SCOTTISH Labour suffered a catastrophic drop in donations last year, hamstringing its ability to fight the Holyrood election, its accounts have revealed.
Published ahead of this weekend’s conference in Perth, the figures show Kezia Dugdale’s first full year as leader was the party’s worst for donations since 2009.
In 2015, the party had donations of just under £600,00; in 2016 it was just over £100,000.
And after a £98,000 surplus in 2015, Scottish Labour ended 2016 with a deficit of £104,000.
The party’s reserves also slumped below £160,000, their lowest level since 2003.
A Labour source admitted: "Donations to the party across the entire UK have dried up since Jeremy Corbyn became leader. Scottish Labour is no different. People are not donating while Jeremy is leader."
Figures released by the Electoral Commission showed Scottish Labour spent £337,814 fighting the 2016 Holyrood poll, 59 per cent less than the £816,889 it used for 2011.
Now the party’s latest accounts, which cover the year to 31 December 2016, show that the party’s slide in the polls mirrors a massive deterioration in its finances.
It suggests a sharp loss of confidence among donors in the party under Ms Dugdale and her deputy Alex Rowley, as well as UK Labour under Mr Corbyn.
Despite Ms Dugdale making her party more autonomous in terms of policy and personnel, the figures also underline Scottish Labour’s reliance on financial support from the UK party.
At the previous Scottish election in 2011, Scottish Labour’s total income was £735,774, of which £287,827 was in donations, and total expenditure was £781,569.
In 2015, income was £1,073,108, of which £592,641 was donations, and expenditure was £974,931, leaving a surplus of £98,177.
But in 2016, despite election years usually boosting donations, income slumped to £400,436, of which £105,752 was donations, and expenditure was £504,402, leaving a deficit of £103,966.
The failure to pull in donations was compounded by other problems raising money.
In 2015, Scottish Labour spent £133,335 staging its conference, but raised £169,538, a positive difference of £36,203.
But last year, the party spent £40,859 on its conference, and raised just £40,837, a negative difference of £22.
Similarly, Scottish Labour spent £12,334 on fundraising in 2015 and returned £53,765, a positive difference £41,431.
In 2016, it spent £26,055 only to raise £26,839, a plus of just £784.
Labour recorded its worst result since the start of devolution in 2016, falling to third place behind the Tories and winning just 24 MSPs.
The result followed a near-wipeout in the 2015 general election, when then leader Jim Murphy outspent the SNP by £1.6m to £1.47m, yet lost his own seat and 39 others, while the SNP went from six MPs to 56.
Despite a recent membership rise to 21,000, Scottish Labour is now tipped to come third behind the Tories in May’s council poll too.
Asked just before the Holyrood election how much her party would spend, Ms Dugdale said it would be “substantially less” than in 2011, with “more small scale fundraising” on an “Obama model of regular small donations, rather than have one or two big donors or funders”.
Ms Dugdale, 35, a list MSP for Lothians, became Scottish Labour in August 2015 after Mr Murphy's resignation.
She opposed Mr Corbyn's re-election as leader last year.
A Scottish Labour spokesperson said: "While the SNP is funded by bus tycoons and lottery winners, Labour is mainly funded by the membership and donations of working people.
“Every Labour politician who is elected fights for working people.
“At conference this week, Kezia Dugdale will set out our message to voters that together we’re stronger.
"We don’t need another divisive referendum from Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP – we need Government to be getting on with the day job.”
An SNP spokesperson said: “Labour are showing themselves to be a completely pointless party – incapable of providing any opposition at Westminster and in terminal decline in Scotland.
“No wonder members and donors are turning away from Labour in their droves. Despite Kezia Dugdale’s desperate attempts, she’s failed to shake off Scottish Labour’s 'branch office' status and is still beholden to London HQ to keep her party from going under for good.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel