Will not “back door funding” prop up an ailing system rather than create a vigorous one? That is an argument for both transparency and perhaps change.

The “they are supported by the party, so they should support the party” arguments underestimates the personal value of the candidate, surely?

That’s actually a worse suggestion as it would allow a wealthy but not very good candidate to say “I will contribute all my allowances to party funds” and gain an advantage over a better candidate. That approach isn’t allowed in Parliamentary selections.

Far better to have a level playing field

The phrase of “titheing” was originally used in the Bones Commission report which stated:
“Urgent to build the foundations of the MP goal – Fundraising
Make it a condition of becoming an elected Liberal Democrat – at all levels
– that you tithe to the party.”

AFAIK no steps have been taken to introduce this for MPs or MEPs. It would be possible to either generate a moral incentive to do this or amend the group standing orders to require this (all approved candidates agree to abide by group standing orders during approval)

Two MPs who strongly supported the Bones Commission proposals (Nick Clegg and Paul Burstow) have in the history of the Electoral Commission recording such things (7+ years) made registered donations totalling £6,014 and £3000 so you could say an example is not exactly being set.

The English Council’s decision is a shame and a mistake. Whether or not “it could be satisfied by the group setting a 1p contribution” it is wrong in principle. It is not for the party to tax councillors (and if it is backed by the threat of expulsion it is a tax, if not downright extortion) and it is not English Council’s place to dictate to local parties how they raise funds.

On the practice of tithing in general, however, I think it is reasonable for local parties or groups to make a direct link between support by the party machine and councillor/candidate contributions. We would not expect to support a councillor who didn’t canvass or deliver or turn up to meetings; why should we support one who does not help pay for leaflets and election expenses. However, this should be decided by groups and parties. The Group could make it part of the standing orders; the party could include information about it at reselection.

As for state funding of political parties, it is a monstrous suggestion that would allow incumbent politicians to finance their own re-election at the expense of taxpayers, while further removing them for the need to engage with and work with members and supporters.

The reality is that a County Councillor for example, may expect to have 4-6 leaflets delivered in their division each year, plus an election/reelection campaign. Using 5000 A3 leaflets to cover a division is not cheap.

Local parties rightly expect Councillors to “keep in touch” with electors all year round.

There are few things more irritating than a pompous Councillor who expects all this to be done and paid for by someone else, while their philosphical objection to parting with any money means they don’t contribute.

Another point is that ‘political assistants’ are paid for by Councils, not Councillors.
As they are politcially resticted by law, they are not frontline campaigners.

Lastly, although cllrs get paid more than they used to – they were almost always the people coughing up the money for leaflets etc in the old days. Most members make politcial parties a loss or a small profit. There will be no return to jumble sales to raise enough money to print one leaflet at election times.

It is important for Local Group Leaders to count all Help,dispassionately, including financial `tithes’ that are clearly welcome but should not be seen as the only barometer of service for our legions of talented L/D Cllrs.

Remember that the Obama campaign gathered momentum on many small donations from the faithful.It kept the message simple and involved everyone possible across all age groups,in doing an important local task.People involvement in their neighbourhood or on the street or housing estate.All helpers having a real sense of belonging and being valued by the Party.

Of course elected officials aren’t compelled to try to hold on to their seats, but if a tithe is the only way their campaign gains finance for leaflets etc then surely they must see that it is in their interest.

When I raised questions about differing practices in this neck of the woods what some described as ‘compulsory contributions’ others used the phrase ‘voluntary guidelines’ (with the rider that the group would be impressed with a commitment to exceed it). Individual means were an acknowledged, if unspoken, additional consideration.

So I’m with Stephen on this – the language does more to obfuscate than illuminate, and more to aggravate irritations than to provide solutions.

At the end of the day there is only one real answer to party funding – go out and sign up more members!

As other posters have said, I don’t have a huge problem with the idea of elected councillors being tithed on their allowance payments. Obviously the tithe might depend on the total amount of allowance paid, and individual councillor’s circumstances. But the local party has assisted you in getting elected, will assist you in staying elected, and will support you in achieving your aims on the council.

If your local party goes bankrupt then that’s not going to help you remain a councillor or do any campaigning. If the tithes expand the local party’s resources then more Lib Dem colleagues on the council is a good thing?

<< PS. Just tried to post a three word comment (above) and got told off for it being "a bit too short" and asked to "try again". Very liberal.

Funny – I thought it was called getting blood out of a stone.

To: Matt – I disagree. If a political party backs you for office, then it should be for the right reasons, namely that they believe you’ll make an excellent councillor.

Not because they’ll get the campaign costs refunded.

This is an excellent argument for making the proportion of allowance paid to the party compulsory and at a fixed rate. Then there can be no question of someone being picked as candidate because they’ll contribute to the party. If ALL contribute equally, that’s not an issue, is it?

Anyone who disagrees with it surely has a very simple option. If you aren’t prepared to pay for it, don’t stand under the party label.

So titheing goes to fund political campaigning – well if a cllr is going to stand of chance of getting (re)elected then the money has got to come from somewhere. Titheing just relates donation size to cllr income – which seems like quite a rational and fair way of going about it.

Of course it would help if elected representatives didn’t have the power to set their own salaries…

Not because they’ll get the campaign costs refunded.

Though I agree with your other point, I too would see it as prudent to my job security to make a substantial *donation* to the local party to help fund my re-election campaign, however, to be compelled to do this. No.

The money is used on campaigning that makes our councillors more effective.

When I was first elected as councillor, I felt it only right to make a substantial donation out of my allowance as I was only elected because of the past work of the party. Later I felt it an obviously sensible investment to make to help secure my re-election and hence continuation of the allowance income.

It *is* state funding by the backdoor, and I don’t like that it is not in the open. I don’t like state funding (far better a vigorous community politics, but I don’t need to explain here what a tough battle that is and how long that will take to build if ever), but if we have to have it it must be clear.

One comparator I haven’t seen touched on is that (presumably) Independents use part of their “salary” to help fund their reelection.

In what way? All the arguments that apply to party funding apply to tithing. In addition, you cannot formulate a tithing system that incentivises engagement (e.g. a money-per-supporter system or a matched funding system for donations up to £20).

In terms of tithing itself, I’m in two minds. If the party had a somewhat stricter line ten years ago, I wouldn’t have been as royally screwed as I was when I took on what turned out to be an unfunded post working for the Leeds Lib Dems. On the other hand it IS party funding under a different guise, and one that will encourage councillors to keep giving themselves inflationary pay rises.

At least a straight system of party funding would be honest with the electorate. The English Party’s decision to make this a precondition of candidacy nationwide is a grave mistake in my view.