If ever there were a moment to have a serious conversation about how we fund our politics, this is it.
In the space of just 48 hours, Reform UK received an extraordinary £72 million from two billionaire donors – £36 million apiece from crypto entrepreneurs Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne. Let me be clear: my argument isn’t that Reform should be singled out for rules that don’t apply to everybody else. The problem is the system itself.
At present, there is no overall limit on the amount a permissible donor can give to a political party. That means our democracy remains vulnerable to the simple fact that somebody with an enormous bank balance can attempt to wield a financial and potential political influence unavailable to the overwhelming majority of citizens. That cannot be healthy.
I believe the answer is a proper system of State funding of political parties, coupled with strict limits on large private donations. Yes, I can already hear the objection: why should taxpayers fund political parties they don’t support? But democracy isn’t free. We already publicly fund elements of our politics, including policy development grants and parliamentary support such as Short Money. The principle has therefore already been established.
A properly designed system could allocate funding according to electoral support while retaining a modest role for membership fees and individual donations. It would mean parties spending less time courting wealthy benefactors and more time trying to persuade voters. And it would help to create something liberals should instinctively support: a more level political playing field. Democracy should ultimately be a contest of ideas, values and visions for our country’s future. It should never be a contest to see which political party can attract the billionaire with the biggest chequebook.
The Reform donations should be the moment Britain finally decides to get big money out of politics.
A setback, but the fight for dignity goes on
I was deeply saddened on Friday when MPs voted down the Assisted Dying Bill by 286 votes to 270. For terminally ill people who want choice, dignity and control at the end of life, this was a bitter setback.
But the fight goes on. At Lib Dem Conference in Brighton on Sunday, I’ll be chairing Dignity in Dying’s fringe meeting, ‘What’s next for the Assisted Dying Bill.’, Sunday, 20th September, 12.15-1.15pm, Brighton Centre, Meeting Room 1B.
With a Lib Dem MP, a Lib Dem Peer, the CEO of Dignity in Dying and people with lived experience of the issue well discuss how we regroup, rebuild and continue campaigning for a compassionate change in the law. Because this cause isn’t going away and true choice at the end of life will win.
I hope you can join us.
See you in Brighton!
I always love party conference. Getting to see so many friends, old and new, and debating liberal solutions to the big domestic and global challenges we face.
As well as chairing the fringe referenced above, I’ll also be doing some media.
But what I look forward to most is chatting to members of our wonderfully diverse Lib Dem family. So, if you spot me, do say hello and let’s have a cuppa.
And join me back here next week for Mathew on Monday at Conference.
See you in Brighton!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
One in the eye for the Tory Bayeux Tapestry as Labour hits back
What do Britain's death-penalty cheerleaders have to say about Christa Pike?
A Week in Politics #8
Reform continue to block journalists from doing their job
Roland
Nonconformistradical
Joey Vimsante
Jenny Barnes
paul barker
11 Comments
The 2 big parties – Labour and Conservative – spent almost £55 Million between them during the 2024 General election while ReformUK could only afford to spend around £5 Million. You can understand why super-rich supporters wishing to help ReformUK complete on a level playing field would realise that £30 Million would be needed to ensure their Party could match the big 2 parties spending at the next election.
That said, the fact that the main parties rely on multimillion donations to allow them to compete in an election is a stain on our democracy. We need to put a cap on what Parties can spend during elections in addition to the cap on spending in individual constituencies. Once this is done, it is reasonable to limit the amount that can be donated to a political party each year. Taxpayers having to pay for political parties should not be considered.
@ Jana, “You can understand why super-rich supporters wishing to help ReformUK complete on a level playing field”.
Are you suggesting their ‘super-rich supporters’ are doing it out of pure altruism, Jana, or do you think they want to get something out of it ?
Indeed Jana, I am sad to point out that any party that proposes that they should be funded by public money, will soon find out how quickly the electorate make it clear that they won’t support it. Saying things like ‘The principle has therefore already been established,’ just sounds like mollycoddled, out of touch, politico-speak to most people.
However, I would also suggest that a cap on parties’ spending on its own will not stop other groups spending to publicise the failure of the government, big issues that the party they support is strong on, etc etc during an election campaign. We saw that in the Brexit Referendum.
A limit on donations to parties that is based on the UK income tax paid by an individual over the previous tax year (or perhaps the average paid over the years since the previous general election) would mean only those who chip into the national coffers can donate.
Equally Corporation tax paid would suffice for companies, Unions having a vote of its membership to determine what each political party gets – 90% of the vote to Labour means 90% of the union’s political fund to Labour. While for those not rich enough to pay income tax, a de minimis £5 should suffice.
Might it be that the U. K is not a true democracy but, in reality, a polyarchy dominated by two groups which are significantly more powerful and cohesive than any other group in “our” socio-political set up of a constellation. of shifting, competing groups.?
1) The wealthy
2) Those in powerful institutional postions (c. 9% of the electorate)
(From AI Mode)
Might a significant factor in the deficiencies in “our” flawed polyarchy be that it is (made?) invisible to much the most of the voters and non-voters?
Might the L. D. Party make it a policy to increase citizen awareness of this situation?
“We need to put a cap on what Parties can spend during elections in addition to the cap on spending in individual constituencies.”
Indeed. But what about spending outside of electio periods? As I understand it that is not controlled.
https://tinyurl.com/vzh6jdpa
Short Money as I understand it is to aid parties who have parliamentary epresentation to carry out the parliamentary duties of their members of Parliament. It is not for political campaigning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money
Steve, Regarding your suggestion ‘Might the L. D. Party make it a policy to increase citizen awareness of this situation?’ I would ask you the same questions I ask other Lib Dems whenever they put forward a proposal that education is a key part of any policy proposal.
Where will the time and money come from for us to do this [education/awareness increasing]?
How important will the general public think our [educating/increasing their awareness] in this area is?
Do you think it will do anything to improve our electoral chances in the next general election and if so, How?
“Are you suggesting their ‘super-rich supporters’ are doing it out of pure altruism, Jana, or do you think they want to get something out of it”…
If you look at the big individual donors for the Tory party – many have been given a life peerage. Trade union leaders the same as regards Labour. There’s only so many party treasurers & party presidents you can elevate to the house of lords.
It’s really nothing new that politics is dominated by “big money”. It’s not all about donations to political parties. We’ve seen the effects that Murdoch’s newspapers have had on previous election results and how politicians like Blair and even Starmer have made sure that they haven’t got offside with him. We now see the influence of TV channels such as GB news.
Starmer once vowed to never write for the Sun when he was standing to become Labour leader. Once he became Labour leader………
As the quotation goes “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas”. Membership of this class, in our society, is very much about wealth so naturally they will use their wealth to both spread their ideas and make a bit more money too!.
Thankfully MPs have rejected Kim Leadbeaters awful bill. No amount of sending opponents on some guilt ridden trips with emotive stories can change the fact it will be the poor, the vulnerable, the lonely , the voiceless who will be at most risk. Too many times we’ve heard about robust procedures will be in place, only to find out later that those guarantees were meaningless. Leadbeaters actions inside the chamber when her colleague – an oncology & transplant surgeon spoke were a disgrace.
Might it be that “citizen awareness” does not require much money, if any at all?
If/when the leader of the L Ds anòunced that we do not have a pure/genuine democracy but a flawed, wealth favouring polyarchy, the national press would produce huge headlines of horror.
P. S. Money is merely a trading tool with no real use of its own which is used by Neoliberal/Austerity theory and practices because it views the market as being more important than the resources which are bought and sold there and the quality of life of the members of a society who create, buy and sell.
Can you live in a home made of notes and/or coins?
How can you have a society and a market unless it has resources to sell and buy?
Can you live in a home, which is also a resource, made of coins and notes?
Kim Leadbeater gets my full support on the assisted dying bill and always will. This is an example of empowering individuals to make their own choices about their own lives and their own bodies. No one with deteriorating health should be forced to live the rest of their life in excruciating pain or agony. Opponents of the bill are inflicting more misery, even cruelty on such people.