‘The Sherriff of Wild Westminster: what must change in elections bill’

British democracy is facing a crisis of confidence. With the dark tendrils of the Epstein files reaching deep into our body politic, a change of Government has yet to evoke the “government of Service” that was pitched by Kier Starmer as Labour swept to victory.

Public trust in politicians is at rock bottom and with net approval ratings for all party leaders in the negative, and even for the PM amongst Labour party members, the recently introduced Representation of the People Bill has some heavy lifting to do. 

The Bill comes at a critical juncture in British politics and is touted as a measure to restore trust in the Party and the political class by tackling rogue donors, extending the vote to 16 year-olds and addressing the inconsistencies surrounding voter ID. It lays out some commendable steps to address foreign influence in elections – with one eye on Russia – while also tinkering with the machinery of voting, but it is largely devoid of the robust measures necessary to tackle the wilder reaches of the Westminster prairie. 

The public perception is that politicians can be bought and sold. Influence can be traded for a billionaire’s pocket change. Or, to put it another way, UK democracy is for sale for less than the price of a Premier League footballer. 

The Mandelson affair is the latest in a long line of insider scandals that lay bare the informal network of social capital that is used to extend undue influence. But that influence also comes from actual capital. Elon Musk’s musings that he might give £100 million to Reform UK is not the only incursion by a billionaire seeking to rig the system. Last year, Thai-based crypto-financier Christopher Harborne donated £9 million to Reform UK and British video game tycoon Jeremy Elliot San gave £3 million to the Conservative Party. In 2024, Labour received a £4m donation from tax-haven-based hedge fund Quadrature Capital.

Measures designed to prevent a South African living in the US from backing UK parties he deems as “disruptors” do nothing to prevent the distortion of our elections, by those with limitless cash and a UK passport. The wielding of such naked power only serves to tell the British public that democracy is only for those who can afford it. 

But the Bill could be amended to give it real teeth.

READ MORE: ‘Labour must confront the crisis of first past the post before it’s too late’

A regulator free of political influence

First, we need a regulator free of political influence. The changes set out in the 2022 Elections Act gave the Government of the day control over the very body which polices the means by which it is elected. Electoral management body independence is set out under international law and in a range of international guidelines and, unsurprisingly, the change brought in under the 2022 Act was criticised by two different international electoral observer missions during the 2024 General Election. 

With the new Bill, the government must remove the power for ministers to set a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, and beef-up the protections to ensure the oversight of the Commission is independent and run through the Speaker’s Committee.

Cap on political donations

Second, the government must introduce a cap on political donations. Unlimited donations allow a tide of influence to be bought and sold to the highest bidder and horribly distorts the balance of power in the UK towards the richest. 

The current measures in the Bill still allow gaming of the rules, with the Electoral Commission already saying they are deeply flawed. Money is not the same as free speech and an individual or company that gives millions to a political party clearly expects something in return, whether explicitly or implicitly. Setting a robust cap on donations would reduce the temptation on political parties to offer a nod and wink of policies, jobs, or seats in the Lords, to those able to donate seven figure sums.

Tackling cryptocurrency donations

Third, the Bill needs to confront head-on the issue of cryptocurrency donations. Although this may change with the conclusion of the Rycroft review, at present the lack of transparency as to the real sources of crypto-funds, demands a moratorium on political donations given in this way, until both recipients and regulators can be certain that they can be shown to come from legitimate sources and are given by eligible donors acting within the law.

There are many commendable measures laid out in this Bill, but without these further steps it will do little to see off the bandits trying to buy our democracy, let alone restore public trust in the body politic or the party. Westminster cannot be allowed to become a new wild West.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook.

Share your thoughts. Contribute on this story or tell your own by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].