It has been suggested that the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust’s donation of £2m to the Liberal Democrats is there to cover our backs in case we have to default £2.4m in the wake of the Michael Brown affair.
The Trust have published information which finally puts this notion to bed, and revealed that the donation is ring-fenced:
- £100,000 goes towards the running of the leader’s office
- £537,500 towards the cost of “a database” (more on this to follow in time)
- £200,000 towards diversity measures (the Steve Hitchins fund)
- £500,000 towards the 2007 elections campaigns in England, Scotland and Wales
- £500,000 towards the cost of the next General Election campaign
- £65,000 to develop online resources for local parties
So, a big “thank you” to the JRRT then. All their money really does go to Campaigns In Need. That said…
The equality fund is controversial – it appears to be part-funding the selection campaigns of minority candidates, placing them at a financial advantage over other potential PPCs in the selection process, as well as promising more funds post-selection. At present there is very little openness about where the £200k is being “invested” – a lack of transparency that Lib Dem Voice may try to correct!
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dennis Potter's 1975 dramatisation of Angus Wilson's Late Call
Long, long ago on a Policy Working Group far, far away...
Andy Burnham's bounce
Birthright
Lib Dems should target becoming largest party in local government (LDN#212)
Trump offended by key Burnham appointment
Clear the gallery!
Tim Rogers
Jana
Hywel
Tony Vickers
Peter Martin
9 Comments
Isn’t the diversity fund supposed to be allocated to campaigns in seats where minority candidates are selected, not to the selection campaigns themselves?
I’ve been given indications that money is being spent helping candidates get selected, with the promise of “more to come” if the minority candidate is selected. But the piece does need a little tweak to make that clearer – now done.
The biggest problem with the diversity fund is that it is explicitly not to be spent in the area where it is most needed: getting people from under-represented groups approved as candidates in the first place.
Not sure about what you mean about ‘help in selection campaigns’ – my understanding was that spending rules are pretty tight so such benefit would be limited. If, however, you’re talking about things such as assistance with childcare, then I would be the first to defend it.
But you’re absolutely correct to say that it does need to be clearer.
I like Will thought the money was for after selections, if not can someone point me in the right direction to access it as I am trying to help three BME candidates get selected at the moment and I never turn down money…
Colin
I imagine Steve Hitchins is the right direction 🙂
More than prepared to accept that money may not change hands pre-selection if that’s the case… my reason for believing it may do is that a couple of people involved in selections have made dark mutterings to that effect. Their perception may be wrong.
However, I have witnessed with mine own eyes a case of someone influential in a selection being steered towards the minority candidate because of a perceived promise of campaign funds to follow.
Which, hey, is presumably why the money’s there. But it strikes me as positive discrimination through something barely above bribery, rather than a clear & transparent framework.
The £200,000 diversity fund is certainly not being spent on selection contests.
It will be spent to support additional campaigning in Priority Seats after selection.
Whether there are other (non-party) funds that have been donated by indivduals to help women and ethnic minority candidates with the costs of selection campaigns (of which most are personal for travel, accommodation etc.) I don’t know.
I think I had some agreement with the gentleman from St Albans who wrote that the main problem with increasing representation from women and minorities is getting them to come forwards in the first place. It does seem that the underrepresented people need more encouragement to stick their necks out, and I’m not sure how the funding of campaigns once they’ve come forwards counts.
Agree with Neil and that’s consistent with what I’ve heard from Steve H.
James’ point is an excellent one – the biggest issue we’ve had is lack of approved candidates from under-represented groups, though in London at least I’ve seen encouraging signs that this is starting to change.
Single best way to rectify this, though, is not money (though this helps to an extent) but the rest of us getting off our backsides and talent-spotting, encouraging, supporting & campaigning for good people in under-represented groups. That goes particularly for us ‘old hands’ who know how the process works. And yes, I do practice what I preach!
If Rob is going to make claims about candidates in selections he should have the evidence to back those claims up. If he is going to make those claims on this website then he should show us the evidence. I think Rob should withdraw his comments or back them up? Otherwise your argument is of a similar style to that of a BNP member…..