The following three graphs are from the Electoral Commission and show income and expenditure for the three main political parties as reflected in their annual accounts. There are some important exceptions to what they show, such as the money brought in and spent directly by election candidates, though from what I know of these exceptions they paint a similar picture to those annual accounts of the relative trends over time.
As Stephen has often noted on this site when reporting on the quarterly donation figures, the Liberal Democrat figures show a consistently higher level of income in this Parliament than in previous ones. The net assets figures also show how the Liberal Democrats have been consistently in the black, unlike either of the other two main parties.
Note: the graphs have different scales
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Deference due?
My BSFA votes (big long post)
Metrolink and Public Transport Update
Merseyside Labour – They didn't learn Kinnock's lesson so Starmer's sent more learning pills
Check your washing machine and tumble dryer
Blame game
Shaggy Dog
What Keir Starmer becoming Labour leader tells us about party politics in the current era
expats
Lee Allane
Mary Reid
matt
James Baillie
Chris Cory
8 Comments
It is interesting to note the difference in scale between Lib Dem funds and the other two. Labour’s debts are in a bad way. At least we are in the black.
Looks like Labour run their own affairs like they ran the country.
One thing that puzzles me is that a year ago Labour had debts of nearly £17 Million & still increasing while in recent months they have been claiming it was “only” £10Million. Do you have an explanation, surely they wouldnt just lie when the truth will come out anyway ?
Just a gentle reminder for everyone about the site’s commenting policy, including the reference to off-topic comments, especially when there’s a current relevant thread: https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-liberal-democrat-voice-team
I’m not an expert, but I wonder if the party’s treasurers are reluctant to run a huge deficit in case they are held personally liable? We are a much smaller party, hence there is may be a perceived greater likelihood of financial disaster.
The above comment about Labour running the party like they ran the nation is trite. A nation is not like a political party (nor a household, for that matter) – there is no responsibility for a party to ameliorate national recession by deficit spending and tax reductions.
Terry, on your 1st point, Labour & tories have always assumed that the Big Unions/Business will always bail them out, however much they mess up.
On the 2nd, the thing that running the Government has in common with running a Party is that both involve spending other peoples money. If you are careless with your fellow members donations what does that say about your values ?
You should be careful and note the different scales on those graphs clearly, or have a union graph showing all liabilities on one @ the end.
It is misleading as the Lib Dems whole chart is the smallest division on the other two! This means it looks like the relative surge of support in 2005 was actually a huge absolute surge of support much larger than Labour recieved.
As the figures are there it’s not ‘wrong’ but it is descriptive, and a classic example of how data should not be presented.
Nathaniel: I agree it’s important to take note of the scales and hence my comment near the top of the post “Note: the graphs have different scales” 🙂