The best-rated arguments sat with the losing side. Yes carried an overwhelming win, but the two most-respected No cases were less about donors than about whose money the question was really aimed at.
The most-respected Yes case was blunt: “Absolutely Foreigners must never control the narrative for this country EVER”. Others in the same vein called it “a perfectly sensible safeguard against foreign interference in elections”, and one said it simply “doesn't seem right” for someone unable to vote here to fund a party.
No voters came at it sideways. One of the two joint most-respected No voices admitted voting No “for the humour of it” and set a price for switching: extend the ban to unions bankrolling Labour. The other read the question as partisan cover. Another No voter thought the measure made it “harder for insurgent parties to challenge the status quo”, while a different one argued that “foreign billionaires funding activist groups and lobbyists is a bigger concern”.
The union point cut across the divide. A Yes voter complained that “Labour will never restrict the amount unions can donate”, and another Yes voter replied to the No camp that the question never mentions unions. Yes voters mostly stuck to foreign interference; No voters mostly stuck to who gets exempted.
The result is a lopsided yes to a principle, with the dissenters asking whether it would be applied evenly.
82 Opinions
Sneaky anti Farage question. Designed to make you think of UK voters but really it’s not funding parties the Left does not like. The Liberals particularly & Labour enjoy foreign funding with impunity & ritually deflect any criticism. Reform & Tories are pilloried. The Left in its sweet totalitarian manner does not want completion & is ambivalent about cheating. How can they get to a glorious Communist future if have to obey pesky rules? Q is what influence/rewards expected?
I voted no for the humour of it. I might change to yes if it was extended to banning Unions bankrolling Labour.
No because it won’t stop billionaires like Soros interfering thru activist groups such as neon and his open borders I mean open society ‘charity’
Absolutely Foreigners must never control the narrative for this country EVER
Labour have received millions from the unions. The unions would need a ballot of all members to determine which party receives their money if we're going to have a level playing field
It makes it harder for insurgent parties to challenge the status quo. It’s clearly being targeted at undermining reform
Labour will never restrict the amount unions can donate. "Some pigs are equal...."?
As this is entirely targeting one party, I'm not going for it. I'm not planning on voting Reform, and £76 million isn't going to change the policies or its representatives. If that money does alow better vetting then that's a good thing surely? If some French guy donated a billion to the Green party, it doesn't make the party stronger. A party is it's leader, it's manifesto, it's values. To some degree it's top team. Donations are kind of irrelevant.
Wouldn't do anything and is just a step towards the government being able to decide that their party is the only one allowed to have donations while the opposition is not. This is not something we should allow the government to have a say in.
People funding political parties isn’t the problem. Foreign billionaires funding activist groups and lobbyists is a bigger concern