I guess so, but the likes of Delo and Harborne like to be seen to give large donations.
Let them give the same amount to a cancer research charity or Barnardoâs and I will listen hard to what they have to say. Far more than I do now when they give toâŚ
Youâd have to have a heck of a lot of relatives at 5k a pop to get to 70 million so I think it would go a long way to dealing with it. No way is perfect and I guess these super wealthy types will still try to fiddle it somehow, but then thatâs where a proper planning and researching process comes in to at least attempt to think of every eventuality and put in provisions to stop it. Off the top of my head would it be legal for, say, Bamford to donate ÂŁ5k to all his employees who opt in for them to then donate it to a specific party or candidate.
Yep, 14 thousand of them (open to correction) Maybe the Bamford employees would opt to donate to a Trade Union? Or direct to Labour? 
I can see that encouraging public participation in politics, giving up time and working for free, or giving small amounts of cash if you are time poor, would probably be a good thing.
Any system has potential pitfalls and unforeseen outcomes.
What we have now is pretty near to broken, and needs something doing to it.
I donât think theyâll get any return on giving money to charity. Certainly not the kind of return they hope to get from Farage.
Exactly. So no time soon then.
These are canny businessmen giving to RefUK Ltd. They know the power of advertising, and know that adverts and carefully placed comments and articles etc etc all do influence public opinion.
I know everyone here will be saying âYes, everyone, but not meâ.
.
.
I am saying that too.
But I also know that in that case I am kidding myself. No one is immune to influence. Some more than others, but all of us are susceptible.
1 Like
ÂŁ5,000 is way too much if you are making a point, there is no way I would give so much to a political party and it would still leave the super rich in control
I see more Reform characters have been caught out with being heard discussing not very nice things. Not a party decent people want to be associated with if they carry on like that
Didnât you hear? âOur Nigelâ will introduce vetting and rid RefUK Ltd of all the nasties. (2024)
I even heard that one of them was really an undercover Tory sent in to make RefUK Ltd look bad!
None of them are decent people, the ones seeking office arenât decent people and the ones who vote for them arenât decent people either.
4 Likes
Thatâs pretty much the attitude of both sides during the Troubles.
Also worth considering, a significant proportion of people in the UK may not be âdecentâ by some standards and would never vote for a party that was.
The difficulty is that when people who consider themselves âdecentâ express the view that some people arenât, are in some way lesser, it - in a society of moral relativism - gives licence to people like Farage to do exactly the same thing about migrants. Or gay people, or trans, or fashes like me 
After BJ was voted in I realised the British people would prefer to be governed by a criminal than someone with their best intentions at heart.
2 Likes
Absolutely, they wonât get a return from charities. Charities seek to keep the UK healthy, these bastards want to destroy the UK and its society.
Braverman and Jenrick arenât undercover are they?
1 Like
Charities donât accept dodgy money either. Theyâre more concerned about reputational risk than politicians are.
1 Like
And at least one religion is a political ideology hiding in plain sight.
When was the last time the UK had the latter?
Christianity / Socialism ?
Catholicism / Dictatorship ?
Donât take me too seriously here!
1 Like