Mark Littlewood speaks with Toby Young - Anonymous Tweets?

 Should Tweets be allowed to be anonymous or should people be named?

Click below to see Toby Young's answer!

Mark Littlewood speaks with Toby Young

UK Politics needs a deep clean

 

The following is an edited extract from an article by John Penrose on the Capx web site

                      UK Politics needs a deep clean

Why Labour’s integrity reforms fall short

For example, the new rules to stop severance payments for Ministers who take plush jobs lobbying parts of government they were leading a few months before are welcome but too weak. They won’t stop anyone whose new job pays more than the severance they’re losing; they ought to cover senior political advisers as well as Ministers; and the equivalent rules for senior Whitehall mandarins aren’t always enforced properly either.

The transparency improvements which have been promised to show who has met Government Ministers and mandarins, and what was discussed, are essential and welcome. But they need to cover political advisers as well, and need to be searchable to ensure there’s no special treatment or access for people who’ve made political donations. And the same goes for the promised new rules controlling who sees secret Government briefings, so they can’t be shared for profit – as the police are investigating in the latest Mandelson case.

Equally, some rules on conflicts of interest look too narrow if they assume political favours are only done for profit. There are plenty of reasons why non-profits like charities, labour unions and religious bodies also want to bend the ears of Ministers, mandarins and advisers. Most will be fine but, inevitably, a few won’t. So assuming they are all pure as the driven snow just because there’s no profit involved is naïve and dangerous.

Political honours fuel charges of cronyism

Political honours should be included in the reforms and pared back sharply. Otherwise, every New Year and King’s Birthday Honours list will continue to attract accusations of cronyism. Such claims undermine what ought to be a joyful celebration of British achievement and public service. Instead of showing that our country is a genuinely fair and meritocratic aristocracy of talent, the current system reinforces the perception that we are a society where a gilded elite rewards its friends.

Last but not least, all these risks aren’t confined to Westminster and Whitehall either. Quangos, devolved governments and local councils are all vulnerable in one way or another, so any integrity reset needs to cover them thoroughly, rather than leaving reforms to an unspecified date that may never come.

If the Government is serious about tackling the integrity crisis in UK politics and restoring public trust, it will need more than symbolic reform. An integrity reset is still possible and, given this Government’s ever-growing list of scandals, it’s probably more important than ever. But this time, it will take an even bigger bucket of disinfectant to get the job done.

Money and Politics Public support for reform!

 38 degrees has published the following on their web site.   It should raise concerns with anyone who believes in democracy.   Time for Action!

38degrees.org.uk 

Money and Politics

The scale of the problem

In recent years, British political parties have become increasingly reliant on a very small number of extremely wealthy donors. These donations are legal, but their size and concentration raise serious questions about influence, access and fairness.

[i] In late 2025, Reform UK received a record £9 million donation from Christopher Harborne, a multi‑millionaire crypto investor who has lived in Thailand for around 20 years.

[ii] This single donation was larger than the total donations received by the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party combined in 2025. Harborne has now provided almost two‑thirds of all the money Reform UK has ever raised. In total, more than 75% of Reform's funding has come from just three men.

[iii] This pattern is not confined to one party. Big money is rapidly reshaping the base of all political parties. Labour In the year leading up to the 2024 general election, Labour received £13 million from companies — more than it received from all trade unions combined. This was the first time in British history that corporate donations to Labour exceeded funding from the trade union movement. The largest single donation in Labour’s history was made during this period: £4 million from Quadrature Capital, a hedge fund whose parent company is based in the Cayman Islands.

Conservatives In the same pre‑election year, just three donors provided more than half of the Conservatives’ £52 million campaign funds. The largest donor was The Phoenix Partnership, a company that supplies software to the NHS, which gave £15 million in a single year. Across all major parties, election campaigning is increasingly funded by a handful of individuals and corporations with extraordinary financial resources. This is no longer a party-political issue but a systemic feature of how British politics is now funded.

Why this matters

When political parties depend on a small number of very wealthy donors, several risks arise: Disproportionate influence – A few individuals can gain far greater access and influence than ordinary voters.

Policy distortion – Parties may become more responsive to donors’ interests than to public priorities.

Public trust – Large donations undermine confidence that politics is fair and not for sale. At a time when trust in political institutions is fragile, the perception that money buys access is profoundly damaging to Parliament’s legitimacy.

These risks are intensified in an international context where billionaire‑owned tech platforms and cross‑border wealth increasingly shape political debate. Under current law, there is no meaningful upper limit on how much a single individual can give to a political party. This leaves the UK unusually exposed to financial capture. For example, if Elon Musk were to carry through with his promise to donate $100 million to a UK party, this would represent around 0.014% of his personal wealth — the equivalent of £5.60 for someone earning £40,000 a year — but could radically reshape British politics. The growing use of cryptocurrency in political donations introduces an additional risk: funds that are harder to trace, easier to move across borders, and more difficult for regulators and the public to scrutinise.

Public support for reform 

Public concern about big money in politics is strong and consistent. A Survation poll for 38 Degrees found that 57% of adults support a legal cap on political donations, while only 7% oppose it. Nearly one‑third (31%) say they strongly support a cap. 

A separate YouGov poll found that just 13% of people think individuals should be allowed to donate unlimited sums to political parties. Public mobilisation is already under way: So far, 84,267 people have signed a 38 Degrees and Democracy for Sale petition calling for a cap on political donations. 

These figures show a clear public mandate for reform. Action in the Elections Bill to address this issue would respond directly to a widely held public concern and demonstrate that Parliament is serious about tackling the role of big money in politics.

Meeting with Claire Coutinho MP - a great Conservative

 A Selfie with Claire Coutinho MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy at lunch organised by the Taxpayer's Alliance. She was magnificent, a true Conservative.   I am sure she will be a Star of the future!   Thank you to John O'Connell  and Clare Rusbridge for organising the lunch which was splendid.   The Taxpayer's Alliance is a great pressure group.   It does a terrific amount of essential research on all government expenditure and well worthy of support.

Rational Optimism - Can Government expenditure be cut? with Matt Ridley

 Rational Optimism - Mark Littlewood speaks to Matt Ridley:

Can Government Expenditure be cut?

Click on :  Mark Littlewood speaks to Matt Ridley