Civil Society reported on 25 June 2026 that Nigel Farage "wrote to the Electoral Commission" demanding a probe into Hope Not Hate, and said this was done on Tuesday (23 June 2026), which matches the post date. That directly supports the claim that he had written to the Electoral Commission. Sources: Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" (https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html).

True. Civil Society reported on 25 June 2026 that Nigel Farage wrote to the Electoral Commission "demanding" a probe into Hope Not Hate Limited over alleged breaches of electoral law, which matches the claim. ([civilsociety.co.uk](https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html)) Sources: Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html

The claim is directionally supported: a major review of the literature says public trust in elections reflects whether election processes meet democratic standards, and it identifies electoral-management performance, integrity, and election experiences as important drivers of trust. Experimental studies also find that trust rises when voters are informed about election protections and that delays, misinformation, or attacks on election administration can reduce trust. But the evidence also shows trust depends on other factors too — especially partisan cues, winner/loser status, and broader political context — so "everyone following the rules" is an important contributor rather than a fully determining or exclusive cause. Sources: "Global Crisis of Trust in Elections" (Public Opinion Quarterly) ([academic.oup.com](https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/88/SI/451/7718782)); "Restoring Trust in US Elections through Effective Election Administrator Messaging" (Public Opinion Quarterly) ([academic.oup.com](https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/88/SI/632/7718767)); "Voters distrust delayed election results, but a prebunking message inoculates against distrust" (PNAS Nexus) ([doi.org](https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae414)); "Can Public Information Campaigns Restore Trust in American Elections Across Polarized State and Party Lines?" (SAGE / Journal article) ([journals.sagepub.com](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/15331296261440174))

The Electoral Commission’s registration summary for HOPE not hate Ltd shows its status as **Lapsed** and gives a lapse date of **23/12/2024**. That means it was previously registered as a non-party campaigner/third party, but it was **not** a currently registered third-party campaigner on **2026-06-23**. Sources: Electoral Commission registration summary for HOPE not hate Ltd (https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/api/pdf/Registrations/TP6348).

Public evidence shows that Andy Burnham was the Labour and Co-operative Party candidate in the Makerfield by-election, and that HOPE not hate Ltd was a registered Electoral Commission third-party campaigner. ([wigan.gov.uk](https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Docs/PDF/Council/Voting-and-Elections/2026/Makerfield/Statement-of-persons-nominated-and-notice-of-Poll-Makerfield-2026.pdf)) HOPE not hate’s own archived posts said its Makerfield effort delivered 13,000 letters and made a “vital difference” in the contest, and a related campaign page said Burnham was the “clear tactical vote to stop Reform UK in Makerfield” while noting Hope Not Hate was distributing Carol Vorderman’s letter to voters. ([livequote.org](https://www.livequote.org/bsky/hopenothate.org.uk)) That supports the gist that Hope Not Hate spent campaign resources in a way that helped Burnham beat Reform, but the public record I found frames it as anti-Reform tactical campaigning rather than a formal spending return explicitly itemized as money spent “in favour of” Burnham. ([livequote.org](https://www.livequote.org/bsky/hopenothate.org.uk)) Sources: Electoral Commission registration for HOPE not hate Ltd; Wigan Council statement of persons nominated; HOPE not hate archived posts; Forward Democracy fundraiser page. ([search.electoralcommission.org.uk](https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/api/pdf/Registrations/TP6348))

The claim is supported by multiple contemporaneous reports and by HOPE not hate’s own post-election message. HOPE not hate said it and Carol Vorderman had “delivered 13,000 letters across the constituency,” and a campaign page linked to the effort said “Andy Burnham is the clear tactical vote to stop Reform UK in Makerfield.” GB News also reported that constituents received HOPE not hate literature “explicitly backing Andy Burnham” and urging a “fightback against Reform.” That means the leaflets/letters were indeed aimed at steering voters away from Rob Kenyon and toward Burnham, although they were framed mainly as an anti-Reform tactical-voting campaign rather than a simple one-line endorsement leaflet. ([politicalemails.org](https://politicalemails.org/messages/2294860)) Sources: HOPE not hate email “Makerfield shows Reform can be beaten” (https://politicalemails.org/messages/2294860); ActionNetwork/Forward Democracy “Help us Stop Reform in Makerfield” (https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/help-us-stop-reform-in-makerfield); GB News “Nigel Farage reports anti-Reform leaflet to charity watchdog over 'pro-Labour message'” (https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-hope-not-hate-makerfield-labour); About Manchester “Carol Vorderman writes to Makerfield’s women over Reform candidates comments” (https://aboutmanchester.co.uk/carol-vorderman-writes-to-makerfields-women-over-reform-candidates-comments/); Searchlight “Women Against the Far Right urge Makerfield voters to reject Reform” (https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/06/women-against-the-far-right-urge-makerfield-voters-to-reject-reform/); LBC “‘It’s just disgusting stuff!: Carol Vorderman demands apology from Reform candidate after misogynistic comments’” (https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/carol-vorderman-demands-apology-from-reform-candidate-5HjdZqz_2/).

HOPE not hate publicly described itself as supporter-funded and registered with the Electoral Commission as a third-party campaigner, and it also said its Makerfield campaigning was carefully tracked to stay within the relevant spending limits. Electoral Commission guidance says spending only counts as being made "on behalf of" a candidate if the candidate or agent directed, authorised, or encouraged it; the public sources I found do not show Andy Burnham or his campaign authorising HOPE not hate’s spending. So the claim that this spending represented spend accrued on behalf of the Burnham campaign is not supported. Sources: GB News, "Nigel Farage reports anti-Reform leaflet to charity watchdog over 'pro-Labour message'"; Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared"; Electoral Commission guidance, "Made use of by or on behalf of the candidate" and "Non-party Campaigner Code of Practice". ([gbnews.com](https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-hope-not-hate-makerfield-labour))

As of 23 June 2026, I can’t verify the exact figure from public records. The Electoral Commission says local non-party campaigners in a UK parliamentary by-election can spend up to £700 on campaigning for or against a candidate in the constituency, and HOPE not hate said its Makerfield campaigning was "carefully tracked" to stay within relevant spending limits; its own LinkedIn post also described a campaign involving 13,000 letters to voters. That makes sub-£700 spending seem unlikely, but I did not find a publicly published final spending return or invoice that confirms Hope Not Hate’s total Makerfield expenses. Sources: Electoral Commission guidance on local campaigning and spending limits (`https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-local-campaigning-great-britain-uk-parliamentary-general-elections-and/spending-limits`); Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" (`https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html`); HOPE not hate LinkedIn post on Makerfield (`https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hopenothate_at-hope-not-hate-its-our-mission-to-expose-activity-7475195194586378240-DsXj`).

I could confirm that Meta’s Ad Library is supposed to show spend ranges for political ads, and that HOPE not hate Ltd was registered with the Electoral Commission as a third-party campaigner in 2026. I also found HOPE not hate saying it campaigned heavily in Makerfield and delivered 13,000 letters. But I could not find a public source that directly shows the month-long Meta Ad Library spend total for the HOPE not hate Facebook page, so the specific claim that it “racked up thousands of pounds” is not independently verifiable from the public evidence I found. Sources: Facebook Help Center, “What is the Meta Ad Library and how do I search it?” https://www.facebook.com/help/259468828226154; Electoral Commission registration for HOPE not hate Ltd (TP18027) https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/TP18027; HOPE not hate email archive, “Makerfield shows Reform can be beaten” https://politicalemails.org/messages/2294860.

Publicly available campaign material does support the basic anti-Reform message: HOPE not hate’s Greater Manchester page says Reform would "spread division" if they won and that "Vote HOPE is organising now to stop them," and Reuters’ Manchester by-election footage shows a flyer reading "STOP REFORM VOTE LABOUR." ([secure.hopenothate.org.uk](https://secure.hopenothate.org.uk/page/194649/data/1)) However, I could not verify the exact wording that the page’s adverts said Reform were "trying to divide Greater Manchester"; the accessible text is about Reform potentially spreading division, which is close but not the same as the claim’s wording. ([secure.hopenothate.org.uk](https://secure.hopenothate.org.uk/page/194649/data/1)) Sources: HOPE not hate campaign page, "Vote HOPE: Stop Reform UK in Greater Manchester"; Reuters Connect, "Greens and Reform UK circle Labour stronghold in Manchester by-election." ([secure.hopenothate.org.uk](https://secure.hopenothate.org.uk/page/194649/data/1))

The public Makerfield archive on ElectionLeaflets.org lists only 2 leaflets for the by-election, and the two leaflets shown are published by the Count Binface Party and Restore Britain, not by Hope Not Hate. Hope Not Hate’s own post about Makerfield instead says it delivered 13,000 letters across the constituency and refers to Carol Vorderman’s letters, which is different from publishing at least two leaflets. Based on the public record I found, the claim is not supported and is contradicted by the available evidence. Sources: ElectionLeaflets.org election page for Makerfield (`https://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/election/parl.makerfield.by.2026-06-18/`); ElectionLeaflets.org leaflet pages for Count Binface Party and Restore Britain (`https://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/24195/`, `https://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/24157/`); HOPE not hate email archive on Makerfield (`https://politicalemails.org/messages/2294860`).

Contemporaneous reporting supports the core claim: Hope Not Hate/Forward Democracy distributed a personal letter from Carol Vorderman to women in Makerfield, and multiple articles describe recipients receiving one of Vorderman’s letters through their letterboxes. One local report says she “has written personally to Makerfield women voters,” and another says a woman was surprised to receive “one of Carol Vorderman’s letters to women voters.” The only caveat is that some sources describe it as a letter rather than a leaflet, but the fact that a personal letter from Vorderman was part of the campaign material is supported. Sources: About Manchester (https://aboutmanchester.co.uk/carol-vorderman-writes-to-makerfields-women-over-reform-candidates-comments/); The Business Times (https://thebusinesstimes.co.uk/kenyons-disgusting-views-giving-our-men-a-bad-name-women-voters-fight-back-against-sexist-rob/); Action Network / Forward Democracy (https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/help-us-stop-reform-in-makerfield); The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/19/nigel-farage-reform-makerfield-byelection).

The claim is supported: the Manchester Evening News reported that Carol Vorderman wrote directly to more than 6,000 women in Makerfield, and HOPE not hate’s own post said the letter was delivered to 6,000 women there. The only caveat is that the item was described as a letter, not a leaflet. ([linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/manchestereveningnewsbusiness_carol-vorderman-has-launched-a-highly-personal-activity-7466182051021647872-2Sy4)) Sources: Manchester Evening News post on LinkedIn (`https://www.linkedin.com/posts/manchestereveningnewsbusiness_carol-vorderman-has-launched-a-highly-personal-activity-7466182051021647872-2Sy4`); HOPE not hate post archived by LiveQuote (`https://www.livequote.org/bsky/hopenothate.org.uk`).

Public evidence shows Hope Not Hate’s Makerfield effort involved regulated campaign activities: it said it delivered 13,000 letters across the constituency, and a related fundraiser said it was distributing a Carol Vorderman letter and continuing to advertise. The Electoral Commission’s guidance says local non-party campaigners can spend up to £700 on campaigning for or against a candidate, including leaflets, meetings, and digital campaigning. But HNH also said its Makerfield campaigning was "carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits," and I could not find any public spending return or accounting showing the final total. So the claim that it was impossible for Hope Not Hate’s expenses to remain below £700 is not verifiable from public evidence. Sources: Electoral Commission guidance on local campaigning; HOPE not hate email archive on Makerfield; Forward Democracy/ActionNetwork fundraiser; Civil Society reporting on Farage’s complaint. ([electoralcommission.org.uk](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/non-party-campaigners-local-campaigning-great-britain-uk-parliamentary-general-elections-and))

The claim overstates the legal rule. The Electoral Commission says a local non-party campaigner may spend up to £700 promoting a particular candidate without that candidate’s agent’s written authorisation; only spending above that threshold must be authorised and then counts as candidate spending. Hope Not Hate Ltd was registered as a third-party/non-party campaigner in June 2026. But public reporting about Farage’s complaint only shows allegations that HNH leaflets backed Andy Burnham and HNH’s response that its Makerfield campaigning was tracked to stay within relevant limits; it does not establish that HNH actually spent more than £700 or otherwise needed authorisation. Sources: Electoral Commission guidance on local campaigning and candidate spending; Electoral Commission registration summary for HOPE not hate Ltd.; Civil Society reporting on Farage’s complaint and HNH’s response. ([electoralcommission.org.uk](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/non-party-campaigners-local-campaigning-great-britain-uk-parliamentary-general-elections-and))

The claim is contradicted by the Electoral Commission’s donations register. The register includes an entry for **HOPE not hate Ltd** with EC reference **TV0514579**, a donation value of **£17,000**, accepted on **12/06/2020**. The register’s column headers show that this is a donation record for the entity named in the row, so there was at least one registered donation after 2019. ([search.electoralcommission.org.uk](https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/api/pdf/Donations?date=&et=tp&from=&includeOutsideSection75=true&isIrishSourceNo=true&isIrishSourceYes=true&order=desc&postPoll=true&prePoll=false&query=&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&rows=%7BpageSize%7D&rptPd=&sort=AcceptedDate&start=%7Bstart%7D&to=)) Sources: Electoral Commission donations register (`https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/api/pdf/Donations?date=&et=tp&from=&includeOutsideSection75=true&isIrishSourceNo=true&isIrishSourceYes=true&order=desc&postPoll=true&prePoll=false&query=&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&rows=%7BpageSize%7D&rptPd=&sort=AcceptedDate&start=%7Bstart%7D&to=`); Electoral Commission registration summary for HOPE not hate Ltd (`https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/api/pdf/Registrations/TP18027`).

The amount is broadly right: the Charity Commission’s 2024 filing for HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust (formerly Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust) shows total expenditure of £931,307, including £787.86k in grants to institutions. The charity’s earlier accounts also say a grant to Hope Not Hate Ltd supported that company’s work and activities. But I could not verify the exact phrase “to carry out its assignments,” and the figure appears in the charity’s grant expenditure rather than as a separately worded statement in the company’s filing. ([register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk](https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/1013880/full-print)) Sources: Charity Commission for England and Wales (HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust full print); Charity Commission for England and Wales (HOPE NOT HATE CHARITABLE TRUST annual report and unaudited financial statements, year ended 31 December 2023); Companies House (HOPE NOT HATE LIMITED filing history).

The official Companies House accounts for Hope Not Hate Limited for the year ended 31 December 2023 say: “At the year end £43,748 (2022: £7,463) was owed by Hope not Hate Limited to Hope not Hate Charitable Trust.” That is not £48,102, so the quoted figure is incorrect based on the public filing. Sources: Companies House, Hope Not Hate Limited filing history/accounts for year ended 31 December 2023 (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08188502/filing-history); Hope Not Hate Limited 2023 accounts PDF (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08188502/filing-history/MzQzNzQwMzgzM2FkaXF6a2N4/document?download=0&format=pdf).

True. HOPE not hate Ltd’s own donation page says it "receives grants from HOPE not hate Charitable Trust," and Companies House shows that the charity changed its name to HOPE UNLIMITED CHARITABLE TRUST on 24 Oct 2025, so Hope Unlimited is the renamed entity referenced there. The public wording is "grants" rather than "payments," but the core claim is supported. Sources: HOPE not hate donation page; Companies House filing history for HOPE UNLIMITED CHARITABLE TRUST. ([secure.hopenothate.org.uk](https://secure.hopenothate.org.uk/page/154672/donate/1?locale=en-GB))

The public evidence does not support the claim. The Electoral Commission says donations to registered non-party campaigners are only covered when they are given towards spending on regulated campaign activity; money for an organisation’s general purposes is not covered. The Charity Commission then said HOPE Unlimited proved its funds were not used to produce or circulate political leaflets to Makerfield voters, and that its funds had been used appropriately for charitable purposes. Civil Society also reported that Hope Not Hate Limited’s accounts showed grants from HOPE Unlimited, but that accounting fact alone does not make them reportable electoral donations. On the available public record, there is no basis to say these payments should have been registered under Electoral Commission guidance. Sources: Electoral Commission guidance on non-party campaigner donations; Charity Commission press release on HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust (gov.uk); Civil Society report on Farage’s complaint (civilsociety.co.uk).

I could not verify this from public evidence. The Electoral Commission says it aims to respond to complaints within 20 working days, so a June 11 letter could still have been pending on June 23, but that policy does not confirm the actual status of Lee Anderson’s letter. Public coverage confirms Farage’s June 23 complaint to the Electoral Commission and notes the Commission was approached for comment, but I found no public source showing whether a substantive response to the June 11 letter had already been sent. Sources: Electoral Commission complaints page / complaints policy; Civil Society, “Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared”; The National Pulse, “Farage Demands Elections Regulator Probe Far-Left ‘Hope Not Hate’ for Unlawful Campaigning.” ([electoralcommission.org.uk](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/complain-about-us/make-your-complaint?utm_source=openai))