's expenditure of £160,000. This is dangerous - we need parties elected because they have the policies people want, not because they have the most money to spend on getting elected."

Martin Whiteside said: "The Bernie Ecclestone case is one example that raised concerns. He owns the commercial rights to Formula 1 and his generosity to Labour seemed to be rewarded with special treatment for his sport over tobacco sponsorship - although both he and the Government protested their innocence. Now it has just been shown that Labour got a £2 million donation from steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal and Tories are exploiting a loophole in the law to prevent individuals from making anonymous donations."

Martin Whiteside added: "Concerns have already been raised about the link between private donations and life peerages, and the Times reported recently that one in ten life peers created by Tony Blair since 1997 have been political donors to the party. These include former music industry tycoon Lord Levy who is now the prime minister's special envoy to the Middle East, and Lord Drayson, who donated £1 million to the Labour party last year and is now a defence minister. Appointments such as these erode public confidence in democracy."

Martin Whiteside concluded: "Mega-donations alienate the public from party politics. It doesn't help that so many major donors seem to be rewarded with honours and even membership of the House of Lords. Greens call for more transparency and state funding of political parties to put an end to fears that the system is being abused. The price is a small one if it brings a fairer more just system that provides a level-playing field that is necessary for true democracy. "


Notes:

(i) Political parties are subject to spending limits during a general election. The limits, which took effect before the 2001 general election, control expenses incurred by a political party in connection with promotion of the party. The rules are administered by the Electoral Commission. Political party spending is considered separately from spending by individual candidates. Candidates are responsible for reporting their expenses separately to the relevant electoral officer. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000, which introduced election spending limits, there are different limits for different categories including party political broadcasts, advertising, manifestos, market research, press conference and rallies. The limits for a general election cover spending during the 365 days ending with the date of the poll.

The amount parties are allowed to spend during an election campaign depends on the number of constituencies they are contesting and where these constituencies are located. In England parties are allowed to spend 810,000 or 30,000 per constituency contested, whichever is greater. In Scotland they are allowed to spend 120,000 or 30,000 per constituency, and in Wales they are allowed to spend 60,000 or 30,000 per constituency contested. In practice this means a party contesting one seat in England can spend the same amount on its national campaign as a party contesting 27 seats, while parties contesting 28 or more seats will be able to spend progressively more. If a party were to contest all 646 constituencies its expenditure limit would be 19.38 million.

General election campaign expenditure:
Conservative and Unionist Party, [The]     £17,852,240
Labour Party [The]     £17,939,617
Liberal Democrats     £4,324,574
Respect - The Unity Coalition     £320,716
United Kingdom Independence Party     £648,397
Scottish National Party     £193,987
Green Party [The]     £160,224
Ulster Unionist Party  £251,119
British National Party     £112,068