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..

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.

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

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.

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.
.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

@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).

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.

Once again @Pineneedlesincarpet has expressed this better than me.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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/ .

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.