Anni has worked across commercial, political and not for profit sectors in her 25 years as a public relations consultant. Her client list has included such diverse organisations as a radiator manufacturer, local council, science start-ups and even a synchronised swimming team.
Most recently she has been focused on the campaigning sector. As Campaign Manager for the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign she is part of the team who succeeded in introducing mixed-sex civil partnerships in England and Wales at the end of 2019.
Response to the Rycroft Review leaves big donors unchecked
On the 6th July the Government published their response the Rycroft Review into countering foreign financial interference and influence in UK politics, accepting all the recommendations in the report. With regard to political finance, an area in which Radix Big Tent and allies in the Resilient Democracy network have been particularly active, we welcome the already implemented resolve to ban donations over £100,000 from overseas donors and the resolve that the ban should remain in place for a further twelve months after the donor returns or moves to the UK.
The review was specifically aimed at countering foreign interference but the question remains: if a more than £100,000 donation is deemed unfair when coming from overseas, it surely doesn't become fairer if given by a UK donor. We are still asking that a £100,000 cap is implemented on all individual donations and are urging MPs to support Stella Creasy's amendment to the Representation of the People Bill when it returns to parliament on 14th July.
Below is the response from members of the Resilient Democracy network.
Duncan Hames, Director of Policy at Transparency International UK
"We welcome the Government’s plans to tighten the rules on pre-candidacy and corporate donations, but their cap on overseas donors does not go far enough to protect our democracy or restore trust in our politics.
"How you reform political finance matters. Changes made by the party in government that appear to single out a rival's backers will be seen as partisan. A cap that applies equally to every party and every individual donor, wherever they reside, would be both fairer and simpler.
"If ministers are serious that British democracy is not for sale, they need to cap the size of political donations, not just ask where donors live. Until they do, the door remains open to anyone wealthy enough to walk through it."
"There is a straightforward way for Parliament to change this. Stella Creasy's amendment would place a £100,000 cap on donations that applies equally to every party and every individual donor. We urge MPs across the House to back it and finally take big money out of British politics."
Read the full statement from Transparency International here
Tom Brake Chief Executive, Unlock Democracy
“The government’s latest proposals tie political donations up in ever more complicated rules that are hard to explain, harder to enforce and risk looking less than even-handed.
“While it’s welcome ministers accept the need for tougher restrictions on donations, these complex proposals risk replacing one set of problems with another.
“Far simpler, not to mention more effective, to cap all political donations at the same reasonable level – we’d argue no more than £100,000 – regardless of who or where they come from. Big money is no less game-changing when donated from Bayswater rather than Bangkok.
“Steve Reed has said that ‘British democracy is not for sale’. But these proposals do not stop political parties receiving multi-million donations from wealthy UK individuals or large companies. If the aim is, in Darren Jones’ words, ‘to crack down on those trying to buy – and sell – our democracy’, that omission is difficult to justify.
“A universal cap on donations would be easier to administer and far more likely to command public confidence. It would show a rightly sceptical electorate that political access and influence cannot be bought.
“More broadly, the accusation, however unfair, of partisan bias in these proposals shows why the rules of political competition should not be written by those with skin in the game. Detailed changes like these should be the job of the Electoral Commission.”
“Enhanced parliamentary candidate disclosures are welcome, but an exemption for all personal gifts is too generous. Recent questions surrounding Nigel Farage's receipt of £5 million illustrate exactly why that distinction can become so difficult to sustain in practice. Only personal gifts of nominal value should be exempted from transparency requirements.”
Read the full statement from Unlock Democracy here
Rate this post
Leave a comment
Please login or register to leave a comment on this post.
