Unpacking Short Money: How UK Opposition Parties Get Funded

Short Money is public funding enabling opposition parties in the House of Commons to conduct parliamentary business. Since 1975, it covers operations, travel, and the Leader of the Opposition's office. Learn its allocation by seats and votes, rules for small parties, and transparency requirements. We also cover Cranborne Money for the House of Lords and Representative Money for MPs not taking seats, including ongoing debates about its use.

Key Takeaways:

• Short Money (1975) funds House of Commons opposition parties' parliamentary work.
• Eligibility: ≥2 seats, or 1 seat + ≥150,000 votes; excludes MPs not swearing oath.
• Funds cover general business, travel, and Leader of Opposition's office.
• Allocations based on seats/votes, uprated. Small parties have floor/ceiling limits.
• Parties must provide audited accounts and report staff/costs for transparency.
• Cranborne Money supports House of Lords opposition parties.
• Representative Money funds parties whose MPs don't take seats (e.g., Sinn Féin) for "representative business".
• Coalition governments affect eligibility (e.g., no Short Money for parties in government).
• Reviews are called for Representative Money regarding abstentionist parties.

Important Definitions and Concepts:

• Short Money: Public funds for House of Commons opposition parties.
• Cranborne Money: Funding for House of Lords opposition parties.
• Representative Money: Funding for parties whose MPs don't take the oath, for "representative business".

Discussion: Do public funding schemes like Short Money and Representative Money effectively support democratic accountability, or should funding always be contingent on full parliamentary participation?

Source: Short Money
Research Briefing
Published Tuesday, 29 July, 2025

Transcript

Amy: 0:00

Hello and welcome again to The Bench Report. Concise summaries of debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan.

Ivan: 0:13

Hello.

Amy: 0:14

Today we're looking at a system of funding, one that helps UK opposition parties carry out their work in Parliament.

Ivan: 0:22

It's called short money. And it really is essential for how the opposition functions, how it holds the government accountable.

Amy: 0:29

It's one of those background things that makes a big difference. So let's start right there. What exactly is short money?

Ivan: 0:34

Well, fundamentally, it's public funding money set aside specifically for opposition parties in the House of Commons.

Amy: 0:41

And it's not new.

Ivan: 0:41

No, not at all. It came in back in 1975. named after Edward Short. He was leader of the House at the time.

Amy: 0:48

And the core idea?

Ivan: 0:49

Simple, really, to help opposition parties do their parliamentary business. Before short money, they were, well, often struggling, relying mostly on donations or their own resources.

Amy: 1:00

Which must have limited what they could actually do.

Ivan: 1:02

Immensely.

Amy: 1:03

Yeah.

Ivan: 1:03

So who gets it? That's quite interesting. A party needs to qualify. They need either two seats in the Commons from the last election, or if not two seats, then one seat, plus at least 150,000 votes nationally.

Amy: 1:17

So it recognizes both parliamentary presence and broader support.

Ivan: 1:21

Exactly. But there's a key condition. It's not available if a party's MPs haven't taken the parliamentary oath.

Amy: 1:29

So that brings certain parties immediately to mind. We'll probably come back to that.

Ivan: 1:32

We will. It's an important point.

Amy: 1:34

Okay. So if a party qualifies, how does the funding break down? I understand it's not just one lump sum.

Ivan: 1:40

That's right. It has three main parts. First, there's general funding. This assists the party with its overall parliamentary work. Research, admin that sort of thing. OK. Second, there's support specifically for travel expenses for opposition party spokespeople getting around the country.

Amy: 1:55

Makes sense. And the third part.

Ivan: 1:57

That's a specific, quite large amount just for the running costs of the leader of the opposition's office.

Amy: 2:03

The other office. Right. How are these amounts worked out, especially the general funding part?

Ivan: 2:07

Well, the general funding uses a formula. For 2025-26, it's 22,853.2005 for every seat won, plus 45.64 for every 200 votes the party received.

Amy: 2:19

Quite precise.

Ivan: 2:20

It is. And the leader of the opposition's office funding, that's a set figure for 2025-26, it's 1,064,739 pounds 30.

Amy: 2:29

Over a million pounds.

Ivan: 2:30

Yes. And importantly, all these figures are adjusted each year. They go up based on the Consumer Price Index, CPI, to keep pace with inflation.

Amy: 2:38

Which is vital, otherwise the real value would just shrink over time. Now, you mentioned smaller parties earlier. Is there anything special for them?

Ivan: 2:44

Yes, there is. Parties with five or fewer MPs have their general funding treated a bit differently. It's subject to a minimum on floor and a maximum, a ceiling.

Amy: 2:51

A floor and a ceiling. Why?

Ivan: 2:53

The idea of the floor, around 132,000 pounds for 24-25-26, is to ensure even very small parties have a basic level of resource to function. The ceiling, about 395,000 pounds, perhaps prevents disproportionate funding based just on votes if seat numbers are tiny. These levels are linked two IPSA staffing budgets.

Amy: 3:11

IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Ivan: 3:14

That's the one. They set the framework. And we saw this system work after the last election in July 2024. How

Amy: 3:20

so?

Ivan: 3:20

Well, the Green Party and Reform UK, they both hit that ceiling amount, receiving the £395,000. Even

Amy: 3:27

with just a few MPs each?

Ivan: 3:29

Correct. Meanwhile, the SDLP, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, their calculated amount was below the floor. So their funding was lifted up to that minimum level, the £130 So it

Amy: 3:41

provides a safety net for the smallest parties, but also caps it. Interesting balance. Now, this is public money. Accountability must be a big deal.

Ivan: 3:49

Absolutely crucial. Parties getting short money have to provide an auditor's certificate to the House authorities.

Amy: 3:55

And what does that certify?

Ivan: 3:56

It confirms the money was spent only on parliamentary business, nothing else. They also have to report details on staff they employ, other costs. It's quite thorough.

Amy: 4:04

Any examples of this in action?

Ivan: 4:06

There was a case with the Scottish National Party, the SNP. in April 2023. They were facing the potential loss of their short money allocation because their auditor hadn't certified their accounts by the deadline. There was a real risk. They did manage to meet the deadline in the end, But it shows the rules have teeth.

Amy: 4:25

Good to know there are checks and balances. So we know how it's calculated, who gets it, the rules. What do parties actually use it for day to day?

Ivan: 4:34

Primarily, it goes towards things like research support for their front bench teams, the shadow ministers, helping them get across government proposals, develop alternatives.

Amy: 4:45

So policy work.

Ivan: 4:46

Yes. And crucial support in the WIPs offices, you know, coordinating MPs, making sure people are in the right place for votes. And as we mentioned, staffing for the leader of the opposition, it enabled them to function effectively.

Amy: 4:58

It really funds the mechanics of opposition. Thinking bigger picture now, short money is just for the Commons opposition, right?

Ivan: 5:05

Strictly. If you're in government, you don't get it. Think back to the coalition government, 2010 to 2015.

Amy: 5:10

Conservatives and Lib Dems.

Ivan: 5:12

Neither party got short money then because they were in government.

Amy: 5:15

But what about deals like confidence and supply?

Ivan: 5:17

Ah, good question. Take the DUP, the Democratic Unionist Party, in 2017 Thank you. They had that agreement with the conservatives.

Amy: 5:25

But they still got short money.

Ivan: 5:27

Yes, because they weren't in the government. They didn't hold ministerial posts. They remained technically an opposition party supporting the government on certain votes. So they kept their short money entitlement.

Amy: 5:36

A fine but important distinction. What about the House of Lords? Is there an equivalent?

Ivan: 5:41

There is. It's called Cranbourne money, introduced later in 1996.

Amy: 5:45

And it does the same job but for the Lords.

Ivan: 5:47

Pretty much. Supports the main opposition parties there. For 2025-26, the conservatives So parallel systems for both houses.

Amy: 6:07

But what about that point you raised earlier? Parties whose MPs don't take the oath. Sin fame, for instance.

Ivan: 6:15

Right. They don't qualify for short money. But they aren't left entirely without public funds related to their elected status. There's a separate scheme for them. Representative money. It was introduced in 2006.

Amy: 6:26

Representative money. And how is that different?

Ivan: 6:29

It's specifically for expenses related to a party's representative business, not parliamentary business, as defined by activity within Westminster. It acknowledges they represent constituents, even if they don't participate in the Commons debates or votes.

Amy: 6:44

So it funds constituency work, perhaps.

Ivan: 6:46

That kind of activity, yes. Yes. For 2025-26, Sinn Féin, with seven MPs, gets about £208,000 for their main budget under this scheme, plus a smaller amount, around £6,000 for travel.

Amy: 6:59

This distinction between parliamentary and representative money sounds like it could be controversial.

Ivan: 7:04

It definitely is. You often hear representative money described as an anomaly.

Amy: 7:09

Why the controversy?

Ivan: 7:10

Well, critics argue... Public money intended for parliamentary work shouldn't go to MPs who, by choice, don't participate in parliament. They see it as funding abstentionism.

Amy: 7:20

But the counterargument is...

Ivan: 7:21

That these MPs are elected... They do have constituents, and this funding allows them to perform representative functions, just not within Westminster itself. It supports their mandate.

Amy: 7:31

It's a genuine clash of principles. Has there been pressure to change this?

Ivan: 7:35

Oh, yes. Jim Shannon from the DUP, for instance, applied for a Commons debate on this back in April 2024. He specifically called it short money funding for abstentionist parties and argued the rules should change if MPs don't attend.

Amy: 7:51

Highlighting the perceived disparity, what's the government's position?

Ivan: 7:54

They tend to stay out of it directly. The consistent line has been that this is ultimately a matter for the House of Commons itself to decide. It's Parliament's rules, essentially.

Amy: 8:04

So it's up to MPs to change the system if they want to. For you listening, all these funding streams, short, cramborn, representative, they're really vital.

Ivan: 8:12

They are. They underpin the opposition's ability to do its job. Scrutinizing laws, developing policies, holding the government's feet to the fire. Without them, our democracy would look quite different, arguably weaker.

Amy: 8:25

It ensures there's some reason So thinking about

Ivan: 8:28

the health of our democracy, these different funding mechanisms, do they work well together? Do they properly support the different roles parties play?

Amy: 8:39

Or do these distinctions, especially around representative money, create fairness issues or odd incentives that maybe need looking at again?

Ivan: 8:46

It's a system designed to support democracy, certainly. But like any system, it raises ongoing questions about effectiveness, fairness, and what parliamentary representation truly means today.

Amy: 8:57

As always, find us on social media at BenchReportUK. Get in touch with any topic important to you.

Ivan: 9:02

Remember, politics is everyone's business.