Let’s talk about political party funding. Always a contentious issue, its front and foremost in the press recently with arguments about Reform UK’s approach to compliance with the UK rules.
To be fair, this was a constructed sting operation. They are common in political circles, and perhaps the more extraordinary story is that politicians continue to get stung. But in this latest effort to make politics look dodgy, Nigel Farage, and his officials, were approached by someone saying they were a US family office, but how could they get around the rules to donate £500,000 to Reform, avoiding the ban on overseas donations.
This will no doubt be added to the list of cash question being asked by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards of Nigel Farage, but it does raise again the question of where political parties get their funding.
All parties need funding. They need it to get their messages out and to attract both new members (who bring their own funding source) and votes at elections. No funding, no political parties. No political parties, no democracy. Its important stuff.
But we all recognise that funding brings influence. And that is why this is both contentious and highly regulated. And each party complains about how the others raise cash.
For example, as a Conservative, we complain Labour or in the control of the union paymasters. But to be fair, the Labour Party was set up as the political arm of the unions, so you’d expect that. Meanwhile, Labour complains about capitalist funding of Conservatives. But despite all this whinging, we rarely change things, and the reason is that we all recognise that the only alternative to this is to fund parties from taxpayer resources, and no one wants that.
But what is absolutely vital about all this is transparency. And this goes to the heart of politics.
Irrespective of where money comes from (including if an MP receives gifts and any paid employment), everyone should know all about it. The more transparency the better. Then everyone can make up their own mind and raise it if there is an apparent conflict of interest.
And this is where Reform may have got it wrong. If it is proved they were looking at how to launder an overseas donation through a UK based relation, then that is against the letter and spirit of the rules. Transparency is everything.
