£863,000.00 / £25 (membership subscription) = 34,520 fully paid up
'Standard' members!!!!
Statement of accounts (2011 - Conservative and Unionist Party - Great Britain - Central Party)
Please prepare your annual statement of accounts by entering the figures for
each category. The total will be calculated automatically when saving.
For more information on how to prepare the accounts, please view the Guidance.
For more information on how to prepare the accounts, please view the Guidance.
| Ref No. ST0000839 | |
| Submitted date: | 03/07/2012 |
| Published date: | 01/08/2012 |
Income and expenditure account
Income
| Membership £.pp | Affiliations £.pp | ||
| Donations £.pp | Branch income £.pp | ||
| Fundraising income £.pp | Investment income £.pp | ||
| Transfers in £.pp | Property and rental income/office services £.pp | ||
| Commercial activities £.pp | |||
| Grant income £.pp | Conference income £.pp | ||
| Unrealised gains/(losses) £.pp | Miscellaneous income £.pp | ||
| Miscellaneous income notes | |||
| Total income £.pp | 23,660,000.00 | ||
Expenditure
| Premises costs £.pp | Office costs £.pp | ||
| Branch expenditure £.pp | Staff costs £.pp | ||
| Transfers out £.pp | Campaigning costs £.pp | ||
| Fundraising costs £.pp | Financing charges and taxation £.pp | ||
| Depreciation £.pp | Cost of commercial activities £.pp | ||
| Conference expenditure £.pp | Miscellaneous £.pp | ||
| Miscellaneous notes | |||
| (Profit)/loss on disposal of assets £.pp | |||
| Total expenditure £.pp | 22,971,000.00 | ||
| Surplus/(deficit) £.pp | 689,000.00 | ||
Balance sheet
Fixed assets
| Property £.pp | Fixtures and fittings £.pp | ||
| Office equipment £.pp | Investment property £.pp | ||
| Other investments £.pp | |||
| Notes on other investments | |||
| Total fixed assets £.pp | 1,641,000.00 | ||
Current assets
| Cash in hand and at bank £.pp | Stock £.pp | ||
| Debtors and prepayments £.pp | Other current investments £.pp | ||
| Notes on other current investments £.pp | |||
| Total current assets £.pp | 7,554,000.00 | ||
Liabilities
| Creditors and accruals £.pp | Loans outstanding £.pp | ||
| Provisions £.pp | |||
| Total liabilities £.pp | 17,913,000.00 | ||
| Total net assets/(liabilities) £.pp | -8,718,000.00 | ||
Reserves
| Accumulated fund brought forward £.pp | Surplus/(deficit) £.pp | ||
| Accumulated fund carried forward £.pp | -9,890,000.00 | ||
| Revaluation reserve £.pp | |||
| Other funds £.pp | |||
| Notes on other funds £.pp | |||
| Total reserves £.pp | -8,718,000.00 | ||
Cash flow statement
| Net cash inflow/outflow from operating surplus before returns on investment + servicing of investment + tax £.pp | Servicing of investment £.pp | ||
| Returns on investment £.pp | Tax £.pp | ||
| Capital expenditure + other activities £.pp | Increase/decrease in cash £.pp | ||
Gains and losses
| Surplus/deficit for the year £.pp | Re-evaluation £.pp | ||
| Actuarial gain/loss £.pp | |||
| Total gains and losses | 564,000.00 | ||
Come on, we need to do a lot better than this.
ReplyDeleteNobody genuinely believes the Tories have only 24,000 members. It is a schoolboy error to assume that all members pay "£35" every year and you can therefore work out how many members a party has by dividing a year's membership income by a membership fee.
Even the £35 membership fee is wrong. Becoming a member costs £25 a year - or £5 a year if you’re under 23 years old.
The actual membership figure is around 150,000 and Labour around 190,000. The days of mass party membership are long gone.
Instead of posts like this, focus on what really matters. Like how many members the EDs have and how that translates into candidates.
They certainly are. It is hard to believe but the Tories used to have 3 MILLION or more members in the 1950's.
DeleteAnonymous, thank you for the correction about the Conservatives' standard membership subscription being £25. On that basis they have 34,520 fully paid up members!
ReplyDeleteStill vastly less than the 150,000 that is being routinely claimed by their apparatciks.
I have made the appropriate correction to the article.
Again you are ignoring those under 23 who pay just £5 a year and those who were members before Cameron introduced the £25 "membership" fee - they are not obliged to pay the £25.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone seriously believes membership is as low are you are claiming.
Actually you won't have many under 23 year olds who are members of your Party (or indeed any other party).
ReplyDeleteYour point about others not paying the full fee is not an answer to my posting because I have stated that it is a calculation of 'fully paid up "Standard" members'. The maths is correct.
Are you suggesting that the average Conservative party member pays a yearly subscripion of just £5.75? LOL!
The £25 membership fee gives a member voting rights. The Tories have many more members without voting rights who don't pay the £25 because they joined prior to the introduction of the £25 fee. Ask any of your Tory acquaintances.
ReplyDeleteYour maths would only be correct if each member paid £25. We all know they don't.
As for young Conservatives, Conservative Future (under 30s) says it has 15,000 members.
Any idea UKIP now have by comparison?
ReplyDeleteThey must be close to catching up!
DeleteUKIP has over 25k members. On a related note, from the figures in the English Democrats have submitted to the Electoral Commission they have less than 700 members rather than the thousands that they claim. And over £200k of liabilities.
DeleteStuart, Actually I am told that you have only just gone through 25,000 in this last week.
DeleteAs for the English Democrats we are doing fine and have 3,500 members and no pressing liabilities at all, but then I expect that you well know that but are too partisan a UKIP dirty trickster to care about Truth.
How many free memberships do you have to give away to get 3,500 members? Just like the Tories, your returns don't back up your claimed membership figures.
DeleteIf we apply the same criteria to membership as you have just done to the Tories, then using the figures provided your membership is around 700.
DeleteYour pressing liabilites are based in Kent as you are no doubt aware :)
Not at all our accounts, just about to be published, show that we have over 3,500 paid up members - and growing!
DeleteMore to the point. Are the English Democrats putting up a candidate in the South Shields by-election?
ReplyDeleteWhen' the closing date, 18th April? Don't we have any members in that neck of the woods who would be able to stand?
DeleteDon't let South Shields be another Barnsley where anti-English UKIP came in second
DeleteThe canditate doesn't have to live in the North East. It's better if they do. Again, you can put up a better fight if you have party members in the constituency, but if you don't, that does not bar the EDs from standing a candidate.
DeleteYes, but what about us, the EDs. What is our membership looking like? We should stop having a go at other parties like this, and get on with putting our case.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what the purpose of this post is. Can you clarify?
ReplyDeleteClive,
Weston-super-Mare
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteClive of Weston-super-Mare. I wonder too what the purpose is of debating the Tory membership. The most prominent item at this moment is the South Shields by-election, and it is still not clear whether or not the party is contesting the seat. Why the silence?
DeleteNot to contest that particular seat in the North East is a tactical mistake, even if the candidate comes bottom.
The party doesn't seem to have a strategy apart from the scatter gun approach.
There doesn't seem to be any strategy for building the party, if there is, it doesn't seem to be working.
The fight for England has to be conducted like a military campaign. You don't attack where the enemy (UKIP) is strongest, i.e., the South. You don't allow the enemy to establish himself on the your ground, i.e., the North and Northeast of England. You consolidate. You don't open up on all fronts unless you have an overwhelming advantage. You don't over-extend your lines of communication.
ReplyDeleteUKIP has already made inroads in the north, establishing in English Democrats' natural territory. Now it looks as though UKIP will come second in South Shields without any challenge from the English Democrats.
With the economic and cultural north/south divide getting ever wider, the English Democrats have a God sent opportunity to champion the north.
ReplyDeleteSeize that opportunity, or the English Democrats are sunk.
I agree with Clive,regarding consolidating rather than spreading yourself thinly across England , with no plan.
ReplyDeleteED's need an out spoken spokes-person,credible with sensible statements points of contact for the media. Robin still at the helm as chairman for the politics show, back up
A office of some sort, central to England
You need to be standing in South Shields, this is vital not only to past voters, but to others who will eventually break free from the liblabcon. To show you are still in there fighting the English Cause.
ReplyDeleteThe Maggiolatry and claims of fruit-cake Tories that Margaret Thatcher was greater than Churchill are absolutely preposterous...
MAGGE! MAGGIE! MAGGIE! MYTH! MYTH! MYTH!
She did NOT command the support of the silent majority
Margaret Thatcher won three elections, two of them by large margins, but she was never as popular as her ardent admirers imply. The Conservative share of the vote in Britain fell steadily from the 44.9 per cent she won in 1979.
She set a record for unpopularity as PM that has not been matched by John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron: 16 per cent satisfied and 79 per cent dissatisfied in March 1990 (Ipsos Mori).
She was NOT a dyed-in-the-wool anti-European
Who said this, and when? "Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community." The "who" was Margaret Thatcher. The "when" may surprise those for whom she has become the patron saint of Euroscepticism. The line comes from the founding text of Conservative Euro-truculence – her speech to the College of Bruges on 20 September 1988.
No other British politician "surrendered" more sovereignty to Brussels than Thatcher. She campaigned for Britain to remain in the Common Market in 1975. She signed the Single European Act, in 1986, which removed the national veto in scores of policy areas to speed up a barrier-free European trading zone. Her government negotiated the Common Fisheries Policy. And yet, as Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Minister, commented privately after the Bruges speech, she often spoke as if the EU required no "sacrifice of political independence". "Willing and active co-operation between independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European Community," she said in Bruges. This was a wilful distortion of the truth. The EU, née EEC, has always been a supranational body, backed by binding treaties and laws.
Thatcher helped to make those laws and treaties even more binding. She accepted that the single market could be achieved only by enforceable rules, not "co-operation". But her simplistic rhetoric, and the anti-European Thatcher myth fostered since she lost power, have framed, and diminished, the European debate in Britain ever since.
She did NOT cut tax and did NOT slash public spending
Despite the fury of opponents over "Tory cuts", and the ardour of supporters of tax cuts, Mrs Thatcher while in No 10 was notably unsuccessful on both scores. The tax burden (measured by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in the form of total government receipts as a share of national income) started at just above 40 per cent in 1979, peaked at 45.4 per cent in 1982, then fell below 40 per cent in 1990. Similarly, public spending rose as a share of national income, For all her time as Prime Minister, public spending rose in real terms.
She was NOT a strong champion of grammar schools
The truth is that, as the Education Secretary in the Heath government between 1970 and 1974, she was responsible for the closure of more grammar schools than any other holder of that post in history.
She did NOT transform Britain into a property-owning democracy
Thatcher famously gave council tenants the right to buy their homes (at a discount), thus becoming, in the eyes of her mythologists, the leader who hugely expanded "the property-owning democracy". She did not ensure the proceeds from these sales were spent on building further homes for rent, or affordable ones to be subsequently bought. And, as new research shows, a large number of these homes ended up owned by wealthy private landlords and property companies. In the London borough of Wandsworth, the GMB union has found, nearly 40 per cent of the 15,874 homes in council blocks where tenants acquired the right to buy are now owned by private landlords.
I for one will be glad when Wednesday is over. Mrs T. was, without doubt, if nothing else, the most divisive prime minister ever. I have just discovered they are now going to stop Big Ben during the period of her funeral. Give me strength. Were she a Catholic and not a Methodist - I think the Methodist Church would rather nothing had been made of that as she is poles apart from the Christian Methodists I mix with - somebody would have lodged a bid with the Vatican for her to be canonised. No surprise that she was pro-Europe as she was a libertarian one worlder con artist, another one, no different from a Marxist one worlder, aiming to open up all borders and mix us up like a box of liquorice allsorts until the white race are history as they are bad and the third world are flawless people by comparison. The Libertarians just want rootless people they can manipulate - too much of the individual in most North Europeans - whose only consolation for their loneliness without a people or a homeland to identify with is to buy, buy, buy. Well, they seem to be getting there.
ReplyDeleteOn that point, I have just seen an interesting clip about the new Miss Russia. She is from Central Asia and is deemed by the Russians to be not Russian or Slavic enough. One gentleman said it is not racist it is a question of identity - that will be national identity, the thing that the Marxists, the bankers and the libertarians vowed after the War to destroy.
Can you imagine the outcry in today's modern multicultural England if Miss England were deemed to be not Anglo-Saxon or ethnic English enough. Or in Sweden if she were not deemed to be Scandinavian enough, Germany if she were not teutonic enough etc. But sadly this is human nature. We all crave an identity to identify with. Hence the problems with "cross racial" fostering and adoption and in many cases mixed race children. I have seen this happening personally.
"Racism" comes down to a sense of identity and I have seen this craving in children under five. We need to identify with a tribe and a tribal area. Without it we have an inner emptiness, a yearning that is never fulfilled and this is why society all over the hitherto white world is in such a mess. The way things are going there will be no such thing as a national identity in Europe and I predict an increase in mental illness as people desperately search for it.
Cameron is a watered down Thatcher, therefore as DDC is known to be a totally bought Rothschild placeman, it begs the question, was Maggie in any way bought.
ReplyDeleteTo go on the evidence of her actions where she sold off our state businesses into
private ownership and kept us firmly in Europe, a globalist agenda is clearly visible.
Cameron and Osborne are more dangerous than Thatcher ever was. At least she showed signs of waking up to the damage she was doing (which is why she was ditched).
DeleteFanatic Cameron is taking the destruction of England further than Thatcher dared to do, and there is not a snowball in hell's chance that he will repent or reverse his radical globalist agenda.
Have just watchd the Kaiser Report on Russia Today about Mrs T. She came in as the North Sea Oil revenue rolled in but she squandered it to create a credit boom whilst deregulating and privatising. Now the oil has gone and the credit bubble has burst we are bankrupt and the pound is in danger of collapse. She could have used the money from oil to create a safety net for times like these but, like Brown, she just wanted us to take on more and more credit and spend spend spend. Brown sold our gold to create the same thing.
ReplyDeleteBillionaires from all over the world, bent or straight, are laundering their money in London property and that is the only thing that is keeping us going. But we cannot afford to live in London any more even if we did want to live in that multicultural dump. If the economy collapses then that might be the time when Enoch's rivers of blood begin to flow. What an unholy mess these greedy - for money and votes - and unscrupulous people have left old England in.
Anonymous, you are very eloquent in stating Mrs Thatcher's numerous faults. She was a globalist libertarian (so it should come as no surprise UKIP are big fans of hers) and one of the few things she did right was sending a task force to repel the Argentine invaders from the Falklands (that war could and should have been avoided if her government hadn't of been so careless) I think on the whole her premiership was a failure but then she is no different from every other PM since Winston Churchill in the early 1950's
ReplyDeleteI trust you are not including Churchill but every prime minister since. Churchill was determined to stop mass immigration but was 80 - I think - in 1955. He passed the torch to Anthony Eden who put the whole issue on the back burner (if that is not mixing my metaphors). Like every prime minister since Churchill, including Margaret Hilda, he did not have an inch of backbone.
DeleteWhy on Earth is there not so much as a list of ED candidates for the forthcoming elections on the official ED website? Resources are limited, but there is no excuse for the shoddiness of the main website.
ReplyDelete