AIBU? Billionaires donating £72 million to Reform

Look at the data, and tell me.

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

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.

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'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.

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

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.

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 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.

Ho do you feel about union influence?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Just thinking about the fact that Dolly Paron wasn't a billionaire because she gave so much money away.

Did you mean JKR, Dolly Parton has never even lived in the UK?

OP, do you not wonder about all the good everyone who donates to political parties could do instead? For example the unions could have spent some on supporting their female members when confronted with disciplinaries after asking men to leave their female only spaces?

But, but, but.... they're the people's party. Nige is one of us. He drinks pints in pubs and everything.

Billionaire donors don't have a habit of backing those who truly represent 'the people', because it serves no purpose for them.

The unions have a long established funding relationship with Labour because they represent working people. People are free to join a union or not. And when you support Labour, you know this is where the money comes from predominantly. Nobody pretends any different.

But to say you represent ordinary people when you accept massive donations from crypto billionaires, and actively seek to circumnavigate regulations around overseas donations, is laughable.

Come on, now.

You’ve avoided the influence question.

I’m a member of NASUWT, I pretty much have to be in a union as a teacher. I did not realise that my money was being put towards left leaning marches with Palestine flags etc. I had to call them and ask them to remove my contributions from the political fund. My monthly fee went down by….nothing, despite me having a letter to let me know that I was no longer donating to the political fund. I bet a lot of people don’t realise where their money is going. If it wasn’t so risky to be without a union, I’d ditch them entirely.

But the principle is the same. The donor is trying to a) help the party he/they think will favour their POV get into power and b) influence that party to listen to/support them when in power. It really doesn't matter where the money comes from or really how much it is. The point is they are using money to try to try to affect the political outcome.

I think it is different, because the amounts are so unprecedentedly, obscenely high for single lump sums. Before this, I think I read that the highest individual lump sum donation was £10 million from one of the Sainsbury’s bequeathed to the Conservatives in his will. I do think it’s also relevant both donors are invested in a currency known for money laundering and untraceable money, and until very recently were both resident overseas.

FWIW I don’t think it’s a party political issue either. I’d like to see a donations cap on all individual donations. I think governments have been too slow on this. American politics is a warning - we really don’t want big money distorting our politics in the same way.

And this making things easier to do business and cheaper right? We want to make things easier for businesses don't we? Trade unions are often the reason no work gets done at times.

That’s probably why we haven’t had any new parties for so long.

I don’t know the answer. But I am imagining if a good actor - say for example JK Rowling decided she was going to sink her whole life’s assets into forming a new party and it was a socialist progressive party. Then do I want to stop her. Probably not.

And I agree with PP - it is completely unreasonable. Very bad optics and that’s not going to help. The whole reform thing thrives on conspiracy. Don’t make reform the victim.

I agree on the new party thing. In any case if Burnham wants a cap after agreeing not to due to union pressure he’ll have to pull the HoL legislation.

Rayner might be typical Labour on this but Burnham is attempting to talk about wealth creators with puff pieces in the press. He might be better than his predecessor, not panic as Labour tend to do and leave the legislation as is.