AIBU? Billionaires donating £72 million to Reform

I don’t agree with reform politics, however both the donors also give more through their charitable foundations, and philanthropy than they have given to reform and also all other political parties receive donations in large sums.
I don’t get the issues with their Reform donations considering it’s nothing different to any other party and people are free to do that in the democratic system of the UK.

You might want to look at the philanthropic history of Ben Delo in particular before you whinge.
Then do a comparison with the charitable donations and political donations of the top three unions before you get all holier than thou.
Following that, do a dive into lobbying.

If you can show me any union that's given £72m to a political party in one fell swoop I'd be glad to consider the issue.

That said, donations which come from hundreds of individuals by way of a union (and from which those individuals can opt out when they pay their subs), are not a good comparison.

I take it your ok with unions donating to Labour?

This is a bit of a misrepresentation. The Representation of the People Bill includes retrospective rules to stop a sudden flood of foreign money into UK politics just before the law formally passes. Back-dating like this is completely in-line with the Rees Principles—which are the constitutional rules for fair retrospective law—and the government made it very clear from March 2026, when the Rycroft report was published, that this was what was going to happen.

I think a lot of the public would agree that that’s sensible for this kind of legislation - it’s exactly what happens with closing tax loopholes - because what you’re trying to avoid is a sudden rush of people trying to get in before the rules come into place.

Ho do you feel about union influence?

I think it’s very different. Unions work for the worker and donate to labour as funding labour, assisting them into parliament, means that workers rights are more likely to be represented.

a single crypto billionaire donating £36 million is not doing it for philanthropic reasons.

What is completely unreasonable is Labour now changing the rules in order to suit them and confiscate the money from Reform. Regardless of your political views, it is disgusting behaviour of the ruling party to retrospectively change the rules in order to suit them and disadvantage other parties. They are scared stupid of Reform’s popularity and are resorting to dirty tricks to try and maintain power

I think my post has been hidden because I used the C-word (as in something like a church crypt, not cunt).

Anyway! To summarise, I am not comfortable with govts being bought and sold.

Ben Delo gives large amounts of money to charity, over £100 million in total, to charities supporting neurodiversity, academic freedom, and mathematics education.

I'm uncomfortable with it because I don't believe politicians and parties should be bought.

It's a huge ethical threat and gives these dodgy offshore (even if they're UK resident in the most technical sense) crypto billionaires way too much ability to pressure potential future governments.

Obviously, the party is being bought and will be controlled by a bunch of rich people and serve their interests to the detriment of the voters. However those voters will go ahead and vote this party in despite of how public the corruption is, because they can’t admit being wrong or being taken advantage of.

I have looked at the data. The labour market has weakened, but that started before most of the workers’ rights changes even came into force and many of the big changes still haven’t.

Some measures will obviously increase costs for employers, but pointing at weaker employment figures and saying “workers’ rights caused that” doesn’t prove anything. You’d need to actually show the link, not just assume it.

Look at the data, and tell me.

What happened when Rayner’s workers rights bill was enacted, for example?

Why would unions be incompatible with growth? Growth doesn’t have to mean weak workers’ rights, low wages and giving employers everything they want. You can be pro-business and pro-worker at the same time.

I take your point, and I think it’s a really interesting perspective, but ultimately, I don’t agree.

If we need to allow unlimited spending from billionaires in order for new parties to emerge, then the only viable new parties we will ever get will be those funded by billionaires or massive corporate interests. I’d prefer any new parties to be representing the interests of genuine grassroots supporters, not of billionaire financial backers.

How do you square union involvement with Labour’s mantra of this government being ‘pro growth’?

Interesting idea. I hadn't considered that argument.

I wouldn't donate a huge amount to a political party. And if I donated at all it wouldn't be to Reform. I also agree with the government that only British citizens who live in the UK or its dependencies should be allowed to donate to UK political parties and campaigns.

Nevertheless, I'm as troubled by the government's plan to retrospectively enforce a law banning such donations, as I am by the donations themselves.

Laws should never be enforced retrospectively. Setting that precedent gives far too much power to this and all future governments to use unfairly against citizens.

Money doesn't magically produce good candidates, but it absolutely helps selling bad ones

We know the American system is all about big money I agree.

But are we sure that’s working in the way we think it is?

They have caps on financing elections and donations.

For a new party to come out the blue would they have to spend more? I think so. So all this does is set the upper limit as the minimum required to have any chance, and if you don’t have years of experience and voter base it’s actually limiting in a way.

So by putting caps to avoid being America; we are actually doing what America does.

Yes, much better to have billionaires bankrolling a party that promises them “deregulation” which often means weakening the laws and protections that protect ordinary people, workers and natural resources. Much safer than trade unions having influence, obviously...

Surely they have freedom to give money to whoever they want

YANBU - I completely agree, OP.

And I don’t think it needs to be party political. I wouldn’t be comfortable with a donation of this size to any political party - it is just a completely obscene amount of money to be given as one lump sum.

I personally back a cap on political donations from individual UK donors - as well as those residing overseas. I think a cap at £1 million - which I think one MP has put forward - feels sensible.

I do think comparing donations from individual billionaires to Union funding - paid for by thousands of ordinary working people - is a bit ridiculous. But even so, I would still rather see Union donations capped too than have no cap at all.

I just really don’t want to see the Americanisation of our democracy where big money is all that matters.

I would rather have wealth behind the government, than back bench student MP’s and the unions.