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?

Apart from the patronising tone which we could do without (are you perhaps a man out of interest?) the history of the unions and the Labour party affiliation (which is well known) does not mean that the unions should dictate policy in its own interests to an elected government using threats of withdrawal of funds or strikes. However the large pay rises given by Labour to unionised sectors against the national interest indicates this is what is happening.

Your comments appear to be suggesting that Labour must make all decisions in the interests of the unions according to union policy. There's a clear conflict of interest here. Far more so than the c donors (who are not donating to a party in government).

You don't seem to understand that the affiliated trades unions are an integral part of the Labour party which was founded by trades unions. Trades union donations to the Labour party are individual donations from individual members who have chosen to pay the political levy to support the Labour party. The Labour party constitution gives the affiliated trades union a say in party policy & how the party is run. Money given to the Labour party by the affiliated trades union is not external money it's being raised by organisations that are an integral part of the Labour party.

You know that the unions policies and attitudes represent their leaders' choices and priorities. Take a poll amongst Sharon Graham's members on trans attitudes and open borders, you think they'll match hers? No, she's happy to take their money and formulate policy along her ideological lines, and present it thus to the party.
Sure x million members may only donate £1/week, but how it's used is another matter.
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.

I disagree, because when a donation is made via the Union, the Union act as one major block with a specific agenda. It’s not as though the individual donations made are treated as individual donations. Labour received that chunk of money from a specific Union which asserts its own Union view of what Labour should do as a party. It may as well be from one big influential business or even from one big donor.

The unions affiliated to the Labour party represent about 4 million members. Trades unions are an integral part of the Labour party which was founded by the trades unions so of course they have political influence.
.

That would be grossly unfair. Unions collect money from individual members & then pass it on to the Labour party. Why should the cap be £100K per trades union when they can each represent millions of members? Unite the Union has 1.2 million members & gave the Labour party about £1.5 million last year which is a little over £1/member. Unions are democratic organisations run by their members & the unions are an intrinsic part of the Labour party. If there is to be a £100K donation cap it should be per member not per union.

All of the Union members have their interests represented when they vote, just like every other voter. The mass financial collections funnelled through the Unions to Labour are something different, it is exerting political influence through money. You want our money, you pursue our interests, etc. Labour are completely hypocritical when they complain about donations to Reform when they happily accept large sums in return for political influence.

The whole amount of course. If you want a cap of £100k then that from one union.

They should still be subject to any cap.

The unions represent the interests of about 4 million members each contributing about £1.25/annum to the Labour party. What cap on donations do you propose? £2 per member? £5 per member? £100,000 per member?

The 10p/week from individual members amounts to about £5 million per year. The unions represent about 4 million members. If you were to cap union donations it would have to be a cap for each individual member. Each union member contributes about £1.25/year to Labour. What cap on donations do you propose? £2 per member? £5 per member? £100,000 per member?

They should still be subject to any cap.

Neither you nor @Pineneedlesincarpet seem to understand that the reason the trades unions have such influence in the Labour party is because trades unions are a fundamental part of the Labour party which was founded by the trades unions. The trades unions are representing the interests of their 4 million members there is nothing underhand or undemocratic about the way they influence the Labour party.

Why would you even say something like that?

The Electoral Commission have some good factual information about donations. The Tories get by far and away the most. They've also published a report about how capping would impact the different parties. It was in 2025, but may be of interest: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/how-different-levels-donation-caps-could-affect-political-parties-sensitivity-analysis

I completely agree with @Pineneedlesincarpet (also, great name!)

While the Union donations are structured differently, they are buying vast influence and this can even impact the specific choice of party leader. The ‘day 1’ employment rights laws are an example of what the Union influence can achieve. I don’t see how this is different from donations from private businesses or individuals who are seeking to influence laws on deregulation or tax. I don’t like either!

It may be 10p per individual. But those 10ps are concentrated into a vast sum (£22 million since 2023) under the control of often militant union barons. And they influence government policy often to the detriment of the national interest.

If you are capping donations you need to do it for everyone and that includes the unions.

Sorry, I'm likely derailing things.
Chat GPT has shown me all the £millions Labour has gotten from rich individuals and rich unions.
All I see with their retrospective funding legislation is a party that would have no issue if Dale Vince gave them £36m or twice that.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Trade union donations to the Labour party amount to about £5 million per year made up of voluntary donations from union members as the political levy. With 4 million members that's about 10p/week per member. So 100% of the funding of unions to Labour is the part of the subs contributed by members that have 100% given formal permission contribute to Labour. There is zero additional funding to Labour from the union members.

Let me rephrase.
100% of the funding of unions to Labour are the part of the subs contributed by members that have 100% given formal permission to be contributed to Labour?
There is zero additional funding to Labour from the unions?

What about Lord Sainsbury's millions, he's an approved millionaire is he. 😂
What about the money donation to the Lib Dems from the man who makes money out the butchery that is 'trans'.
Why's it only Reform who are getting bought and paid for when the Lim Dems rehtoric changed over night when they got there 'bribe' .

Of course the trades unions influence the Labour party. The trades unions are part of the Labour party which was in turn founded by the trades unions. The donations to the Labour party amount to about £5 million per year made up of voluntary donations from union members as the political levy. With 4 million members that's about 10p/week per member.

Sorry what do you mean by " <the rest> of the union funds that go to Labour"? Labour is funded by the trades unions to the tune of about £5 million per year via the voluntary political levy. There are about 4 million trades union members so each contributes on average about £1.25 to the Labour party or about 10p/month.

Yes, I am unaware. So, the unions contribute what the members that specifically give permission for their subs to go to Labour.
I'm asking where <the rest> of the union funds that go to Labour come from?
Those funds that members subs form zero part of.
What other income is generated by the unions beyond subs?

It is worrying but I also think there is hypocrisy from Labour where they receive huge donations from the Unions who yield enormous influence on the party. That is also wrong.

Rayner is a liability on this kind of thing, enough to undermine Burnham’s attempts at trying to convince wealth creators he does want them here. Enough for him to write articles on it.

Labour need to make up their minds on how much people with wealth are to be driven out or not.