Funds & Fundraising

We’ve tried to find donors, but not like this. Previous fundraising has understandably concentrated on established political networks. I want to widen the search and identify people whose experience and outlook already fit the SDP. Only 1.9% of donors change party. Many will only back a successful party. They prefer to jump on the bandwagon when it’s moving, rather than attach the wheels and get it cranked up! So we’re looking for a different type of donor now.

This is, let’s be clear, a hypothesis, and the next step is to test it properly.

We need an SDP with at least 20,000 members by the 2029 general election. The party should always be member-driven. But we need paid staff, and growth requires stronger systems for welcoming new members, helping them become involved and giving them reasons to stay. Early funding will help build that capacity; members can then make the party increasingly self-sustaining while bringing energy, ideas and active participation.

‘Seed’ is an analogy that refers to the characteristics of the donor: someone who recognises the potential, believes in the ambition, backs the team and the plan.

People who build businesses tend to ask the same question: which lever can I pull to make the greatest difference? Some may look at the established parties and conclude that more support for them will simply produce more of the same dysfunction. But if they see in the SDP the right ideas, serious people and a credible plan to grow, they may decide that this is where their support could genuinely count for Britain.

Some people don’t believe that people will give money without getting something in return. Cynicism is justified – but only to an extent. Some people won’t – but many will and do when they believe in the cause. For example, many of our members give remarkable amounts of time. Those who cannot give time, but can give money, can have a meaningful way to help build the party too. Regardless, financial support mustn’t buy influence over policy, personnel or party decisions.

One member suggested that loans might be easier to secure. It’s a good idea and remains worth examining, but loans create obligations of their own. Any loan would need a prudent repayment plan that did not create commitments that might weaken future party growth or hamper a campaign period.

I am developing three costed options (a base, mid and high case). They will examine where dedicated capacity would make the greatest difference, including membership, communications and operations. The money would most likely fund a combination of people, tech and distribution.

Members asked how money would translate into growth. Funding alone does not get the party across the bridge; progress across all six areas we’re discussing during this campaign does. But funding – and the operational effectiveness it can supply – helps turn good work and volunteer effort into lasting results, and does so much faster.

Members suggested ideas like cartoons, events and member videos (also known as ‘user generated content’ or UGC) to broaden the range of our communications. I absolutely agree. The great news is that creativity itself is free – and it’s a resource we already have. What we need to do is create the structures and capacity to turn creative ideas into action that can drive the party forward.