There has been a significant intervention in the debate around electoral reform recently, in the guise of former Prime Minister John Major. The Conservative politician has questioned the “validity” of the First Past the Post system for Westminster and said the case for examining its role is “growing”.

This is the latest in a growing drum beat of politicians on the right of British politics asking whether it’s time to ditch First Past the Post and move to a more proportional voting system. The case has long been made by Conservative Action for Electoral Reform, and since the last election figures such as Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans have both made the case for electoral reform.

Major’s intervention adds to this momentum, not least as it comes from a PM who directly benefited from Westminster’s voting system. His comments came when he gave the latest Attlee Foundation Lecture at King’s College London last month. The speech’s theme was that we are in the midst of a pivotal moment for democracy at home and abroad.

The former PM pointed out that democracy is in retreat in many parts of the world with only around a quarter of the globe living under a system where they get to genuinely choose who governs them.

Against such a backdrop, Major urged us not to take our own liberal democratic settlement for granted and warned that not addressing the declining faith in our political institutions could open up a vacuum into which a future autocrat could step.

‘Our democracy has fallen short of expectations’

He praised British democracy as a system that has been ‘an enabler’ for peace, as well as one that promotes justice, wellbeing and the transformation of life opportunities.

Yet, he warned:

“Along the way it makes mistakes, but its purpose is to extend freedoms of choice and action that more extreme politicians would curtail.

“But … but … we cannot ignore the uncomfortable truth that, in recent years, our democracy has fallen short of expectations.” 

The speech noted that many parts of our political settlement are now under strain, a theme typified by the waning dominance of the two traditional main parties. This can be seen in the fact that the last general election was the first time we saw four parties get over 10% of the vote, and since then that trend has only advanced and we now have five parties consistently polling over 10%.

In 2024 this helped create the most disproportional election result in UK history as Labour received two-thirds of the seats on a third of a vote, and the Greens and Reform together received less than 2% of the seats in Parliament despite garnering more than 20% of the vote combined. This means the current parliament is the most unrepresentative of how the country voted in history.

As voting preferences spread more widely First Past the Post provides distorted results

Major acknowledged in his speech that First Past the Post, which is designed for two parties, is acting more erratically as it struggles to cope in the current multiparty environment.

He said:

“Recent General Elections have thrown into doubt the continuing validity of the “first past the post” system of voting.  

“As voting preferences spread more widely it provides distorted results. The democratic case for examining this is growing, although changes would come with distinct drawbacks.” 

While the former Tory leader stopped short of voicing support for electoral reform or moving to a more proportional system, it is significant to have a former Conservative prime minster openly question the ‘validity’ of the Westminster voting system.

In 1992, Major was the beneficiary of First Past the Post’s disproportional winner’s bonus, as his 41.9% of the vote was boosted into 51.6% of the seats in Parliament. However, his comments also make sense in terms of his thesis that democracy needs to be seen to be serving the interests and meeting the needs of its citizens.

If First Past the Post continues to behave in a chaotic way, then we risk having an even more disproportional result and an even more unrepresentative parliament after the next election. The Institute for Government recently warned that voters will become “ever more frustrated” if “casting a vote starts to feel more like participating in a lottery”.

We have argued that this concern is particularly acute when trust in politics has already slumped to record lows in recent years. The case for moving to an electoral system that ensures seats in parliament properly represent how people voted is becoming stronger by the day.

Major calls for a cap on political donations

In his speech, John Major also called for a wider ‘updating’ of our politics, starting with a clean-up of donations and honours.

He said:

“Politics has a grubby underbelly that can make it look seedy. We need a spring clean.

Is political funding corrupted if ‒ with no qualifications other than money ‒ donors receive honours or preferential access to Ministers?  

“Should political donations be capped to protect against undue influence?  I believe the answer is – yes.”

This is an area where we also agree with the former prime minister, as we’ve called for a donations cap to stop money pouring into our politics and further corroding public trust. There has been some movement on this front, with the government pledging to cap overseas donations at £100,000 a year following the recommendations in the recent Rycroft report.

This is a welcome step in itself, but a cap needs to be applied to domestic donations as well, especially as massive donations from ultra-wealthy individuals are becoming an increasing feature of our politics.

Aside from his policy suggestions, one of the most striking messages from Major’s speech was his message on how democracy binds a society together while allowing it to work out its differences and find a way forward. He underscored this by addressing the optics of a Conservative prime minister giving a speech in honour of a Labour PM. Major said despite their differing political philosophies he admired many of Attlee’s achievements, from the creation of the NHS to his commitment to public service.

He added: “Of course, where he and I both active in politics today – there would be differences of policy, of priority, of philosophy. We are political opponents. But mark this: Opponents, Yes. Enemies, No.”

Have you been ‘questioning the validity of First Past the Post’?

Add your name to our call to scrap First Past the Post

Today we welcomed the review by Philip Rycroft into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. The review rightly identifies a loss of trust in our democratic system and processes, and the importance of securing our democracy from those who seek to undermine it.

The review makes many excellent recommendations that we have been calling for, including a moratorium on crypto donations, strengthening the corporate donations test, tighter regulation of online political advertising and increasing enforcement around political finance. The review also recommends a cap on donations from voters living overseas.

The Secretary of State responded to the report in Parliament today, confirming that the government will be amending the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a £100,000 cap on overseas donations and a temporary ban on cryptocurrency donations of any amount. They will also respond to the other recommendations.

Why not cap all donations?

The Representation of the People Bill would be greatly strengthened by taking on the recommendations of Rycroft’s report. However, the government must go further and also bring in a cap on how much all donors can give to a party, not just those based abroad. This is widely supported by the public and would help prevent our politics from being swamped with massive donations, which now frequently reach into the multiple millions.

Donations in the millions from private sources have increased significantly over time. In the year prior to the 2024 General Election, political parties received 18 separate donations of £1 million or more. Totalling almost £41 million this represents 32% of the total party donations within that period. In total, nearly a third of donations to political parties in the pre-election regulated period came from just nine sources.

It is crucial that the public always trusts that politicians are acting in their interest and not of those with the deepest pockets. Our politics should not be for sale to the highest bidder or left open to the influence of hostile foreign powers.

The ERS fed into the Rycroft Review

We are grateful to have met with Philip Rycroft and had the opportunity to raise our concerns as part of the review process. It is very welcome that the review has taken a comprehensive approach to these issues and suggested a wide range of significant changes.

The rules around money in politics need to be strengthened to ensure that politicians are always focused on the needs of voters, not donors.

Join the Electoral Reform Society

Thousands of ERS members support meetings like this as well as our work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Join the ERS today

Polling published in the last few weeks reveals that the British public are worried about the influence of money in politics, with a majority wanting to see the introduction of caps on donations to political parties.  

A Survation poll, conducted between 9-11 December 2025, on behalf of 38 Degrees, found that 57% of people support the introduction of a cap on the amount of money individuals or companies can donate to parties, while just 7% were against. 

Separate polling by YouGov (27-29 December 2025), shows that just 13% of people think that individuals should be allowed to give as much as they wish to political parties. Similarly, 9% think business should be allowed to give as much as they wish.

The case for a donation cap  

We strongly support the introduction of a cap on financial donations to political parties. At present a single donor can give an unlimited amount of money to a party at any time. There is nothing to stop a multi-billionaire donating £100 million (or more) to a political party. It should not be possible for anyone to buy that much influence in our democracy. 

As we highlighted recently, a donation cap could be set at different levels and there is an option to set it at a relatively high level initially with the intention that this is reduced at a later date. The most important thing, however, is that the principle of a cap is established. This is a normal part of the democratic landscape in many democratic countries. 

The government published a policy paper on democracy and elections, in July 2025. This committed the government to bringing forward an Elections Bill, with the widely held expectation that this will be laid before parliament in the next few months.  

The policy paper included many welcome proposals to strengthen the rules around donations to political parties. These include making it impossible for ‘shell companies’ who do not carry out genuine commercial activity in the UK, to donate to political parties and tightening rules around donations from untransparent unincorporated associations. 

The upcoming Elections Bill should include a cap on donations 

Something that did not make it into the policy paper, however, was any proposal to put a limit on the amount that any one individual or business can donate to political parties. 

The forthcoming Elections Bill is the perfect opportunity for the government to introduce such a measure. That is why we are joining with organisations such as Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption to urge the government to include a cap on donations to political parties in their legislation. If they do so they will be introducing a common sense policy that will help protect the fabric of our democracy in the years ahead, and as we have seen above, will be going with the grain of public opinion on this issue. 

Do you agree? Add your name to our call.

Click here to demand the government put donation caps in their upcoming Elections Bill >

In the UK today, there is still no legal limit on how much a single donor can give to a political party each year. That simple fact shapes our politics in profound ways. When unlimited money flows into campaigns from a small group of exceptionally wealthy individuals, it becomes harder for the rest of us to get our voices heard.

Introducing a clear cap on political donations is one of the most effective steps we could take to rebuild trust. With the upcoming Elections Bill, the government has an opportunity to put a donations cap into law.

The question is not whether to cap donations, but where the cap should be set. To understand what is at stake, it helps to look at three possible levels: a high cap of £1,000,000, a mid-level cap of £100,000 and a lower cap of £10,000.

Politics should never be a personal project for the ultra-rich

Setting a donation cap as high as £1,000,000 per year may seem ludicrously generous. In some ways, that is the point. It would still allow political parties to receive sizeable contributions, but it would put a clear boundary around the influence of the very wealthiest citizens.

In recent years, donations of over a million pounds have become common place. Just today, Reform UK were given £9,000,000 by Christopher Harborne, their largest single donation ever, and the largest donation ever from a living donor. The largest single donation ever was £10,000,000 for the Conservatives from Lord John Sainsbury’s will in 2023. The largest donation for the Liberal Democrats was £8,000,000 from Lord David Sainsbury in 2019, while Labour’s was £4,000,000 from Quadrature Capital Ltd in 2024.

With no ceiling at all on how much a wealthy person could give, even larger donations are permissible. Under a cap like this, no individual could single-handedly bankroll a party. That matters. It stops political parties becoming personal vehicles for those who can afford to pour vast sums into the system, and treat political parties like just another yacht or island.

We can reduce elite influence

A cap at £100,000 changes the dynamic more significantly. Contributions at this level can still be generous, but they are no longer so large that a party can revolve around a handful of donors on first name terms with the party leaders.

Under a £100,000 cap, parties would need a broader donor base. This is a model that begins to rebalance power. It reduces the risk that policy priorities are driven by the financial interests of a small elite, and instead are focused on the health of the broader economy. It is a step towards a healthier political culture.

Towards a fairer democracy

The Committee on Standards in Public Life has previously recommended a £10,000 cap on donations from any individual or organisation in any year. Let’s be blunt, the vast majority of people would not be able to donate this kind of money. But a cap of £10,000 would end the era in which political parties can rely on rich benefactors.

That means engaging with more people, building membership and relying less on the biggest cheques. When parties depend on a wider pool of supporters, their incentives change. They must spend more time listening and responding to the concerns of ordinary voters, not just those who can afford to give more.

As Parliament considers reforms to electoral law, this is the moment to commit to a donation cap – meaningful reform starts with limiting how much any one donor can give.

Add your name to demand the Elections Bill includes a donation cap

A million pounds here, a few hundred thousand there. Life-changing sums for most of us. Yet in the world of political finance, these are the figures some individuals can casually drop into party coffers.

It should never become normal for that kind of money to set the political weather. But increasingly, it is.

People donate large sums because they see it as a good investment. Sometimes it’s about business interests. Sometimes it’s about shaping the country to match their own ideals. But whatever the motive, one thing is clear: in a healthy democracy, no one should be able to buy a louder voice.

That’s why we have long argued for a cap on political donations.

Why unchecked donations are a problem

For years, the concern was simple enough: wealthy individuals could secure access, steer conversations, or help nudge a policy in a direction that suited them. That was already a problem.

But now a new dynamic is emerging. The ultra-wealthy are in the position not just to influence a political movement, but to bankroll one entirely. When one person can become the sole funder of a party or campaign, the balance breaks. Politics becomes less about what benefits society and more about what benefits the person writing the cheque.

A system that works for everyone

A donation cap is a straightforward safeguard. It stops any one person from dominating the finances of a party. It limits the risk of policy becoming a private commodity. And it helps bring politics back into the realm of shared interests rather than private leverage.

Other democracies already do this. They recognise that fairness isn’t automatic, it’s the result of rules designed to protect it. The UK should be no different.

The Elections Bill is a critical moment for change

The government is working on a new Elections Bill. This is a rare opportunity to build a system that reflects democratic values, not wealth and power.

We should be clear about what’s at stake. Without a cap, political parties can start to look like trophies, another yacht, another island, for those who can afford them. Influence becomes something to collect. That’s not how democracy should work.

Public opinion is firmly on our side: a poll earlier in the year found that 60% of people support a cap on political donations.

What we can do now

A donation cap is simple, fair, and long overdue. It protects parties. It protects voters. And it protects the principle that political power should be shared, not concentrated in the hands of those with the deepest pockets.

This is the moment to act. If you believe our politics should reflect all of us, not just a wealthy few, join us in calling for a donation cap to be included in the Elections Bill. Together, we can help build a system where everyone’s voice counts.

Add your name to demand donations caps in the Elections Bill