AIBU? Billionaires donating £72 million to Reform

So it does seem odd, they were ok accepting a large donation from the Cayman Islands but as soon as Reform get a huge donation, they are very eager to enforce the rules. It just looks a bit er…. Odd.

Was anyone up in arms when the pharma company that makes puberty blockers gave money to the Lib Dems?

Was anyone up in arms when the pharma company that makes puberty blockers gave money to the Lib Dems?

It's just jealousy that someone has more money than them

I mean warren buffet is a billionaire and he does a lot of good for charity. Bill gates set up the Gates foundation. Are you saying people automatically become evil when they’re a billionaire? Is it like when their bank account ticks over to 1 billion or is it a gradual process? 😃

To take your question in good faith, the first thing to say is plenty of people - including plenty of Labour supporters - were up in arms about money being donated from a hedge fund registered in the Cayman Islands.

But even so, £4 million is a lot less than £72 million. The £72 million is completely unprecented in the history of our democracy. There is also a difference in that the Cayman Islands donation came via a registered corporate hedge fund entity. Reform's latest mega-donations come from wealthy individual entrepreneurs - who made thieir money in an unregulated industry whose name we can't even type, because it's deemed so likely to be spam.

Partly because of public anxiety over big money donations (I shared a link somewhere else on the thread about this) - like the one from the Cayman Islands - there was an independent review, led by a former civil servant. Labour - with cross party support - have put that review's reccomendation of a £100,000 annual cap on foreign-based donors into action. Despite Reform's victim complex, these rules apply equally to all political parties - as will the retrospective date of March 2026, because that is when the Rycroft report was published, giving all political parties fair warning - that is in line with the Rees Rules (the consitutional guidelines for how the UK should introduce retrospective legislation to counter tax avoidance etc).

If Reform's argument is genuinely that 'everyone else takes big money, we just take more of it from less regulated sources' then I really don't think that helps thier anti-establishment, party of the people image.

But as far as I'm concerned, enormous donations are wrong and bad for our democracy - whichever party they go to, and I'd like to see all donations capped somewhere around £1 million (or even lower).

😂

Why would people stand against billionaires? What crimes are billionaires committing?

But we can't bend our democracy in response to what 'reform voters' will or won't think. Applying the Rees Principles is standard for the kind of legislation which closes tax loopholes etc - for obvious reasons, because otherwise there is a big rush of money just before the legislation comes into force.

There are certain Reform voters who will always blindly defend anything and everything Reform do - that's up to them. But there are plenty of other voters who are sick of Reform's entitled whining - that's why Farage's personal favourability ratings have taken such an enormous plunge.

And the simple fact of the matter is, if we don't want big money to pollute our democracy, then we have to take action to stop it. As far as I'm concerned a cap on donations is long overdue.

But if you look at who donated to the Labour Party in 2024, they got £4 million of one individual donor firm. Why was no one up in arms about this? So if Labour do make this law retrospective, I assume they’ll be giving that back….

It’s not so much about taxing them less but about deregulating the markets so they can make more money. They’re greedy vile fuckers and Farage is an utter cunt but the pricks who vote for him don’t care cos he’ll “stop the boats”. He’ll also stop their benefits and access to healthcare but 🤷‍♀️

But we can't bend our democracy in response to what 'reform voters' will or won't think. Applying the Rees Principles is standard for the kind of legislation which closes tax loopholes etc - for obvious reasons, because otherwise there is a big rush of money just before the legislation comes into force.

There are certain Reform voters who will always blindly defend anything and everything Reform do - that's up to them. But there are plenty of other voters who are sick of Reform's entitled whining - that's why Farage's personal favourability ratings have taken such an enormous plunge.

And the simple fact of the matter is, if we don't want big money to pollute our democracy, then we have to take action to stop it. As far as I'm concerned a cap on donations is long overdue.

No they won't have to return the money from a donor registered in the Cayman Islands because the retrospective date begins after that donation was received.

Lol. If you think reform voters will agree then I doubt it. I watch a guy who goes to pubs and high streets and asks basic questions. Like what’s the capital of England, or what’s 100+100. They can’t answer!

But Reform aren’t uniquely victimised, the rules are backdated to March 2026, when the changes were announced, for absolutely all political parties.

I genuinely don’t think the optics are bad - or at least not to anyone who understands that this is standard practice when tax loops are closed, for clearly, pragmatic sensible reasons, in my opinion.

Maybe. But I don't speak for Angela Raynor, or the Unions - although I do think it's vaguely ridiculous to compare the donations made up from thousands of ordinary working people with unprecedentedly large lump-sum donations from two private indviduals who until very recently didn't even choose to live in our country.

I just think these kind of enormous donations from super rich individuals are obscene and morally indefensible, and if capping them has to mean Union donations are capped too, then so be it.

And if the only defence Reform have is, 'but what about the Unions?' then I think that's a really bad look for them.

Rather it’s party political point scoring from Rayner and the unions. They want to be exempt.

Comparing unions to crypto billionaires – that’s hilarious.

But if you look at who donated to the Labour Party in 2024, they got £4 million of one individual donor firm. Why was no one up in arms about this? So if Labour do make this law retrospective, I assume they’ll be giving that back….

I personally would support a cap on lump-sum donations, even if Union's were included.

I am not sure if this is a genuine question, or an attempt at party political point scoring, but the polling shows that the majority of Labour voters still support a cap, even if the trade unions are included: How might a cap on donations affect political party income in the UK? - House of Commons Library

The unions will be capped too then surely.

Making it easier to do business is one thing; stripping away protections for workers, consumers and the environment is another.

And we’re talking about Crapto-billionaires here, including one who doesn’t even live in the UK, pouring millions into a political party. I’m not sure why their influence over British policy is somehow more wholesome than trade unions representing millions of people who actually work here.

I’m not sure you’re right about public opinion on this one. The polling shows very clearly that the majority of the public are against enormous donations from very wealthy individuals, and would look favourably on any party who capped donations: https://www.transparency.org.uk/news/public-demand-clear-cap-big-donations-now

If anything, I think the public would have liked the Representation of the People’s Act to go further than it does.

I get why certain politicians want to spin this, but if the legislation follows the Rees Principles, I think alot of people will see that as pragmatic and reasonable.