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?

[IwantToRetire]

Not particularly interested in discussing Reform. As anyone who wants to do that could set up a thread just like there is one about the Greens.

Of course the money could just be frittered away, but do these donations create an imbalance in terms of other parties having a voice, not just now, but when there is the next General Election.

For info (and there may be others) short bios about each man who has donated. Although, if as stated, they don't expect to decide party policy, maybe their personal history doesn't matter.

https://news.sky.com/story/ben-delo-and-christopher-harborne-who-are-reform-uks-two-mega-donors-13584792

Edited to add: I would ask this question if such donations had been made to any other Party, whether Labour, Tory, Greens etc..

And the unions don’t want influence?

The trades unions represent about 4 million members & gave £5 million to Labour in 2025.

Two cryptocurrency billionaires representing 2 cryptocurrency billionaires gave £72 million to Reform UK Party Ltd in 2026

...and every year since time immemorial.
Reform are having to catch up, and fast.

The question remains.

But - we know the unions exert influence on the Labour Party. Just because Labour are being outfunded by the new kids on the block, they suddenly want to change the rules, despite Burnham rejecting the notion back in August.

Same old bent Labour.

What about all the Reform voters in unions who have no say on the part of their subs that go to Labour?

You obviously don't understand how the trades unions fund Labour. There is a separate voluntary Political Levy used to fund political parties. It would be illegal to use general membership subscriptions for this purpose.

Sure, stand corrected. But as a worker in the public sector, I have no alternative to union membership where maybe me and around 50% of fellow members are stuck with an organization we're obligated to be members of and pay subs towards, contribute majorly to a party I/we hate.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, this just ramps up the "two tier" criticism.

Reform are having to catch up, and fast.

The other political parties are grass root membership organisations that have grown organically over decades. Reform UK Party Ltd is a limited company not a political party & has existed for only a couple of years. If it wants to catch up with the other political parties then it can do it the way they did. Organise & recruit activists & funds don't rely on a couple of tax exile crypto billionaires.

No. Your union is not taking your subs & using them to fund the Labour party. Only if you agree to pay the voluntary Political Levy will you be funding the Labour party.

What's the precise source of the money that a union puts aside to fund Labour, if it's only partly from the subs of those members happy to contribute?
What other sources of income or money making mechanisms does a union have?

What's the precise source of the money that a union puts aside to fund Labour, if it's only partly from the subs of those members happy to contribute?

I refer you to my earlier reply at 11:38

You obviously don't understand how the trades unions fund Labour. There is a separate voluntary Political Levy used to fund political parties. It would be illegal to use general membership subscriptions for this purpose.

The House of Lords has plenty of very generous party donors currently sitting on its benches! Obviously Labour has traditionally been financially supported by the Unions, but the Tories have received millions from businesses through corporate or individual donations.

I think political parties will always receive support from people and organisations with money. As long as everyone is declaring those donations and the interests that come with them, then we all know where we stand.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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' .

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

Why would you even say something like that?

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.

They should still be subject to any cap.