AIBU? Billionaires donating £72 million to Reform

I agree. It’s disgusting and morally redundant. I am so sick of these self-serving greedy billionaires who could make the world a better place but choose not to.

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 🤷‍♀️

Been thinking about this a lot today.

I think I have covered pretty much every emotion and the conclusion is inconclusive 😶

Is it any different to unions donating to Labour? All as bad as each other…

Well, the country is going downhill fast, so hopefully kicking Labour out will be the positive effect of donating so much money.

Comparing unions to crypto billionaires – that’s hilarious.

YANBU

What about the donors who give to Labour and get much more back in contracts?

The billionaires have stated why they have given vast amounts and that was to bypass Labour bringing in future rules. They were originally going to give 1 million a month up to the general election.

Are Dale Vince and Suneil Setiya allowed to donate to Labour? What about the pharmaceutical company that donated to the Lib Dems?

It just screams of corruption. They'll probably release the Tate's if/when they get banged up/ elected into power.

I’m struggling to see how having a fuck ton of money is going to magic up reasonable, sensible, astute, articulate and (most importantly) electable candidates for Reform for the next election.

Billionaires being billionaires and we could spend that money on something else is a different problem though.

Our problem - the controllable problem is party donations.

Do we want to be like America where elections are bought - no

Is the above even a sensible question now with the rise of AI - probably not. An individual could spend that themselves now campaigning independently to support a party without sending it direct.

Can we limit total party donations?
Yes

What are you going to set the total limit at?
The amount the established parties are raising? - bit rich
Is that fair? - probably not

Does a new party need more to establish initially than an existing one - probably.

Do we want to stop any other new party from ever existing?
No

Can we put restrictions on single donation value?
Yes

Is that fair? Probably not

Should we restrict overseas donations?
Yes I think we should

Are these overseas donations?
These are British born British citizens so I don’t think so no

And on the point of unions - it is a valid point. Most people in unions join to be in a union. They don’t join to fund labour. If that was the aim they would donate direct.

So that’s what I mean about I have been thinking about this a lot.

I don’t like it. The primary reason I don’t like it is because it’s Reform. But it is incredible we have someone seriously challenging the 2 party system and we don’t want to cut our nose to spite our face by essentially banning any other yet-to-exist party from ever being in that position.

So the solution. Labour and conservatives be better. Lib Dem’s and green be better. Reform be better!

If the parties could all sort their lives out this would be less of an issue.

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

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.

Surely they have freedom to give money to whoever they want

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...

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.

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

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.

Interesting idea. I hadn't considered that argument.

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

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.

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.