The Reform Thread

[benjii]

 

 

[AlexLaw76]

I see Dale Vince whining about donations.

Same Dale Vince who dishes out political donation in the millions of £, of course

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Vaughan Gething used the money to help fund his ( failed ) campaign for leader of the Welsh Lsbour party, none of the money went to the party itself.

Personally, I think there is a difference between "environmental crimes" and accepting money from convicted, and admitted, fraudsters. In both cases the money should not have been accepted, but the subliminal inferences in the case of Reform should ring alarm bells, within the party and without.

This smacks as contortionist levels of double standards from the traditional parties. 

The Representation of the People Bill is currently going through parliament. Part of that was to limit overseas UK citizens to £100 donation cap. There was talk of "protecting us from a scourge against democracy" as the reason. If I saw a scourge, I'd be stopping it completely. But £100k seems fine. That's not least because it allows certain backers of Labour and Conservatives to continue to donate, but primarily blocks the large overseas based Reform backers from giving more. That's by design.

Since they were looking at this, and having an opportunity to stop distortions of democracy that both parties are safeguarding, it was a great time to look at funding across the board. After all, history shows the public gets whatever the ideological stance of the party, plus carved out parts of personal enrichment and prestige for their financial backers.

Sadly All-Access Lord Ali was unavailable for comment. So I can just point out the one second it took the unions to wait for Labour to be in power for, before turning up with their agreed demands. 

The conservative party were Reform, and were delighted to operate on similar principles, or lack of principles, for all the time we've had a parliament up until now. 

From paying for peerages, to donations for staff,offices, clothing, to cash for questions, through declared but clearly not appropriate gifts and just general donations, this is our system. they've not changed any of that with the bill they've just had the opportunity to fix it. 

Asked about the very recent Lord Sainsbury's couple of hundred thousand donation to Burnham 'A Labour Party spokesperson said: "It's right that political campaigns are funded by the generous support of party donors, rather than via the public purse.'

Now, we've had a peer saying that the Bill should be returned to parliament so that they can add in bits to stop the next bit of Reform funding. 

Now it's the amount that they are jealous of. Sorry, it's the amount that they feel is distorting democracy. Their nickel and dime chiseling around the edges of democracy, has been blown away by the size of Reform's donations. 

Remember, Lord Sainsbury donated sizeably to Burnham. Lord Sainsbury also donated over 4 million to Labour in 2024. The other Lord Sainsbury posthumously donated £10 million to the Conservatives in 2023. No rush to change the distortion of our democracy there. No terror of our system being for sale. 

And like all good politicians, it's never about what's right, it's about what suits them best. So, they are jumping up and down because it's cryptocurrency. A source so dodgy, yet strangely tolerated to a degree, because where there's grift, there's gold for all political persuasions. If the donors are found to have been funded illegally, or have convictions, fine. If not, then our main parties are reaping the rewards of the systems they were so desperate to set up, to keep themselves available for similar beneficiaries. 

Before the split, and before Badenoch's "toe the line or you're out" approach, this would have been a Conservative donation. Well, if they had lurched to the right as a ideological choice, rather than being led by the nose through opinion polls. It's Robert Jenrick sitting there saying how legitimate the donations are. 

On the Labour side, it's "oh look at the US style policies we're going to get. Democracy for sale." While determinedly not looking up to see the strings pulling their limbs.  They haven;t done anything about having publicly funded politics, or limited entity or individual donations, because they've benefited from it. Like policy isn't influenced by dodgily funded think tanks, business and union leaders. No doubt any limit coming in, will cause the least amount of pain to their funding models, while kicking the ladder away from other parties. Considering how long football funding models, that achieve the same thing, have been in place, it's a wonder they didn't adopt it sooner. But then, there's was always a chance they would be the ones getting the donation. So, couldn't stop that, could they?

Edited 12 hours ago by Holmes_and_Watson

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

2 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

This smacks as contortionist levels of double standards from the traditional parties. 

The Representation of the People Bill is currently going through parliament. Part of that was to limit overseas UK citizens to £100 donation cap. There was talk of "protecting us from a scourge against democracy" as the reason. If I saw a scourge, I'd be stopping it completely. But £100k seems fine. That's not least because it allows certain backers of Labour and Conservatives to continue to donate, but primarily blocks the large overseas based Reform backers from giving more. That's by design.

Since they were looking at this, and having an opportunity to stop distortions of democracy that both parties are safeguarding, it was a great time to look at funding across the board. After all, history shows the public gets whatever the ideological stance of the party, plus carved out parts of personal enrichment and prestige for their financial backers.

Sadly All-Access Lord Ali was unavailable for comment. So I can just point out the one second it took the unions to wait for Labour to be in power for, before turning up with their agreed demands. 

The conservative party were Reform, and were delighted to operate on similar principles, or lack of principles, for all the time we've had a parliament up until now. 

From paying for peerages, to donations for staff,offices, clothing, to cash for questions, through declared but clearly not appropriate gifts and just general donations, this is our system. they've not changed any of that with the bill they've just had the opportunity to fix it. 

Asked about the very recent Lord Sainsbury's couple of hundred thousand donation to Burnham 'A Labour Party spokesperson said: "It's right that political campaigns are funded by the generous support of party donors, rather than via the public purse.'

Now, we've had a peer saying that the Bill should be returned to parliament so that they can add in bits to stop the next bit of Reform funding. 

Now it's the amount that they are jealous of. Sorry, it's the amount that they feel is distorting democracy. Their nickel and dime chiseling around the edges of democracy, has been blown away by the size of Reform's donations. 

Remember, Lord Sainsbury donated sizeably to Burnham. Lord Sainsbury also donated over 4 million to Labour in 2024. The other Lord Sainsbury posthumously donated £10 million to the Conservatives in 2023. No rush to change the distortion of our democracy there. No terror of our system being for sale. 

And like all good politicians, it's never about what's right, it's about what suits them best. So, they are jumping up and down because it's cryptocurrency. A source so dodgy, yet strangely tolerated to a degree, because where there's grift, there's gold for all political persuasions. If the donors are found to have been funded illegally, or have convictions, fine. If not, then our main parties are reaping the rewards of the systems they were so desperate to set up, to keep themselves available for similar beneficiaries. 

Before the split, and before Badenoch's "toe the line or you're out" approach, this would have been a Conservative donation. Well, if they had lurched to the right as a ideological choice, rather than being led by the nose through opinion polls. It's Robert Jenrick sitting there saying how legitimate the donations are. 

On the Labour side, it's "oh look at the US style policies we're going to get. Democracy for sale." While determinedly not looking up to see the strings pulling their limbs.  They haven;t done anything about having publicly funded politics, or limited entity or individual donations, because they've benefited from it. Like policy isn't influenced by dodgily funded think tanks, business and union leaders. No doubt any limit coming in, will cause the least amount of pain to their funding models, while kicking the ladder away from other parties. Considering how long football funding models, that achieve the same thing, have been in place, it's a wonder they didn't adopt it sooner. But then, there's was always a chance they would be the ones getting the donation. So, couldn't stop that, could they?

The donations coming to other parties are declared, face scrutiny and are subject to regulations. Reform, in line with Farage’s leadership, take donations from questionable sources while acting with contempt towards the regulations which exist to prevent policy making to benefit the donors. If you’re opposed to political parties being funded by donation and support, e.g., funding through taxation, that’s an argument worth considering. But I’ve read too many comments creating a false equivalence, claiming ”they’re all as corrupt as each other,” which somehow justifies supporting the most corrupt party.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

The donations coming to other parties are declared, face scrutiny and are subject to regulations. Reform, in line with Farage’s leadership, take donations from questionable sources while acting with contempt towards the regulations which exist to prevent policy making to benefit the donors. If you’re opposed to political parties being funded by donation and support, e.g., funding through taxation, that’s an argument worth considering. But I’ve read too many comments creating a false equivalence, claiming ”they’re all as corrupt as each other,” which somehow justifies supporting the most corrupt party.

 

And these should follow the same route of declaration, scrutiny and regulation.

In parallel with that we are now seeing legislation in process that changes the legality of donations to stop Reform getting their hands on them. It's not really false equivalency when both Labour (£4million) and the Conservatives (£10million) had no issue with individual, large sums being made to them, right up until they realised Reform could get large donations too. Those sums are 2023/24, when it was just fine. 

The main things I heard in about half an hour of radio this morning:-

Such large sums distort democracy/ result in a paid for party - As above, both Donations from individuals is actively sought after, and endorsed. Combined donations from like minded people is fine too. 

Foreign Control/ Influence - Non-UK nationals aren't allowed to donate at all. I said NON-UK NATIONALS AREN'T ALLOWED TO DONATE AT ALL! that was for Nigel, who seems to be hard of hearing on that. It applies to siphoning it directly through relatives from overseas. 

The bill going through parliament looks to cap overseas donations from Non-UK based British citizens individuals to £100k. They are voters, but just not as trustworthy/eligible as voters here, apparently. They can donate though, so lots of murky £100ks seem okay. Mind you, it was only 2023, when they removed the 15 year limit for overseas UK citizens to get the vote, and donate. Both parties wanted to make sure their overseas donations kept rolling in,no matter how long those persons were away from the UK. Reform must have been a shock to that one. 

Both of Reforms big donors, look to be saying they will be based in the UK, for the purposes of these donations. But oh wait, the retrospective legislation is looking to limit the donations of people eligible to vote here, and in the UK, to a set amount over a few years upon their return. Not that there's anything wrong with their money. Just so that they don't come back to get round that £100k cap. 

That they are looking to make it retrospective, should be of interest to all the people told that it would be unfeasible/unfair for any other bit of legislation to be retrospective. It turns out it can be, if they want it to be. 

It's Crytpocurrency - Which, as dodgy as it is, has been round now for quite a long time. Strange that the governments only became concerned about it, in this context, when it was Reform that started sourcing large sums through it. I noted that 1 of them received a pardon from Trump for AML offences. I've not seen information to say that the personal wealth of these two, is also tainted. Reform says it's fine, and no one else in interviews has said anything except practice a halloween voice with "Ooooh Crypto." There's lots of enhanced diligence, but it's legal. Because that's the way our banking/legislative system allows it to be. So, when it comes down to it, they've had no issue with it until this.  

Speaking of due diligence, it's 2026 and the government are just getting around to introducing some basic measures to stop the truck wide gaps in their donations from entities too. Mind you, it's only been since 2001 that they had much of anything in this department.

"Anyone could set up a business with high revenue without needing to demonstrate how they operate and make money, or whether they’re paying tax in the UK."

Remember the near £11 billion in Covid fraud? Well, that had more checks than our two main parties were willing to undertake to stop them getting donations. Farage's recent attempts at getting a donation, were just through a single relative. Just wait until they see the nested shell company structures involved. Not that I think they'll be looking that closely. Not a coincidence that, and keeping that Covid fraud in mind which was a few years back now, that they're just getting round to this as Reform get backers. 

I'm annoyed that Farage has done more to force changes in transparency in political donations, than they would ever have introduced otherwise. That Labour and the Conservatives are clearly doing everything they can to build the changes around Reform as much as actual anti-money laundering says a lot about our politics. Grubby and pathetic. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

While the timing undoubtedly works to the advantage of Labour and the Tories, is the state is not reacting to a structural loophole that was exposed—and that allowing £70m+ crypto windfalls and non-domiciled offshore funds.

On the crypto front...

It operates via decentralized networks where ultimate beneficial ownership can easily be masked through mixing services or foreign proxies.

Legislative bodies argue that leaving crypto unmonitored creates a massive backdoor for hostile foreign states or illicit syndicates to inject funds undetected into domestic elections.

The framing looks like an attack on Reform and less as essential digital-era anti-money laundering.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

50 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

While the timing undoubtedly works to the advantage of Labour and the Tories, is the state is not reacting to a structural loophole that was exposed—and that allowing £70m+ crypto windfalls and non-domiciled offshore funds.

On the crypto front...

It operates via decentralized networks where ultimate beneficial ownership can easily be masked through mixing services or foreign proxies.

Legislative bodies argue that leaving crypto unmonitored creates a massive backdoor for hostile foreign states or illicit syndicates to inject funds undetected into domestic elections.

The framing looks like an attack on Reform and less as essential digital-era anti-money laundering.

From today's Beeb:

"The government has previously said it was "determined to tackle" the issue of "mega-donors", and has established a new taskforce to do this."

They had no issues with their own Mega-donors, and of course, there's no mention of unions. 

"It did not support calls from some MPs for a cap but Rayner left the door open to the possibility of further restrictions.

"It's not as simple as we're saying we won't put a cap [on donations], it's a question of making sure that the task and finish group look at how we implement this."

May bring in further restrictions if Reform wiggle their way through this lot. While going after the source of Reform's donations, don't want to cap their own, whether form unions or their individual donors.

Since the 2024 election, the Conservative Party has raised £37m, Reform has raised £35m before Delo and Harborne's large donations, Labour had raised £21m, the Liberal Democrats £17m and the Green Party £1.9m

 

Rayner said the aim would be to "protect our democracy in the spirit of individuals not being able to overpower and buy their way into democracy at the expense of those people that are at the ballot box".

This is just rubbish. If this was remotely a concern of theirs, this bill could have included a normal gifts & hospitality policy - from freebies to paid for meetings with government; tighter rules around ACOBA; revise politically assigned peerages; not give out all access passes to donors; better rules on donations for any activity; rules preventing/revising second jobs for MPs; restrictions on policy influenced by donors (Burnham was quoted as being in talks with unions to agree policy); robust anti money laundering/diligence investigations to look at donations regardless of the time that donor has spent in the UK.

Since retrospective bills are the rage, they can go back and look at political sleaze from the last couple of decades, if not before, and retrospectively punish that lot. A lot of money on second, homes, expenses, revolving door jobs, and paid for commons speeches should bring the treasury some much needed funds. 

[Sir Ralph]

10 hours ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Looked up Neal. It's obvious that Labour should have returned the donations. 

Labour still went through their internal processes and Gething resigned as a result and the inevitable fallout.

 

Do you think Reform should return Delo's donation?

I don’t think there is an issue with accepting either donation as long as it is within the law. It’s at each parties own discretion regarding the optics of it

[Sir Ralph]

50 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

From today's Beeb:

"The government has previously said it was "determined to tackle" the issue of "mega-donors", and has established a new taskforce to do this."

They had no issues with their own Mega-donors, and of course, there's no mention of unions. 

"It did not support calls from some MPs for a cap but Rayner left the door open to the possibility of further restrictions.

"It's not as simple as we're saying we won't put a cap [on donations], it's a question of making sure that the task and finish group look at how we implement this."

May bring in further restrictions if Reform wiggle their way through this lot. While going after the source of Reform's donations, don't want to cap their own, whether form unions or their individual donors.

Since the 2024 election, the Conservative Party has raised £37m, Reform has raised £35m before Delo and Harborne's large donations, Labour had raised £21m, the Liberal Democrats £17m and the Green Party £1.9m

 

Rayner said the aim would be to "protect our democracy in the spirit of individuals not being able to overpower and buy their way into democracy at the expense of those people that are at the ballot box".

This is just rubbish. If this was remotely a concern of theirs, this bill could have included a normal gifts & hospitality policy - from freebies to paid for meetings with government; tighter rules around ACOBA; revise politically assigned peerages; not give out all access passes to donors; better rules on donations for any activity; rules preventing/revising second jobs for MPs; restrictions on policy influenced by donors (Burnham was quoted as being in talks with unions to agree policy); robust anti money laundering/diligence investigations to look at donations regardless of the time that donor has spent in the UK.

Since retrospective bills are the rage, they can go back and look at political sleaze from the last couple of decades, if not before, and retrospectively punish that lot. A lot of money on second, homes, expenses, revolving door jobs, and paid for commons speeches should bring the treasury some much needed funds. 

What Rayner is saying is we don’t like these big donors as they are donating to other parties. Can’t imagine big business donating much to the Labour Party.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

What Rayner is saying is we don’t like these big donors as they are donating to other parties. Can’t imagine big business donating much to the Labour Party.

"It's not fair! It's not!" stomped Rayner in fashionable boots paid for by a Labour donor. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

What Rayner is saying is we don’t like these big donors as they are donating to other parties. Can’t imagine big business donating much to the Labour Party.

Lord David Sainsbury has donated over £11 Million, though not it one lump sum.

Edited 2 hours ago by badgerx16

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

4 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I don’t think there is an issue with accepting either donation as long as it is within the law. It’s at each parties own discretion regarding the optics of it

..

Edited 18 minutes ago by JohnnyShearer2.0