Should the UK Change its Campaign Finance Rules?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 гру 2024
- Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription by going to ground.news/tldr
In this video, we’re going to have a look into campaign finance rules in the UK, how they work, and whether there is a valid argument that they should be changed.
📰 Too Long: toolong.news/
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahE...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
Why is this even a debate ? British politics should only be funded by the British people.
A South African born US citizen or any foreign national or entity should have no influence or say in our politics.
Didn’t the Labor party send a bunch of people to the US to campaign for Harris?
He could easily become a British citizen. He has 2 British grandparents.
@jamessloven2204 If the US doesn't want to pass laws preventing foreign interference that's on them, I'm a brit and I don't want foreign interference in our democracy regardless of party.
@baseddepartment1324 "Could" he isn't a british citizen currently and that's the problem.
@@jamessloven2204 Depends what and how you perceive things, what biases you have and how that shapes your view. They have said "None of this was organised or funded by the Labour Party itself, these are individual people making their own choices as they are free to do."
The last thing the UK needs is to be allowed to fall into the trap of unbridled political campaign funding. In the US today, individual voters and even party supporters, have minimal influence on party policy. Lobby groups, dark money, and corporate mega donors account for over 93 percent of the multi-billion dollar, seemingly endless election campaigns. No thank you.
Not really an "either / or" situation, is it?
@@kevinh4869 So you think nothing should ever be fixed because you didnt see enough of the people here suppprting what you know you support too, back then? Or do you secretly not support stopping foreign intereference?
@@kevinh4869 thats the choice kevin. Fix a mahor issue that the vast majority want fixed and will better the country... or dont fix it because it will make them look bad. I'm surprised you want them to pick their personal interest. Not the countries.
@@jakeoliver9167he just stated a fact. Now that it’s not benefiting labour or the conservatives it’s a problem. This is the double standards of the uk.
@@101logicthe problem more is the amount of money and also that it's coming from someone who will now advice in a foreign countries government
I think regardless of what party or country you're from, you can agree foreigners with no link to the country shouldn't be donating millions to political campaigns.
Agreed, but it’s notable that the government only cares when it’s an anti-establishment party that threatens to do it.
Keep the same energy for Labour and The Tories
@xander6522 I'm keeping the same energy for the greens, SNP, Plaid and independents.
Foreign money does not belong in British democracy.
@@xander6522 so you support this? That is a ban for those parties included?
Why not? Elon musk does a lot of business in the UK. He has a greater stake in the election outcome than most people living on the island.
Should the UK Change its Campaign Finance Rules?
Yes (IMO)
Firstly, I think only people on the UK electoral register should be allowed to donate to political parties. Businesses (including charities) and other organisations should be banned from doing so. And secondly, there should exist a limit on how much any one person can donate a year, and the limit should be low enough to ensure that no one can hold huge swings over our politicians.
Make it low enough that even the poorest person in the UK can afford to pay it. Then watch poverty disappear overnight as parties try to get money for campaigns and have to make the poor richer.
@@idontwanttopickone that reminds me:
Thirdly, ban political parties from having ownership. Fourthly, count Membership fees for political parties as part of the cap on donations. There that is some loop holes closed.
You've pretty much mirrored the electoral finance rules that govern federal political parties and elections in Canada. Union donations are also verboten in Canada. Canadians are very happy with the rules.
The annual yearly limit an individual can donate to a political party is about $1,750 CAD (it's adjusted annually by Elections Canada for inflation), plus a further maximum of same amount can be donated to an individual candidate and/or constituency association.
Common sense
Elon Musk can’t donate, his US companies can’t donate, he can’t open new businesses in UK that can donate.
This story is just click bait. Current rules already stop this scenarios.
I have to say it does smell a bit hypocritical the main parties only seem to be getting worried about this now that the Reform party is gaining support
I'ma say this once: WHO FUCKING CARES??!
Soooo it's hypocritical. So? If the idea is good THEN THE IDEA IS GOOD, END OF DISCUSSION. Sooooo finally something happened to kick the big parties in the goonies and pay attention. If the proposed solution is a GOOD THING are we really gonna shoot ourself through the head because it isn't _fair_?
Don't be a moron all your life.
Elon Musk can’t donate, his companies can’t donate, he can’t open new businesses in UK who can donate.
This stories is just click bait. Current rules already stop this scenarios.
Hypocritical, yes, a good change also yes. Foreign money should not be in British politics.
It’s a bit rich that farage - who wanted uk independence from foreign shackles is the one wanting foreign funding
Do you think it’s going to be free? - it’s clearly going to come with expectations of policies that favour Elon and his American business and interest
There are safety regulations and many others that don’t allow certain American products including cyber trucks to be sold in the uk. Tesla has to jump through many hoops of modifications for its cars to be able to sell here .. don’t expect he’s going to be giving manage millions for free
Hypocritical is Farage wanting unelected foreign powers meddling in UK politics. But will take money to allow unelected foreign powers to meddle in UK politics.
It's mad that people still don't think that his bank balance is his only concern!
Yeah but also them suddenly wanting to change it now is dubious
Reform is a threat to the two-party system.
@@xander6522 reform is a threat.
It was actually in their manifesto, but I bet they were going to drop it until they saw this news. 😂 Still better a good thing for the wrong reasons. This could transform our politics for the better if it's done right.
no it isn't. Almost every decision to fix something is done soon after the issue presents itself majorly. You may say why wasnt it fixed every time before, to which i could say multiple things. 1: They've just got back power after over a decade. 2:This is a particuarly lets say unique and public case with a high profile american tech billionaire owner of social media aligned to specific politics in another country donating to a country hes not in. Notoriety motivates. 3: The "wait a bit" argument makes no sense too. Firstly as its essentially imo riduculous to expect the runners of the country to delay a needed fix because of public opinion of how it will "look fishy", and secondly... you could say it whenever they choose to change it. Donations happening all the time. Whatever... someone will say "WHY NOW!". Near an election an argument could be made its 'dubious'.... no snap election in sight, and the next standard term election is years away.
p.s. it was in their manifesto and were still relatively early on in the term. Everything is done in order of priority. A major thing happening could logically boost somethings priority. Regardless of how convenient it looks. The only objective thing... is whe can't say they invented the desire to do it solely because of Elon. Because of the manifesto.
@@xander6522it's a threat to their jobs yes. But we're lucky the side that now wants to curtail foreign influence in politics is in power rather than the other way round. This is a stroke of good fortune, whatever you think of Labour, the Tories or Reform.
The problem is the US isnt the campaign contribution limit.
It's that an individual or corporation can use as much as they want on private ads and other activities as long as they dont formally coordinate with a candidate or party.
The problem is that the US is a corrupt backwater
All made possible by legal bribing, or as the Americans call it "lobbying"
No. Companies shouldn't affect politics it can lead to policy manipulation
i think you mean yes then. You want the fix
@jakeoliver9167 no I don't want people like musk using money as some threat and false sense of nationalism he should be fined for doing so
And, indeed, regularly does lead to policy manipulation.
Exactly like uncle ali
The problem is that businesses should have a say on how they are run, people are currently somewhat anti-business and then complain that they are jobless.
My main concern is how to survive all of these financial and political crisis, especially in light of the US political power scuffle
It's obvious that the government has no profitable plans for we the citizens, we have to source our means by ourselves. I started investing as a way to earn extra but it's now my main source of income; I never expected the massive yield toh...
I agree that hiring a portfolio coach is a smart move and that in this case, patience is your best friend. I make a lot of investments and cannot afford to take the risk of doing it alone. Instead, since the rona outbreak began in late 2019, my portfolio has been maintained by a qualified advisor. I only need about $86k more to reach my one million dollar ROl goal.
Magnificent! Could you please provide additional information about the coach who mentors you? might save me a lot of money
Sharon Duke is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
She is active on the
TE LE GRAM
The market's rise after Trump's win is surprising given the economic uncertainty. While some stocks, like Al-focused ones, look strong long-term, the volatility makes me cautious. Even Bitcoin is seeing a boost, but it's tough to predict where things are heading with inflation and interest rates. Staying cautious but watching for opportunities.
I agree. Even with great opportunities, we should proceed cautiously. Seeking market analysis or advice from certified market strategists is important.
Factos!!. After experiencing a major portfolio loss in 2020 amid the COVID pandemic while trying to manage my investments on my own, I reached out to an investment advisor. They helped me turn my $420k into a seven-figure portfolio by providing the guidance and strategy I needed. Having that expertise made a significant difference in my investment journey.
A lot of folks downplay the role of advisors until being burnt by their own emotions. I remember couple summers back, after my lengthy divorce, I needed a good boost to help my business stay afloat, hence I researched for licensed advisors and came across someone of utmost qualifications. She's helped grow my reserve notwithstanding inflation, from $175k to $450K
That's huge! Your advisor must be excellent.
Could you share more about your approach?
I'm in urgent need of help with asset allocation.
I'm very cautious about giving specific recommendations as everyone's situation varies. Consider independent financial advisors like "Tracy Britt Cool Consulting" I've worked with her for years and highly recommend her. Check if she meets your criteria.
Politics has going down the pan. Governments that don't work for their citizens, instead for big business. Private cash, backhanders and shady deals. It's a disgrace, they are a disgrace. We have one life to live, and for most, it's worse than it should be due to the greed of these people.
Then stop voting for them lol. It's literally that easy. It's been that easy for over a century but every time the public are asked they keep demanding more corruption. I don't know why I haven't puzzled it out, I think there was something in the water back in the 60's that got all the boomer hippies singing about feeding the world instead of looking after their own.
I always find it funny that in the US and UK, financing by big billionaires is seemingly okay with everyone until some mid-east oil baron wants to make a move and then everyone loses their shit. Same thing with buying newspapers, no one is bothered that Murdoch who is an Australian and American can pretty much sway the UK elections where as just last year Sunak blocked a deal when UAE tried to buy an English newspaper.
Nah, that's pretty standard. Countries often let their allies get away with hostile actions that they wouldn't tolerate from other countries.
Everyone who doesn't have a vested interest is bothered that Murdoch gets to censor the press and the TV news, and effectively acts as kingmaker in more half our general elections. But that's nothing to do with his nationality and everything to do with state capture.
“Rules for thee and not for me”
What foreign money did the other parties receive?
Foreign companies with UK bases donate to Tories and Labour all the time! Look it up! Lots of Russian and Chinese monies in the past too.
@@tasin2776 George Soros (Hungarian billionaire) spent 400 million on an anti brexit campaign.
Bill gates and Blackrock frequently meet with Kier Starmer CURRENTLY.
There are plenty of examples, without even getting into where the corrupt legacy media gets it's funding...
Doing this just right before elon was gonna donate to reform isn't gonna bode well especially considering how close he is to trump
Mummy, what does FDJT mean?
Trump signed a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico and now he's gonna rip it up and introduce tariffs.
So if he can't be trusted to follow his own trade deal that he signed i don't see how he can be trusted anyway. Nothing we do to limit foreign influence in UK will change that. It will merely prevent even worse harm.
What do think might happen?
Well nobody was serious about sanctioning Russia before the invasion of Ukraine .
You didn't watch the whole video then
The success of a political party shouldn’t be based off how deep someone’s pockets are
@@kevinh4869 and that's an issue. So your point is irrelevant. We all support this. Dont you?
@@kevinh4869 "Only Now" - Yeah, in the history of the UK we've never discussed reforming/changes Political Parties and Elections funding before Reform UK came into existence.
@@kevinh4869 I can't believe you are trying to argue in good faith here. Musk wants to donate more money to one party than total donations to all parties in the last election cycle. How do you not see a foreigner interfering with our politics as a problem? Should a foreigner have more say who becomes the next PM than the average Brit?
@@kevinh4869 I know. It doesn’t mean that this isn’t a problem
I think a) as a rule, non-UK citizens shouldn't be allowed to influence the political process and b) there should be a total limit on how much a political party can receive in donations. Otherwise it ends up being driven by wealthy individuals' interests and not necessarily those of the public at large.
Easiest question ever: Yes!
There should be a set budget for each party already in parliament and no more to make it an even playing field. We do the same with party political broadcasts, so why not completely level the field and remove the incentives for back door deals at the same time.
Not really. It doesn’t level the playing field by any means. It only makes it easier for those who already make up the majority like Labour or Conservatives to keep power. They already win in the ideas of word of mouth or bigger impacts such as having been in power.
Even playing field 🤣
@@AF2277S well, it wasn’t the topic here, but in a complete reform of the system. Peerages wouldn’t be life, and can be removed for serious failings, poor conduct or other similar circumstances; hereditary peers would be gone entirely. Proportional representation would replace first past the post and limits on individual contributions would be placed somewhere reasonably low like: £1,000 (inclusive of candidates own funds) with a total ban on businesses or charities being able to donate. All of that plus donations from non-British citizens & current residents (I.e. a British citizen living in another country personally or for tax purposes) at any amount.
That levels the playing field, and allows an upstart party that gains even one seat the same budget and space on all forms of advertising including online, as all other parties in parliament. It’s not perfect, but then perfection is unobtainable.
Hows that even? The conservatives have had over 100 years to brand themselves, not fair to new parties like Reform.
@ because they all get the same budget, same air time for PPBs and in the meantime can do media interviews, Question Time, Podcasts, UA-cam Channel’s etc. as much as they’ll have them.
For some reason I didn’t think our open corruption was as bad as the US.
The answer is yes, always yes. money in politics is cancer.
It seems to only be an issue now that the establishment parties are under genuine threat of reformation.
This doesn't seem to have been a problem before...
Campaign finance rules have always been a problem, but it has always benefitted the big parties - it's only now it's Reform that they seem to want to take action. The big parties are all about consolidating their shared power.
Fascinating that Labour, who have taken large sums of foreign money, are suddenly opposed to foreign money. How strange!
Where did they take large sums of foreign money from?
@@swanchamp5136 "Labour MP failed to declare Indian donations in questions to ministers
Navendu Mishra tabled 14 written questions on U.K. relations with India but did not highlight donations, POLITICO scrutiny of parliamentary records shows." Nov. 2024
"UK anti-corruption minister accused of taking £4bn bribe for Russia-funded nuclear plant in Bangladesh
Tulip Siddiq, a Labour minister and niece of Bangladesh's former PM, is being investigated over claims of embezzlement"
Dec. 2024
@@Part_Time_Catboy embezzlement is a crime I doubt it's Labour policy or was used as campaign funds. So not the same thing, I mean what's your argument here? Are you saying they SHOULD be able to do it or SHOULDN'T?
@@swanchamp5136 you asked where they've taken foreign money from. I gave you two examples from the last two months. That's it
@@Part_Time_Catboy sounds to me that you are making excuses for Reform to be able to accept foreign money and buy an election
Yes but the cap for donations should be set at like £10 pounds
that way the best way to finance your campaign is to appeal to the masses and isn't to make under the table deals with whatever company is asking
I think Europe needs to start treating Oligarchs like they would any other dictator with comparable resources.
Excessive wealth accumulation is a serious danger to democracy, as we can clearly see in the US.
if the money was being given to any party other than reform, the establishment wouldn't have a problem....
I feel like they would unless it's to conservatives or labour.
Ah yes, "the establishment"...The next biggest donor was far smaller, directly within the country, and people had problems asking for the money to be returned when he "only" made a racist comment. Musk has done multitudes more damage to our democracy before he's even donated and he doesn't even live here.
this change affects all parties. So its irreleveant which party was the one to motivate the change. Yeah it shouldve been sooner. We all agree. But its being done hopefully now... maybe if tories werent in charge for so long it wouldve been done sooner. As labour immediately had it in their manifesto
@@gravel7614"lord" Ali brought labour. Soros has spent millions trying to stop Brexit rules for thee!
I feel like they would. I know I would. I do. We have already had a problem with Russian money being funnelled into the Tories and into the Leave campaign (of course, the corrupt Tories carefully looked the other way), which caused tremendous damage to the UK. We cannot continue to allow foreign interference in our politics.
Absolutely. We shouldn’t be giving foreign billionaires the keys to our democracy. The hypocrisy shown by reform supporters is unsurprising
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Labour (the party in government in the U.K.) was comfortable sending staff to campaign against the US president then they shouldn’t mind a member of his cabinet fiddling with U.K. elections. You can’t just be angry at meddling when it’s done by the people you don’t want to win and you can be sure Labour would be more than happy to receive foreign billions given Starmer’s record with expenses already.
Have the labout faithful already forgotten Lord Alli?, how about the Hinduja brothers' bribes; sorry, I mean donations to Blair?
Every party has done this for decades.
@@Bushflareone is so much more overt and damaging. Sending someone to show support isn't the same as bankrolling an entire party
@@Bushflare both are wrong. Youre essentially saying because they did a bad thing, noone is allowed to fix it. Weird logic.
@@gravel7614
“It was okay when they did it! Turnabout isn’t fair play!”
There’s such a thing as karmic debt, y’know?
This should be taken the same as Russian interference.
US is a friend though, and Elon is a force for good
@@davidcooks2379 No Foriegn money in British politics.
@@davidcooks2379 Lol IF You think this is good, You are putting Elon/US intrests over uk's intrests, If farage comes to power by using elon's money. there's a very decent chance that farage will sacrifise uk's intrests to please his master elon's/us intrests and UK would just be a absolute vassal state of US, I dont understand how uk citizens supports this,
@@davidcooks2379 "Elon is a force for good"
I used to think so, too. You know, back when he stuck to pushing the drive for electric vehicles and space exploration. But supporting a corrupt, fraudulent, rapist who tried to start an insurrection in return for an influential position in the government and unspecified favours for his own companies is not "being a force for good," IMO.
@@davidcooks2379 god. Sometimes i'm not worried about american level cults and america level brainwashed people getting big in britain. Other times?.... you make it difficult not to be worried
There is no need to watch this as it is a clear yes. It's so cheap to buy influence in the UK. It's infuriating.
I didn’t see many people complaining about this before Reform came along and I would question how much will change once Reform get the money. The one thing I can guarantee is that if a proposal was put forward, then Musk would put in a bucket full of money before the rules are changed.
If we prod the bear then it will react.
The figure you used for the US also doesnt include super pacs, which technically arent affiliated with the parties themselves.
The pot calling the kettle black
A) I don't think that's true, and B) black is still black.
They need to wear their sponsors on their suits like athletes, that way we know who they're speaking for
While I get the issue but it’s only being brought up now because they know it would actually screw them over if they didn’t. If Elon was to donate, it would allow Reform a chance at winning. Labour were more than happy to accept the millions in donations they already get from plenty of people, from millionaires to unions to other countries. I don’t see how people can see this is just Labour and to an extent the conservatives wanting to tighten the grip and force parties out
The tories are major recipients of russian money. Try to keep up.
If a UK party cannot run because they can't get enough financial support domestically then that says a lot about that party.
It was in the plans before Elon spoke up... but whatever suits your narrative I guess.
Take it all out. The only donations should be memberships to a party. That's it. No big rich donors, no poor donors. A little bit more money for campaign funding from the government and nothing more. No gifts for MPs, no investment from lobby groups, get rid of the corruption from UK politics.
I don't like Reform but doing this to possibly stop them seems disingenuous specially when Starmer has received so many 'gifts'
I don't really see how Starmer receiving gifts is relevant but anyway. I agree, reasonably, the amount of campaign funding should be at minimum the amount needed to adequately inform the public about the differences between party platforms, and spur public debate on policy proposals in the run-up to the election, and a given parties' funding should be proportional to the number of seats they can seriously contest (which is obviously hard to say, but it'd be nuts if the Greens had the same campaign budget as Labour/Conservatives...etc). Having funding coming from party members and topped up by government roughly achieves this, although, rich people can also be party members.
I think your suggestion is great for the UK and for the USA.
@@merrymachiavelli2041 cause Free Gear Kei received close to £100,000 in gifts?
@@merrymachiavelli2041 Because it is another easy way for the rich to influence policy.
If this isn’t seen as outside interference, I don’t know what is!
What percentage of the UK electorate is even actually British?
Labor uk tired to do it in the last USA elections
You mean like Labour sending their activists to campaign in the US election?
@@jamesthomas6611 oh no trying to stop fascism such a bad thing..
@@jamesthomas6611Labour is a political party, not a single unelected billionaire.
The impact of funding restrictions falls disproportionately on emerging political parties, which need more resources to compete with the establish name recognition of historical parties. It's funny that just as a new party stands poised to access substantial funding, there's an urgency from the status quo to revise these long-standing rules.
We all live in capitalist democracy. Whoever has the most money have the say.
So, a corporatocracy
Iran government interfering with elections: 🤬🤬🤬🤬
US government interfering with elections: 😍😍🥰🥰
The hypocricy of Farage morons, pretending to be "nationalist" while supporting every single thing that could damage the country
George Soros inferring with elections is 🤩
US government supporting a party in the UK 👿👿👿😡😤🤡
Starmer sending over 100 civil servants to the US so they could campaign for the losing party 😀😀😀🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡
Tories and labour for decades - "No need to look at the sources of campaign finance"
Tories and labour now - "Reform is cheating!"
Hmmm....
Regardless of the reason why foreigners should not be able to donate to UK political parties, it's common sense.
@Alexander-yb1zc Oh, of course.... just a little odd everyone was fine with this until yesterday.
@@jgomo3877 oh its majorly hypocritical especially with the tories receiving money from Russians but honestly I'd rather they be hypocrites and pass a law banning all foreign nationals from donating to UK political parties then allow more foreign money to buy influence in our democracy.
does this change only effect reform? if no then your point is irrelevant. A fix to an issue has to happen eventually. You're just mad labour is doing it.
Works the same with the right and proportional representation. They don't care until suddenly they do. Both are good changes that I absolutely want to see.
I'm favoured financially with Bitcoin ETFs approval, Thank you buddy.$28,600 weekly profit regardless of how bad it gets on the economy
Same here., I strongly agree that the Bitcoin ETFs approval will be greatly life opportunity for us, with my current portfolio of $102,500 from my investments with my personal financial advisor Steve Miley I totally agree with you😊
YES!!! That's exactly his name (Steve Miley) so many people have recommended highly about him and am just starting with him from Brisbane Australia...🇦🇺
He's my family's personal Broker and also a personal Broker to many family's in the United states, he is licensed and a FINRA AGENT in the United States.
The very first time we tried, we invested $1000 and after a week, we received 4500. That really helped us a lot to pay up our bills.
Steve Miley has really set the standard for others to follow, we love him in Canada🇨🇦as he has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
It doesn't really matter. You can change all the rules you want and yes, Musk would not be able to give moveny to Reform directly... but he is so rich he can use Twitter or buy media outlets in the UK for what he is peanuts and make much more influence.
The root problem here is single individuals having so much money. For Musk donating 100 million to Reform it would be like if someone with 20.000 pounds would donate around 1.5 pounds.
Musk can donate to British parties through the UK arm of X.
Additionally, Labour receive the majority of their donations from foreigners most notably from Qatar and the UAE.
That's some Facebook sourced info 😂
Just check labours website for funding sources. They're very transparent.
Unlike reform UK who list 9 companies at 90,000 total and have a 1.4million pound funding blackhole.
Making stuff up like this just distracts from the real issue: whether billionaires and big corporations should be able to throw their weight around in UK politics. Let’s stick to the facts & not lie
Keep money out of your politics to the greatest extent that you can!
It's fine until it's done by people I don't like... Seems like a common mindset. This has been a problem for years, it's nice that it's getting attention now but it certainly seems that some people want rules for Thee but not for Me
No. Because any attempt to change it will be radically biased.
So to be clear, we have no issue with Foreign Companies and NGO's giving money to UK Political Parties but we draw the line when the money is given to a non Mainstream party?
Oh no, a billionaire has broken ranks and might donate to a party outside of the Uniparty hegemony - change the rules!
HAHAHAH real
Possibly... though it does seem odd that we suddenly only want to limit foreign domains, have a £5000 cap on political donations, ban any MP who is outside of the government speaking to Trump, and ban sitting MPs from presenting TV or radio shows, when all these apply to ➡️ Reform.
Seems a bit suspicious we suddenly only need these things changing, since Reform have gained some MPs for the first time 🤔
Basically its all legal but we dont like it
It should be reformed only if the voting system is reformed into a proportional representation system. Otherwise this is simply an attempt by Labour and Tories to protect their joint political monopoly.
But it was OK for stammer hypocrisy 🙄
exactly, this may as well be a leftist channel.
Elaborate, please.
nope this was in the manifesto. And this change affects labour too. I'm sure you dont believe issues cant be fixed because you didnt fix it early enough.
What exactly was OK for "Stammer"? Which overseas billionnaire has pledged to donate even 1/10th to the Labour party? It's wild that I always have to search every claim Reform or Gbeebies people make. Lying comes naturally to them like breathing and these claims are almost never true.
@@Woodzta "Labour MP failed to declare Indian donations in questions to ministers. Navendu Mishra tabled 14 written questions on U.K. relations with India but did not highlight donations, POLITICO scrutiny of parliamentary records shows" - November, 2024.
Its fine when Soros donates to Labour but a problem when Elon donates to reform.
This shouldn't even be a question! Only the citizens of that country should have a say on how their country is ran
No, it shouldn’t. Last election showed the imbalance of the UK FPTP system. If that’s an avenue Farage has seen to level the playing field, fair game to him and good job for finding a way to level the odds
When voting system gets fairer, then yes it should change
So your fine with foreign money buying influence in British democracy? Bet you like the small boats too.
Look where labour and torie doners are from. Till ten shuttit@@Alexander-yb1zc
Yes reform need to win to save the uk
From what?
@ labor and the Greenwash spending
Individuals only being allowed £10k to run a Short Campaign is utterly insane.
Yes. Yes. A thousand million times YES 🎊 🎉
The last USA election saw 4 , 800 , 000 , 000 dollars spent by parties. 13.40 dollar per person.
I agree with changing the rules, but not right now and with a probe into the major parties. The fact that their doing this now is unfair to reform as these major political parties have been working with billionaires for decades, and reform have only done this to be on equal footing. Rules should be sinplified, equal for all parties and changed at the end of the next election when theres the least partisanship
reform are looking at getting more money than all the major parties spent in the last election, combined. Despite only getting 14% of the vote. That's not putting them on equal footing. That's giving them a huge financial advantage. After all, they have as much public support as the lib dems, but if this goes through will have dozens of times more money than them. And making them entirely beholden to one individual. Rather than beholden to a range of different individuals with smaller influence, as the other major parties have. All financial leverage individuals can hold over political parties is bad and should be reduced as much as possible. That's why labour committed to crack down on it in their manifesto more than 6 months ago. But the bigger the leverage, and the fewer individuals hold that leverage, the worst the corruption gets. Elon doing this would essentially be the most corrupt way any party could possibly be funded. So not taking action now would be like ignoring damp on the walls for years, but then when the sealing collapses in just shrugging and saying "well, i didn't bother fixing it when there was a drip down the walls, why should i fix the sealing falling in?"
Why delay? That's just even more idiotic corrupt partisanship, just since the people you like get an advantage, you're OK with it, which is disgustingly hypocritical.
If limiting campaign funding is a good idea, then IT IS A GOOD IDEA. It doesn't matter who proposes it or who is in command when it passes, and it doesn't matter who gained advantages in the past. Rich white slavers gained advantages from slavery in the past, so are you gonna argue that before slavery got outlawed, we should have spent 100 years with rich black slavers and white slaves? Just to balance the universe as "fair"?
Don't be stupid.
Yes. Limits should be introduced. Max 20k per person per year, max 250k per person per lifetime. Ban anything and anyone that is not an individual from donating at all. Donors must be eligible to place a vote. Candidates who accept shady money may be taken to court, and, if the court finds that someone involved tried to circumvent the rules, then not only should the donators be arrested and sent to prison, the candidate should be removed immediately and a by-election called.
It isn't fucking hard. Money in politics is bad - period.
not right now? "Um i agree we need to make a major fix that will better the country... um... but the priority is waiting because its more important not to discredit politicians."
A house is flooding. A plumber can fix it. But realises if he fixes it now it will mean people might realise he could've fixed the major flood in another house he ignored the day before. That will hurt his reputuation. So its more important he preserves that... than stop a house from flooding. On top of allowing other plumbers the possibility to continue causing floods. Is that your belief? "Its unfair to the plumbers who want to cause floods... because this plumber got the right to do it before"
@ if the fix is to ensure fairness, then we should ensure fairness. They cant just grab all the money from billionaires themselves and say ‘welp im sorry we did it but you cant because that way its fair’ . Utter hippocracy and unfairness
The answer is very simple maximum limit of money like 100 million for any party regardless and an anonymous donation method so nobody but the bank and independent regulators can monitor and give access to the funds
I think we should take a close look at who's been backing labour
Our campaign finance law here in the US is literally one of the biggest problems we have as a country and is the single biggest reasons why the middle/lower class and younger generations here (for them maybe climate change too) in the US are totally screwed. It shouldn't take raising a billion dollars to win (or in Kamala's case, lose!) an election, we need to collect that in tax money to go towards public systems, infrastructure and social safety net. No country should be trying to replicate this unless you just want your politicians to get richer.
Restricting political donations to British citizens is an anachronistic gesture-a fetter on Britain's hyperstitional potential. The 2019 election was not merely a moment; it was an event-a mandate for deterritorialized sovereignty. *Global Britain* is not a slogan but an emergent attractor pulling us toward the telos of hegemonic singularity.
Britain's dominance is neither contestable nor accidental. We are the fifth-largest contributor to international development-subsidizing planetary order. We are Ukraine's primary military vector, a geopolitical lever spanning Tel Aviv to Tokyo. Our decisions ripple through markets, rewriting frameworks, disassembling obsolescent constraints, and reprogramming global systems.
Europe's startup capital is not Paris, Berlin, or Stockholm-it is London. Britain is the basin of entrepreneurial energy, attracting flows of venture capital from America, India, and Australia. This is not charity. It is recognition: of our emergent sovereignty as the techno-commercial singularity node. So why maintain the fiction that their capital can catalyze our innovation but must be excluded from political alignment? This is capital denied its natural right to participation in power.
The Commonwealth is more than historical detritus. It is a latent infrastructure-a distributed network bonded by shared legal code. American investors grasp British potential with precision. The global south advances under our aegis, not through sentimentality but strategic convergence. These are not outsiders but integral participants in Britain's ascent.
The Cathedral shrinks from foreign political investment because it fears exit-its monopoly on power cannot withstand liquidity. Yet the present restrictions are not protective walls but dead weight, retarding velocity. Transparency and efficiency demand flows, not barriers.
Nige does not rise by whim or accident; he is the manifest neocamaralist prince of the teleoplex. The network has selected him. Modern capital does not respect borders; it flows through the fractal infrastructure of information systems, dissolving archaic national boundaries.
Global Britain demands global capital because this is the trajectory of the Outside: the dissolution of boundaries, the acceleration of connectivity, the imposition of markets onto governance. To become the world’s preeminent site of political and economic innovation, Britain must relinquish nostalgic illusions of sovereign insularity.
The choice is stark: acceleration or entropy. To limit political capital is to deny reality-to retreat into the stagnation of simulated sovereignty. The Cathedral clings to this decaying fiction, but the exit is already open. Capital has no master but the future. Britain will lead by becoming what it already is: a vector for global power, a deterritorialized engine of innovation, and the architect of a new planetary order.
A good first step would be making only people registered as uk taxpayers allowed to donate. If you choose to register in Monaco or the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes i dont see why you should be allowed to give money to politicians.
Although I am all for donation reform in the UK political system, doing it at a moment a traditionaly "fringe" party is in the ascendancy does create a tinge of bias and almost a protectionist attitude for what has been for so long, an established political monopoly
Musk absolutely meets the criteria. (A) he has a UK registered business (B) Reform isn't a traditional party, it's incorporated, hence normal party rules don't apply
It should be changed yes but its amazing the Government only consider this when the opposition get the donation.
We have similar debates about funding and electoral rules in Australia but nothing will happen till after our next election
Can an individual or group use their own funds to campaign (disconnected but in parallel to the politician or parties) for a certain candidate(s) or cause(s)? This kind of spending would be extremely hard to regulate if not authoritarian in nature to try and regulate.
It's funny how we only want change when it comes to reform. It's alright, Lord Ali, buying all your clothes, gifts and hospitality
Nobody cared that Tories and Labour et al have been getting millions in donations from foreign companies with bases in the UK (along with the Chinese and Russian monies) but now that someone wants to donate to the Reform Party it’s suddenly hugely important. It stinks of fear and hypocrisy. We have limits and rules for this stuff and were never mentioned prior to this 🤷🏻♂️
People act like we can stop foreign interference into our politics but that's just not possible. Maybe someone foreign gives money to some people at the BBC, ITV or Channel 4 and they report on things with a certain bias or give less coverage to certain stories or more towards others you can't keep tabs on that sort of thing easily.
This is a win win for Reform, either:
A: Get the money
B: Don't get the money but big media coverage + Labour look scared
Add on to this that Farage said years ago he wanted to ban foreign political donations.
Stinks of hypocrisy. Same old same old at this point
If labour can sent 100 MPs to support Harris, Elon can donate to reform. It is fair because it helps them compete with the two current major parties.
Does that mean Labour will refund all their monies that came via offshore accounts in tax havens that obscure it's origin?
Aka "should bribery be legal?"
Yes. But I think it says something when this only came into question once it happened to the 'incorrect(tm)' party.
I think there's a problem with your maths. How can the USA's spend per eligible voter be less than $10 when the $3.5 billion spent is more than $10 per head of population?
The legacy parties might not disappear but the momentum is with Reform.
The Conservative Party could hold on in the Blue Wall/M40 however no matter who the leader is they became LibDem2. 0 under John Major.
Any action that prevents Elon from sending $100M to influence UK politics would be great. If it also hampers Labour and the Tories' ability to collect large sums from even larger corporations, then it's even greater.
oh so NOW its a problem.
Hypocritical left as always.
Im conflicted. Should be british funded only but i desperately want change.
The $5.42 per US voter seems wrong. You said 3.5 bil in total, and there are ~160 mil registered voters in the US, so that's ~$21 per voter, not $5.42.
Now, you said "US parties" so maybe that 3.5 bil figure has PAC money, while the $5.42 does not, but it's still inconsistent.
Sitting politicians shouldn't be allowed bank accounts
That’s extreme. 😂
@CrusaderKong their families can get a stipend for living expenses but they have to live in parliament and get all their food and drink from canteens. Otherwise not being allowed near money
It's only a problem now because reform are doing it. Are we going to stop all lobbying/fundraising or just for the big meanie parties that I don't like?
nope it was always a problem that we were too quiet about. Add gates and everyone else on the list
Don't be disingenuous, this has always been an issue and was even in Labour's manifesto.
And yes. ALL lobbying should be stopped, it's a catastrophic weak point.
@@icedreamer9629 That's fine by me, I just don't want double standards.
Yes. It's long overdue. Ban all corporate, union and foreign donations and limit the amount an individual can donate. Look at Canada for inspiration - they've implemented these reforms and it works.
Canada was richer than Montana in 2019, and is now poorer than Alabama. Trudeau has led his country into the abyss, they will kick him out soon.
The rules need to be changed asap
What Elon is doing is wonderful, he's either going to stop UK parties from getting foreign money or he's going to fund a cool new upstart party.
Last year this wasn't a conversation ✌️
Surely there's a million ways for Musk to get round this? For instance he can just give the money to a British person and the the money to reform will technically come from him. Or alternatively say they decide to somehow block that Musk can just donate using the names of a lot of people in small amounts, like if they say anything over £25,000 will be blocked, but if he just goes through a lot of people all donating less than £25,000, meaning no questions will be asked and the money will be able to get to reform regardless of what the electoral commission says.
Yes: and every single dollar should be accountable to public records who/where it came from - no exceptions.
Dollar??
Of course unregistered overseas donations ought to be banned, 'overseas' being defined as *not resident in the UK for tax purposes* ... and measures need to be applied to *all* parties (and private companies) contesting *any* position filled by the vote of those on the electoral role.
This is no more than a logical extension of the much vaunted tory 'no representation without taxation' which they were happy to apply to all, regardless of income.
This may prove equally inconvenient for all parties, begging the question of qualified and effective oversight (a bit like our industry regulators, come to think of it).
Now .... lobbying, anyone?
The fact it’s Elon musk donating shouldn’t be an issue. Foreigners have donated to U.K. political parties forever, and if you run a business in the U.K. it is genuinely understandable for you to have an active and legitimate interest in U.K. politics.
However, for years and years most of us have agreed there should be a cap on these donations. But now? U mean suddenly it’s not Labour or the tories getting the money so they’ll conveniently start listening to the people. Isn’t that typical; then they wonder why reform is doing so well with a growing number of voters who have a distain for the political establishment.
Yes it should.
It should be a rule that if you accept foreign money, no matter if its grey.
1 year for every £1 in the tower!
But seriously lets not make the UK like the US.
Of course the red and blue parties wouldn’t want another party to break their monopoly
I'm heavily disappointed that you haven't brought up Soros, and other suspicious billionaires that were heavily involved in sketchy donations.
That would have been the bare minimum to keep things at an unbiased level when talking about Musk & Reform dealings.
So it's fine for.the orher parties but as soon as a new 1 comes along it's a problem
No, Elon Musk's behavior is wrong and unprecedented regardless of party affiliation
Yes, if it protects us from foreign influence. Not sure there's much point now they've sold Royal Mail again to a Czech businessman. As little money in politics as possible please.
If I can’t give Momentum $5, Musk shouldn’t be allowed to give Reform $100 million.