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 5 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.