Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

AIBU to question why crypto investors are heavily funding Reform?

254 replies

BermudaRhombus · 12/09/2026 08:42

To wonder why cryptocurrency investors are donating so much money to Reform. This follows the announcement of a £36m donation from another cryptocurrency billionaire (a record donation for a UK political party). It means that by far the majority of their funding comes from crypto investors.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
5
ShitHoleDweller · 14/09/2026 13:22

I went and looked it up and it was quite interesting!

Here are some of their donors:
💰 Mark Constantine
Co-founder of Lush (900+ stores globally)
Est. net worth: £250m–£350m
💰 Antony Gormley
Internationally renowned sculptor (Angel of the North)
Est. net worth: £40m+
💰 Julian Dunkerton
Founder of Superdry (global fashion brand)
Est. net worth: £375m+
💰 Matthew Oakeshott
Investment manager & property firm chairman
Est. net worth: £25m+
💰 Sigrid Rausing
Tetra Pak heiress
Family wealth: £12.5bn
💰 Vivienne Westwood
Late founder of global fashion brand
Former donor (est. net worth ~£40m at time of death)
Corporate donors:
💰 Lush Retail Ltd
Global cosmetics company
£800m+ turnover
💰 Ecotricity Ltd
Major UK energy supplier
£500m+ revenue
💰 Adam Management Holdings
Property investment firm
Multi-million pound assets

ShitHoleDweller · 14/09/2026 13:13

All donors will have a vested interest in the political party they are giving the money to. The real question is who are funding the Greens?!

DinnerinfrontoftheTV · 14/09/2026 12:47

MPforTitipu · 14/09/2026 10:10

I absolutely do compare. Vested interests making donations to a political party with the hope that the party that supports their interests gets into/remains in power. It doesn't matter if it's made of thousands of small donations collected from their group or one large one from an individual, the intention is the same.

Agree

Pineneedlesincarpet · 14/09/2026 12:31

Theseagullwhisperer · 14/09/2026 10:32

Do you not see the cognitive dissonance in arguing that £22 million over several years from the Unions is a massive vested interest that buys excessive influence, while at the same time arguing that more than 3x that amount in one lump sum from a couple of extremely wealthy private individuals with a vested interest in one industry is completely fine?!

FWIW I want to see a donation cap, even if it does affect the Unions. I’ve seen a cap of £1 million put forward and I think that seems sensible.

Do you not see that the unions are currently actually exercising the undue influence over government policy that they have bought with their millions. The c donors have not.

One of those has happened and is actually happening.

The other hasn't happened

Theseagullwhisperer · 14/09/2026 10:32

Pineneedlesincarpet · 14/09/2026 10:19

I agree. Of course there's a comparison to be made. The unions gave £22million to Labour since 2023. Thats a lot of money to threaten to withdraw. And obviously theres also the threat of strikes.

It may be 10p per individual. But those 10ps are concentrated into a vast sum under the control of often militant union barons. If you are capping donations you need to do it for everyone and that includes the unions.

Union funding and affiliation is a huge conflict of interest for Labour as they make decisions based on special interests and union pressure that aren't in the national interest. Eg pay rises we can't afford.

Do you not see the cognitive dissonance in arguing that £22 million over several years from the Unions is a massive vested interest that buys excessive influence, while at the same time arguing that more than 3x that amount in one lump sum from a couple of extremely wealthy private individuals with a vested interest in one industry is completely fine?!

FWIW I want to see a donation cap, even if it does affect the Unions. I’ve seen a cap of £1 million put forward and I think that seems sensible.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 14/09/2026 10:19

MPforTitipu · 14/09/2026 10:10

I absolutely do compare. Vested interests making donations to a political party with the hope that the party that supports their interests gets into/remains in power. It doesn't matter if it's made of thousands of small donations collected from their group or one large one from an individual, the intention is the same.

I agree. Of course there's a comparison to be made. The unions gave £22million to Labour since 2023. Thats a lot of money to threaten to withdraw. And obviously theres also the threat of strikes.

It may be 10p per individual. But those 10ps are concentrated into a vast sum under the control of often militant union barons. If you are capping donations you need to do it for everyone and that includes the unions.

Union funding and affiliation is a huge conflict of interest for Labour as they make decisions based on special interests and union pressure that aren't in the national interest. Eg pay rises we can't afford.

Rightsaysfred · 14/09/2026 10:17

Oh Nevermind my first comment is back

Rightsaysfred · 14/09/2026 10:17

summater · 12/09/2026 09:33

I surprised the OP got past MN moderation nothing wrong with the OP but it contains the C word.

This is so weird I responded to this with a one word comment of said c word followed by a question mark and it got deleted straight away. What on earth is wrong with saying cry*?

Rightsaysfred · 14/09/2026 10:14

summater · 12/09/2026 09:33

I surprised the OP got past MN moderation nothing wrong with the OP but it contains the C word.

Crypto?

MPforTitipu · 14/09/2026 10:10

Theseagullwhisperer · 13/09/2026 08:26

You absolutely cannot compare union support, which is made up of small donations from ordinary working people, with such large donations from private individuals with no checks or scrutiny whose massive personal wealth inevitably puts them apart from the experiences and interests of most of society.

I absolutely do compare. Vested interests making donations to a political party with the hope that the party that supports their interests gets into/remains in power. It doesn't matter if it's made of thousands of small donations collected from their group or one large one from an individual, the intention is the same.

Theseagullwhisperer · 14/09/2026 07:38

LipglossAndLies · 14/09/2026 07:17

Im more endeared by a political leader who has the policies I agree with couldn't give a f if they spend time raising money for a charity or drink down the pub in their spare time.

I genuinely think our democracy would be much, much better if more people were like you and voted for policies not personalities, but unfortunately, all the research shows that in UK elections, people’s opinions of the leader have a massive influence on how they vote. And I do think Nigel Farage’s falling popularity is a problem for Reform, right now.

LipglossAndLies · 14/09/2026 07:17

Theseagullwhisperer · 13/09/2026 17:10

If Reform want to spend their time defending their obscenely large donations from
billionaires, they are very welcome to. I don’t think it’s going to do much win to them much support beyond the die hards who will come out to blindly defend them no matter what. Which is very much not the kind of support that they need to actually have a chance of winning an election.

I think most people care much more about buses than they do about crapto, and are much more endeared by a political leader who spends his time raising money through a charity run than they are by one who spends his time swilling oysters and whining about how all the other politicians are out to get him.

Edited

Im more endeared by a political leader who has the policies I agree with couldn't give a f if they spend time raising money for a charity or drink down the pub in their spare time.

Solentswimmer · 13/09/2026 20:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

And your evidence for that statement is?

Pineneedlesincarpet · 13/09/2026 20:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

The tax man is scary. And relentless. I wouldn't be so glib about the repercussions of tax evasion, Farty!

SmallDFartyCarNRG · 13/09/2026 20:13

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Solentswimmer · 13/09/2026 19:44

SmallDFartyCarNRG · 13/09/2026 13:29

They aren't going to pay tax if they can hide it, they have repeatedly shown that. The more billionaires we have the less tax we actually get, because it comes from people on the HMRC payroll, who are paying tax when they earn it.

That's nonsense.
Sixty of the UK's wealthiest individuals (each earning over £50 million annually) contributed more than £3 billion in income tax in 2021/22 (from a BBC report)

EasternStandard · 13/09/2026 19:13

BermudaRhombus · 13/09/2026 19:04

Oh yes, what about Labour?! BINGO!!

What about your bingo? bingo! etc

BermudaRhombus · 13/09/2026 19:04

EasternStandard · 13/09/2026 19:02

Bingo happens from Labour too.

Oh yes, what about Labour?! BINGO!!

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 13/09/2026 19:02

BermudaRhombus · 13/09/2026 18:54

“Woke”, “MSM”, “Lefties”, “Uni-party”. Anyone else playing Reform Bingo?

Bingo happens from Labour too.

BermudaRhombus · 13/09/2026 18:54

“Woke”, “MSM”, “Lefties”, “Uni-party”. Anyone else playing Reform Bingo?

OP posts:
quantumbutterfly · 13/09/2026 18:51

Pineneedlesincarpet · 13/09/2026 17:41

Cant argue with the figures though.

And its all in the open and entirely legal.

Better that then a tied in source of funding from a body like the unions that can hold the country to ransom if they dont get their way Id argue....?

I was cynical when my dad told me about communist agitators at his union meetings in the 70's, thirty years later I read 'spycatcher' which said the security services were well aware of it as a cold war strategy to weaken the west. The disruptive strikes were a manifestation of that.
More recently, certain unions political actions have not been in tune with all their members interests and have been disruptive & destabilising.

KeepPumping · 13/09/2026 18:29

BermudaRhombus · 13/09/2026 18:11

I think it’s the other way around. The tories and restore are eating into Reform’s support from both the left and right sides.

MSM wants you to believe that but I really can"t see the Tories or Restore doing well TBH. Last news cycle it was the Greens who were going to wipe the floor with Reform, now it is just back to any old thing but Farage that is going to do well. All B.S, same as the B.S on the media before Brexit.

KeepPumping · 13/09/2026 18:23

Theseagullwhisperer · 13/09/2026 17:53

Do I think Andy Burnham, who gave 15% of his salary to charity every year that he was Manchester Mayor and who just ran the Great North Run in under 2 hours, only did it to make a point about Nigel Farage?! No, I don’t think that.

Surprised at the timing, he doesn"t look that fit, will he give 15% of his speaking fees to charity was the question though, maybe he will, he is probably not a bad bloke really, I just don"t think he should be running the country and neither did his party until recently.

BermudaRhombus · 13/09/2026 18:11

KeepPumping · 13/09/2026 17:51

They are uncomfortable because the money is not coming to them, and they know that politically Reform eat them for breakfast, the plan was to de-fund Reform and force them out with lack of security and lack of campaign funds, that plan has failed.

I think it’s the other way around. The tories and restore are eating into Reform’s support from both the left and right sides.

OP posts:
wheresthesnowgone · 13/09/2026 18:10

MandingoAteMyBaby · 12/09/2026 09:17

To hide the real money trail back to Putin

This! My first thought ....