Yesterday, the UK Electoral Commission released the breakdown of political party donations for 2019. Perhaps appropriately to the scale of Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party’s electoral triumph, it was a record-breaking year of donations with almost £40 million more donated than 2017, which had been both the previous annual high and the year of the previous UK general election.
In a stunning outcome for the election period, the Conservative Party raised more than three times the amount of the Labour Party, its closest electoral rival – £37,746,193 to £10,685,389.
However, this does not mean that Conservative Party bought the election. In fact, even if the Conservatives stood a candidate in every one of the 650 available Westminster seats, they would not be allowed to spend more than £19.5m as a party due to UK campaign finance regulations – around half of what it raised.
Therefore, what is the point of raising that much money during an election campaign? What does it actually demonstrate?
Firstly, there is the obvious, the additional money raised does not disappear. This represents a significant war chest that the Conservative party can fall back on at a later date. Secondly, and more importantly, it is another demonstration of the lack of trust in the Labour party and the confidence placed upon Boris and the Conservatives.
It could be argued that the Labour Party has not lost any trust within the electorate and their donors, given that they raised a similar amount to their 2017 election expenditure, estimated at £11 million, but this misses the most important point. They raised less money for the 2019 general election period than the Liberal Democrats and relatively speaking, not much more than the Brexit Party – who raised more than £7 million. Every major UK political party that stood in more than one geographical region, except the Labour Party, increased their donation base by a significant amount. Moreover, Jeremy Corbyn led the Labour Party to its worst electoral result since 1935. If this is not an indictment of a lack of appeal and trust, after 9 years of opposition, I do not know what is.
Voters backed Boris Johnson with both their votes and their money. They trusted him to deliver upon his promises of levelling up and they believed that he would end the Brexit saga. Voters did not trust Jeremy Corbyn over his failure to stand up to anti-Semitism, they did not trust his socialist programme and, they did not trust him over his association with and sympathy for terrorists.
It seems unlikely that the Labour Party will overcome this lack of trust and overturn the overwhelming Conservative majority. Their candidates in the current leadership election hardly inspire confidence amongst the wider public. Firstly, Rebecca Long-Bailey is continuity Corbyn – a committed socialist – with all the problems but none of the cult of personality behind her. Sir Keir Starmer is a fairly colourless politician who, much like Hamilton’s accusations towards Aaron Burr, seems to lack any real policy convictions or passion. He certainly comes across that way as he happily supported Corbyn’s manifesto and yet has now presented himself as a “middle-ground” change candidate, whether he will break out of this mould if he wins remains to be seen. Finally, Lisa Nandy is a relative unknown to the public but despite strong showings at the leadership hustings and a genuine message that does seem to resonate with voters she is highly unlikely to win due her lack of profile amongst the Labour membership.
There is just over a month to go for the Labour leadership election and, on current evidence, the Conservative Party do not have too much to fear. I doubt that the next Labour leader will have the fundraising potential nor the ability to rebuild trust with Labour’s former heartlands.