Independent readers reacted with a mix of anger and disbelief after Nigel Farage defended a £9m donation to Reform UK from Thailand-based crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne.
When asked about the donation, the Reform leader said: “Does he want anything in return for his money? I promise you absolutely nothing.”
But many in our community questioned how such vast sums from an overseas-based financier could be permissible under UK law.
Our community repeatedly called for strict caps on donations, complete transparency, and a ban on foreign or corporate money.
Some argued that only UK residents and taxpayers should be allowed to donate, while others said the entire system should be replaced with state funding to ensure parties compete on a level playing field.
Here’s what you had to say:
Plutocracy
In the Netherlands, donations to political parties of more than €100,000 are illegal to avoid the nation becoming a plutocracy. All donations over €1,000 have to be published in order to prevent people buying political power.
RebootedyetagainHans2
A price worth paying
And here we have another example of why political donations need to be reformed. Corporate donations and those from foreign nationals should be banned, and those from private individuals limited to a modest level (by which I mean the low thousands of pounds) annually. All donations need to be transparent and fully accountable, which means no crypto and no donations via third parties or shell companies.
If that means instituting some form of state funding for political parties, that’s a nettle that will just have to be grasped. It won’t be popular in these cash-strapped times, but if it is the price of protecting democracy, it would be worth paying.
Tanaquil2
State funding
Many years ago, I repeatedly suggested that rich people’s funding should not be allowed at all. Nor should union funding be allowed.
Funding should be provided by the state according to a formula based on how many votes each party received. Our present system is not one person, one vote. It is about persuasion, and it is clear that more money means more persuasion. And, of course, media that is heavily supportive of an ideology distorts the system as well.
What is needed is:
- A constitution with certain basic principles that can only be changed by a strong majority in the House of Commons.
- Proportional representation, obviously – it’s so obvious it surely doesn’t need further discussion.
- Political party funding by the state, with public funding either forbidden or limited to a low level so that it becomes possible for most of the public.
- Making proper use of the House of Lords. That should include giving both the place and its members sensible names! One of its current uses is to enable the PM of the moment to ‘reward’ rich people for their donations. I can think of another name for that!
- One individual or organisation should only be able to own a certain limited percentage of media outlets.
anotherview3
Only UK residents should donate
Donations should only be allowed from UK residents and taxpayers. So, WHEN will Labour pass the legislation? And it should be effective retrospectively to January 2004!
AsICIt
Donations should be capped
Individuals and corporate donations should be capped. Democracy costs – we need parties to be able to organise and employ researchers to match Tufton Street. So, parties would need a system of state finance. £60 million would more than cover that and be just under £2 per taxpayer. A price worth paying, I suggest.
somerset sage
Conflict of interest
The unions fund the Labour Party, and the first act of the Labour government is massive inflation-busting wage rises for their union mates. No conflict of interest there, naturally?
When Reform gets support, the establishment screams unfair. But when rhe same man donates massively to the Tories – no complaints from anyone.
Labour and the Tories already have a massive electoral advantage with a first-past-the-post system that artificially gives them more seats than their percentage of votes merits. So, if we are so keen to change political donation laws, let’s go to proportional representation and level the field.
Might be the first time this parliament the Lib Dems stop whining about Reform as well.
VoiceOfSanity
State-run system
Money to parties should be organised in a state-run system based on party size and share of the vote. Donations should be limited and subject to full disclosure. Accepting undeclared donations from any source by parties or individual politicians should be a criminal offence with long prison terms.
Ambigirls
Why is it allowed?
There needs to be a limit on political donations of much, much smaller amounts
I had thought this was already illegal or not permissible – so why is it allowed?
Starmer should put an end to this type of cronyism and, while he’s at it, bring in a much fairer form of representative elections – banning FPTP forever.
arco iris
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.
