Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[Stevo 666]

Wow, that's a leap. You think being funded by organisations that support UK employees within the UK is worse than being funded by wealthy people living in other countries that don't have the UKs best interests at heart?

Oddly enough, most parties won't accept dodgy money. Reform is reaping the benefits of having no moral compass.

If the donations are legal then who are we to argue. You clearly don't like the donors to certain parties but that is no concern of mine.

 

[BoldonLad]

The full register is kept viewable at two places by every council. Electoral services and a publicly accessible place, usually the local central library or the town hall.
You can view and make written notes of it, but no photographs or scanning of it allowed.

They may have had an observer at the polling station, who can mark a copy of the register, with who has voted.
They can then take the information on that marked copy, which could include the ballot paper number issued to you, and then have one of their counting agents at the count keeping an eye out for numbers.
You may have not have been a guess.

We do postal votes, and have for about 18 years

 

[Pblakeney]

They may have had an observer at the polling station, who can mark a copy of the register, with who has voted.
They can then take the information on that marked copy, which could include the ballot paper number issued to you, and then have one of their counting agents at the count keeping an eye out for numbers.
You may have not have been a guess.

Not possible. I started doing postal votes while working away from home, as per BoldonLad.

 

[Beebo]

If the donations are legal then who are we to argue. You clearly don't like the donors to certain parties but that is no concern of mine.

Should someone who doesn’t live in the UK be able to influence the outcome of an election by donating millions of pounds?

I’m not sure anyone should be able to donate more than £100k pa, as no one donates huge sums without expecting some sort of kick back.

 

[BoldonLad]

Should someone who doesn’t live in the UK be able to influence the outcome of an election by donating millions of pounds?

I’m not sure anyone should be able to donate more than £100k pa, as no one donates huge sums without expecting some sort of kick back.

Why not just ban donations, full stop?, and have a basic funding model. Yes, it would cut down the size of the Party "machines" but, would that be a bad thing?, a few, well, a lot, less "SPADS" would be a good thing (except, possibly, for SPADS)

 

[icowden]

If the donations are legal then who are we to argue.

Last time I checked, the electorate.

You clearly don't like the donors to certain parties but that is no concern of mine.

So you aren't bothered about citizens of other countries bribing our politicians for personal and financial gain? Most of us are very bothered. There are no examples I can think of where a corrupt government has worked well.

 

[Stevo 666]

Last time I checked, the electorate.

So you aren't bothered about citizens of other countries bribing our politicians for personal and financial gain? Most of us are very bothered. There are no examples I can think of where a corrupt government has worked well.

So who would be on this committee that vets potential political donors to decide whether they are deemed worthy of making donations?

 

[Stevo 666]

Should someone who doesn’t live in the UK be able to influence the outcome of an election by donating millions of pounds?

I’m not sure anyone should be able to donate more than £100k pa, as no one donates huge sums without expecting some sort of kick back.

As above, its legal then it's OK. If you don't like that, write to your MP.

 

[Ian H]

Perhaps restrict donations to a percentage of tax paid in the UK

 

[AuroraSaab]

You can examine party donations/donors here.

https://donation.watch/en/unitedkingdom

They have all accepted large donations and, on the basis that there's no such thing as a free lunch, I can't see that one party is better than any other in terms of accusations of being open to undue influence.

 

[TailWindHome]

The criteria to be an eligible donor should be the same as that to be an eligible voter.

 

[briantrumpet]

Populism doesn't mix with difficult decisions. Given that pretty much all politics is difficult decisions, one could suggest that that might be disqualifying.

 

[Beebo]

You can examine party donations/donors here.

https://donation.watch/en/unitedkingdom

They have all accepted large donations and, on the basis that there's no such thing as a free lunch, I can't see that one party is better than any other in terms of accusations of being open to undue influence.

You are correct on the one hand, but there is a case to be made for limiting large donations from overseas and from a single individual.

The criteria to be an eligible donor should be the same as that to be an eligible voter.

Everyone’s vote is equal, a millionaire’s vote has just as much power as a pauper’s. But with financial donations, a millionaire can circumvent that and become have far more influence over the democrats process, and that doesn’t seem equitable. Especially as their influence is nearly always in their self interest.

 

[Pblakeney]

You are correct on the one hand, but there is a case to be made for limiting large donations from overseas and from a single individual.



Everyone’s vote is equal, a millionaire’s vote has just as much power as a pauper’s. But with financial donations, a millionaire can circumvent that and become have far more influence over the democrats process, and that doesn’t seem equitable. Especially as their influence is nearly always in their self interest.

True, but the criteria would be a good starting point.

 

[briantrumpet]

You are correct on the one hand, but there is a case to be made for limiting large donations from overseas and from a single individual.



Everyone’s vote is equal, a millionaire’s vote has just as much power as a pauper’s. But with financial donations, a millionaire can circumvent that and become have far more influence over the democrats process, and that doesn’t seem equitable. Especially as their influence is nearly always in their self interest.

How would we feel if Trump gave Farage £1bn, with the express intention of installing a pro-Trump government? I think that would go firmly into the category of regime change.