2 private donations of £36m each to one political party - is this the future of democracy in a world at the mercy of tech bros?

Didn't you know - that's different?

I ask who does Reform stand for?

AI, maybe the donation is really come from SkyNet.

Not disputing the rationale for being a profitable business @Greyrock79 .

I'm wondering why we are discussing Labour being supported by the Unions, which they have been since they were formed as a party and why we are talking about the Conservatives being supported by business interests, which they have been for even longer.

When actually the topic of the thread is the huge donations to Reform - the party of the working man, according to Nige! If traditionally donations have been given to political parties that represent the interests of who the party stands for - I ask who does Reform stand for?

Why else would one be in business, other than to make money/generate a P&L?

And in those same years the Conservative party received £106.8 million, largely from businesses or those made wealthy by being in business. I'm not sure what your point is. This is such old news!

Ah, another emoji ‘queen’….

Yes, seems Labour are as shit at running their own finances as they are the economy.

Running a 2.5m quid deficit YTD.

So less in five years than Reform got in two days. Great context, thank you. ☺️

Over-ruled!

(Joke…)

Between 2010-2015 Labour received 67m quid from the unions.

For context….

Union members can opt out of the political donation part of their union fees.

By the way, elections are “the tyranny of the masses”.

We’ve always had large donations. Unions donate to Labour, big business donates to the Tories. If the crypto is found to be above board, then there’s not really a lot the other parties can say.

People can still vote for who they want to.

I object. I'm not a Labour supporter; I'm a floating voter.

Since the First World War, we have largely been governed by two political parties: Labour or Conservatives. During that time, Labour has largely been funded by the workers through the Unions and the Conservatives have largely been funded by businesses and the owners of businesses.

I'm not sure why everyone is acting surprised that those parties represent the interests of their funders. In what has mostly been a bi-partisan, adversarial, first past the post electoral system - it was unlikely to be anything else.

What we have at the moment is the fracturing of the bi-partisan system and new interests stepping into the arena. What makes me laugh is Nigel Farage trying to pretend he is representing the "working man" when everything about the funding of his party suggests otherwise. That is where the issue lies in my opinion.

It is old news that Labour is funded by the unions and the Tories by business interests. That's the status quo.

It’s completely unacceptable in my view to receive huge donations like this from private individuals. Of course they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sounds like the tyranny of the masses.
Just because lots of people pay subs, it doesn't mean that the union represents them in all things. Workers expect the union to represent them in work, they don't sign over their civil rights when they sign up to be a member and expect the unions to take over their lives. The unions have the power to collectively bargain but only on pay rises and working conditions etc, that's all.

Yep. As other parties do. If someone wants to donate to Labour they can directly.

If those individuals feel strongly there would be nothing to stop them setting up their own direct debit to the Labour party. They don't need the Union to process the payments for them. Concentrating it enables them to buy payrises like the recent ASLEF thank you from Burnham/ .

Because they represent a collective. The individual represents nobody but themselves. It’s very odd that an explanation of that is necessary.

Not at all. Cap all donations from organisations at the same level. Otherwise it will only be Labour who receives millions. The other parties thankfully won’t see it your way.

To add if people want to donate directly they still can of course, the same as for any other party.

The Labour party is the government of the whole of the UK, not just those who are union members, the union's may well have formed the Labour Party in order to gain influence over the politics of the nation but that doesn't mean they get to decide things for all the 10's of millions of people in the country who are not members of a union.

Why is it ok for an organisation that represents millions to buy the government but it's not ok for an individual.

I'm not saying there should be any cap. I'm just interrogating your justification for one.
And as I say, Sharon Graham is in likely disagreement on her attitudes to the SC ruling and open borders, yet she can still wield narrow ideological influence via the £millions she wields from members subs.

Once again @Pineneedlesincarpet has expressed this better than me.

ooh yes @NowSober does sound a bit mansplainy… possible male poster?

Exactly.

And that influence over government policiy is something that has happened and is happening

Unlike the c donors who havent influenced the policy of any government.

Cap on all donations. Including the unions.

@NowSober

I do understand that and it is an important structural and historical distinction, but in terms of impact we end up in the same place (in my opinion, others can disagree of course).

No, let's have that level playing field, a cap of £100k for individuals like Ben Delo and Dale Vince, <and> every individual union for Labour or FTSE-listed company for the Tories.

That's nonsense. Unite the Union has 1.2 million members while the Musicians Union has 36K members yet you propose they should each be capped at £100K per annum?