‘Rich people’s funding should not be allowed’: Readers hit out after Farage defends £9m Reform UK donation
Independent Readers reacted with a mixture of anger and disbelief after Nigel Farage defended Thailand-based crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne’s £9 million donation to Reform UK.
When asked about the donation, the Reform leader said: “Does he want anything in return for his money? I’m promising you absolutely nothing.”
However, many in our community have questioned how such large sums from an overseas-based financier could be permitted under UK law.
Our community has repeatedly called for strict limits on donations, full transparency, and a ban on foreign or corporate money.
Some have argued that only UK residents and taxpayers should be allowed to donate, while others have argued that the entire system should be replaced with government funding to ensure parties compete on equal terms.
Here’s what you need to say:
Plutocracy
In the Netherlands, donations exceeding €100,000 to political parties are illegal in order to prevent the country from turning into a plutocracy. All donations over 1,000 euros must be published to prevent people from buying political power.
Restarted againHans2
A price worth paying
And here we have another example of why political donations need to be reformed. Corporate donations and donations from foreign nationals should be banned, while donations from private individuals should be limited to a modest level (by which I mean the low thousands of pounds) annually. All donations must be transparent and fully accountable; This means no crypto and no donations via third parties or shell companies.
If this means providing some form of state funding for political parties, this is an issue that needs to be grasped. It won’t be popular in these cash-strapped times, but if that’s the price of preserving democracy, it’s worth paying.
Tanaquil2
government funding
Years ago, I repeatedly suggested that rich people’s financing should never be allowed. Union financing should also not be allowed.
Financing should be provided by the state according to a formula based on the share of votes received by each party. Our current system is not one person, one vote. It’s about persuasion, and obviously more money means more persuasion. And of course, the media that heavily supports an ideology also distorts the system.
What is needed is this:
- A constitution with certain fundamental principles that can only be amended by a strong majority in the House of Commons.
- Proportional representation, obviously; It is so obvious that there is absolutely no need for further discussion.
- State financing of political parties, with public financing either prohibited or limited to a low level that is feasible for the majority of the population.
- Appropriate use of the House of Lords. This should include giving meaningful names to both the venue and its members! One of its current uses is to allow the current Prime Minister to ‘reward’ wealthy people for their donations. I can think of another name for this!
- A person or organization should only be able to own a certain limited percentage of media outlets.
another view3
Only UK residents should donate
Donations should only be allowed from UK residents and taxpayers. So WHEN will Labor pass the legislation? And it will be valid retroactively from January 2004!
ASICIt
Donations should be limited
There should be limits on individual and corporate donations. The cost of democracy – we need parties that can organize and employ researchers fit for Tufton Street. Therefore, parties will need a state financing system. £60 million would more than cover this figure and is just under £2 per taxpayer. It’s a price worth paying, I recommend it.
somerset sage
Conflict of interest
The unions finance the Labor Party and the first act of the Labor government is to give large inflation-busting increases to the wages of its fellow union members. Naturally, isn’t there a conflict of interest?
When reform receives support, the system screams injustice. But when the same man makes a large donation to the Conservative Party, no one complains.
Labor and the Conservative Party already have a huge electoral advantage with a first-past-the-post system that artificially gives them more seats than the percentage of the vote they are entitled to. So if we’re so eager to change political donation laws, let’s move to proportional representation and level the field.
This may also be the first time in this parliament that the Liberal Democrats stop whining about Reform.
Voice of Reason
State-run system
Money given to parties should be regulated in a state-run system based on party size and vote share. Donations should be limited and subject to full disclosure. Accepting undeclared donations from any source to parties or individual politicians should be a crime punishable by long prison sentences.
Ambigirls
Why is this allowed?
There needs to be a limit on much smaller amounts of political donations
I thought this was already illegal or not allowed; So why is this allowed?
Starmer must put an end to such favoritism and, in doing so, introduce a much fairer form of representative elections, banning FPTP once and for all.
Arco iris
Some of the comments in this article have been edited for brevity and clarity.
I want to share your opinions? Just register your information below. Once you sign up, you can comment on the most important stories of the day for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘sign in’ or ‘sign up’ in the top right corner to log in or register.
Be sure to follow our community guidelines, which you can find at. Here. For a complete guide on how to comment, Click here.
