« Timmy Elsewhere | Main | Britblog Roundup #104 »

February 11, 2007

UKIP Funding

Gosh, this is a terrible blow, isn't it? Something from which no political party could be expected to recover:

For instance, Ukip's south-east office received donations of £291,000 in 2004, more than twice as much as the party's head office. Yet some £280,000 did not need to be declared because it consisted of individual donations of less than £1,000 each.

Raising money in small amounts from the citizenry, actually engaging with the concerns of the party members sufficiently to get them to open their wallets. If this caught on, who would suck up to rich businessmen, where would the case be for taxation based funding of political parties?

February 11, 2007 in Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UKIP Funding:


It's a ruddy disgrace I tell, not only do we have a party leader who accepts that activities in his party were wrong, without dissembling, but the Party abides by the law, and gets its money from the little people.
Shouldn't be alowed I tell you

Posted by: Elaib | Feb 11, 2007 11:08:51 AM

This whole party funding business is the height of detestable hypocrisy. What the hell is wrong with parties receiving funds, as long as they're recorded? And even those which are not - maybe I'm missing something here but what's the big deal? They can do as they wish.

Posted by: james higham | Feb 11, 2007 11:18:52 AM

Nigel Farage was interviewed on Hard Talk by Andrew Neil last night. Much to my surprise he was really quite impressive.

Posted by: Bob Doney | Feb 11, 2007 12:04:00 PM

IF this is ONE of the "separate issues" the electoral commission is looking at, it seems reasonable to ask about the numbers. Say at least 3,000 individuals giving to one regional office of a small party. Possible. But it would be reasonable for a supervisory body to ask for a list of donors, especially since (IIRC) SE Region was far, far ahead of other Regions. How so?

Secondly - again IIRC - the accounts gave minimal information about where the money had gone.

Posted by: Purple Scorpion | Feb 11, 2007 12:49:20 PM

Similar discussion pops up here (U.S.) from time to time.

Incumbents (Democrats, historically) tend to favor. And it gets tied into spending limits. Only makes sense to support those who've managed to find support in the past and to limit their need to spend outrageously by limiting the support their opposition can attain.

In the 2000 election, published data showed that Bush had the biggest war-chest with an average contribution Republican--party of the rich) of $76. The Ds (the party of the people, of the average Joe, of the great mass of working men and women) had to content themselves with an average contribution of only $22,000!

Another feature of some of the "campaign finance" laws proposed (and whether in effect, I really don't know) is, frquently, some set of circumstances under which the loot can (legally) end up in the candidate's own pocket.

Posted by: gene berman | Feb 11, 2007 6:23:41 PM

Er,... from the Sunday Telegraph:

An investigation by this newspaper has also revealed that Alan Bown, a former bookmaker, has bankrolled Ukip with more than £1 million. He has provided 40 per cent of the party's declared donations in the past four years.

One man is responsible for 40% of the party's funding? Unless this is untrue, it represents as great a reliance on "rich businessmen" as that of any other party.

Posted by: Mr Eugenides | Feb 11, 2007 6:45:35 PM

I see it's 40% of "declared" donations. So that would alter the maths somewhat. However, it still seems an awful lot riding on one man/

I hope for your sake he has private health insurance.

Posted by: Mr Eugenides | Feb 11, 2007 6:50:59 PM