Reform lands second £72m donation in two days Burnham under pressure to cap external donations

Andy Burnham is facing renewed pressure to explain why he backed away from plans to cap political donations after Reform UK landed a staggering £72 million from two cryptocurrency billionaires in just two days.

The extraordinary cash injection came in two identical £36 million donations from Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, giving Nigel Farage's party a huge financial war chest ahead of the next general election.

And it has reignited the argument over whether Britain's political parties should be allowed to accept donations of almost unlimited size.

THE BURNHAM QUESTION

Labour MP Stella Creasy said the two donations were worth more than Labour had received from trade unions over the past five years.

She said they demonstrated why a donations cap “cannot come too soon” and accused big-money donors of gaining the ability to distort British democracy.

Creasy had proposed an amendment that would have prevented anyone giving a political party more than £100,000 in a single year.

But the amendment never reached a Commons debate after the Government promised instead to establish a task force to examine the problem of “mega-donors”.

Now the issue is heading for the House of Lords — and Burnham is back in the firing line.

“YOU PROMISED”

Green Party deputy leader Rachel Millward went straight for the Labour politician.

“Labour could have stopped this years ago by capping donations. Burnham promised to do it then backtracked,” she said.

“Will he now admit this was a mistake?”

It is an awkward question.

Because whatever the rights and wrongs of Reform's funding, £72 million arriving in 48 hours makes the argument for a donations cap considerably harder for Labour to ignore.

FARAGE: LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

Nigel Farage, naturally, sees it very differently.

He thanked Harborne and Delo for their “generosity”, saying the money would allow Reform to fight — and win — the next election on a “level playing field”.

Harborne, who is based in Thailand, described his £36 million contribution as a “philanthropic gift to our country” designed to help Reform prepare for government.

He revealed that he had already been giving Reform around £1 million a month.

When Delo told him he was planning a record £36 million donation, Harborne said his “competitive spirit” inspired him to match it.

And just like that, Reform had another £36 million.

Be afraid Mr Burnam be very afraid

The timing is particularly interesting.

Delo reportedly intended to continue giving Reform £1 million a month until the next election, but decided to hand over the money in one enormous lump because of fears the Government could introduce a cap on political donations.

MPs have already backed measures including a £100,000 limit on overseas donations and a suspension of political funding through cryptocurrency.

But the legislation still needs approval from the Lords.

REFORM UNDER PRESSURE

The £72 million arrives after a difficult summer for Farage's party, which has faced intense scrutiny over its finances and a criminal investigation into allegations that it breached political donation rules.

Reform denies wrongdoing and says it will fully cooperate with the investigation.

Labour chairwoman Bridget Phillipson accused Farage of being unable to “buy his way out” of the sleaze allegations surrounding the party.

But the reality is that Reform now has something its opponents cannot ignore:

A gigantic election war chest.

THE £72 MILLION QUESTION

The argument over political money is therefore unlikely to disappear.

If anything, it has just become considerably louder.

Two men have put £72 million into one political party in two days.

And the question now hanging over Westminster is brutally simple:

How much money should one person be allowed to put behind a political party before it becomes too much?

Burnham once had an answer.

Now he is being asked why he changed his mind.

SOURCE

This will have a hugely negative impact with voters who do not want to see tax avoiding billionaires, who live abroad, trying to buy UK democracy.

Its only OK for Lord Alli to lash his cash on tickets, suits, and glasses expect Labour defectors sniffing out truffles imminently .

Burnham / Labour response

Labour, not really keen on financial level playing fields

Once a party becomes a certain size, then all those parties that meet that requirement should get funding from the Treasury (say 10 million pounds) each to fight a GE and you could then ban private donations.

Also, you could claim a fair playing field for all and no outside interference from figures who'll want a favour or two down the road or have a political axe to grind. It would also curtail silly fringe nonsense parties from turning the election ballot into some circus clown lineup.

However, chance of this happening is pretty much zero.

28 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Burnham / Labour response

Labour, not really keen on financial level playing fields

More ads, more reach........I was thinking more Ferraris

Not a fan of Farage but you have to admit there is rarely a dull moment !

The party of the working class

Bought and owned by billionaires and multimillionaires.

There’s two reasons why anyone might make such huge donations.

1. They for some reason want Reform to win the next General Rlection.

2. They for some reason need Reform to win the next General Election.

With two such donors they might not share the same reason.

I'm proud to see Burnham staying true to his principles.

30 minutes ago, temuFarang said:

I'm proud to see Burnham staying true to his principles.

It is very easy for him to stick to his principles as he does not have any!

Bit different from running

Manchester Andy ?

The legislation going through Parliament will be carefully drafted to catch this, which I think it effectively already does, and the other parties will either openly or quietly support it. Reform will then have to give it back, and if they choose to pursue a legal fight, they will have to bear the costs of that fight.

The key thing is to ensure that the legislation catches both of these donors. I strongly suspect that, once it is in place, their tax affairs, residence status and Home Office immigration history will all be scrutinised very carefully to make sure they are caught if there is a legitimate legal basis for doing so. That’s how the Establishment works.

He will call foul, of course, but ultimately he will have to accept it. I do hope he fights it and loses, because that would mean even more money coming out of the coffers to fund the legal costs of that fight.

Labour are happy to take millions in Donations from the Unions but when someone out does them they cry foul and try to block it because they know they will be out on there arse come general Election, they tried suspending local elections but when Reform threatened them with a court case they got there arse kicked and sent a message to the general public of what will happen when there is a general election. Now there crapping themselves with this huge donation so they will try and block it.

4 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The legislation going through Parliament will be carefully drafted to catch this, which I think it effectively already does, and the other parties will either openly or quietly support it. Reform will then have to give it back, and if they choose to pursue a legal fight, they will have to bear the costs of that fight.

The key thing is to ensure that the legislation catches both of these donors. I strongly suspect that, once it is in place, their tax affairs, residence status and Home Office immigration history will all be scrutinised very carefully to make sure they are caught if there is a legitimate legal basis for doing so. That’s how the Establishment works.

He will call foul, of course, but ultimately he will have to accept it. I do hope he fights it and loses, because that would mean even more money coming out of the coffers to fund the legal costs of that fight.

How do you retrospectively make something illegal legally?

2 hours ago, Simon Lager said:

Bit different from running

Manchester Andy ?

Definitely is, Billionaires are throwing tens of millions at to replace him with a multimillionaire ‘antiestablishment’ conman.

On 9/13/2026 at 5:21 AM, Sir Dude said:

Once a party becomes a certain size, then all those parties that meet that requirement should get funding from the Treasury (say 10 million pounds) each to fight a GE and you could then ban private donations.

Also, you could claim a fair playing field for all and no outside interference from figures who'll want a favour or two down the road or have a political axe to grind. It would also curtail silly fringe nonsense parties from turning the election ballot into some circus clown lineup.

However, chance of this happening is pretty much zero.

How does that work for parties that won't swear to an oath, and do not send Parliamentarians to parliament.? (Sein Fein). Under a system of state sanctioned political parties (a closed shop), there is no room for the Independent candidates and MPs. There would be no room for the likes of Martin Bell and indeed George Galloway.

Restricting meaningful political participation to parties receiving government funding would undermine a much older British constitutional principle: political rights are not privileges bestowed by the state, but liberties exercised by citizens. From Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest onward, English constitutional tradition developed around the idea that government is constrained by law and that inherited liberties cannot simply be withdrawn at the government's convenience.

Making political participation dependent on state funding would invert that principle—turning the government into the gatekeeper of political legitimacy, entrenching established parties and weakening the ancient idea that the citizen, not the state, ultimately decides who may stand, speak and seek representation.

It would be a deeply troubling step towards the logic of East Germany, where political participation formally existed but was structured around a state-controlled political system that excluded genuine competition. Britain’s constitutional tradition is the opposite: political rights are not privileges granted by the government, but liberties belonging to citizens. If the state decides which parties deserve funding—and therefore which voices can realistically participate, there there is the risk of creating a political cartel, entrenching those already inside the system and undermining the historic British principle that any citizen can stand for Parliament and ask the electorate for its support.

British political parties should be financed by people who actually live under the government they seek to influence. Political donations should therefore be restricted to British citizens who are ordinarily resident in the UK throughout the year, rather than allowing substantial financial influence from citizens living permanently abroad. The principle is simple: if you do not live here, pay taxes here and experience the consequences of British government here, you should not be able to buy political influence here. A 365-day residency requirement before a donation can be made would create a clear, objective rule, reduce the potential for overseas influence and reinforce the fundamental democratic principle that British politics should ultimately be shaped by the people who live in Britain.

This also means those tax exiles who want to influence the political direction of the party need to make a long term adjustment to their lifestyles well before an election This will give legislators ample opportunity to understand the source of monies, to ensure political patronage doesn't become money laundering. This Bitcoin money is dirty money. The donors expect a return on their investment through the election of Reform candidates not necessarily to form a government, but to obtain lucrative portfolios of state that will facilitate more than adequate compensation to said donors.

On 9/13/2026 at 11:27 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s two reasons why anyone might make such huge donations.

1. They for some reason want Reform to win the next General Rlection.

2. They for some reason need Reform to win the next General Election.

With two such donors they might not share the same reason.

There is a third reason. They want Reform to have access to government. You don't have to head a government to rob the people blind. Ministers have considerable power to award contracts. While the 2023 Procurement Act imposes restrictions on ministers to award contracts willy nilly, the legislation still allows for direct awards.

If Reform subsequently enters government—whether alone, through a coalition, or by supporting a minority administration—a major early backer may already possess relationships with people who suddenly have influence over taxation, regulation, planning, procurement, nationalisation, trade policy or other decisions affecting large fortunes and businesses.

The investment is not necessarily in winning the election; it can be in becoming an important person to the people who might hold power. That is precisely why large political donations can raise legitimate concerns about the appearance of an exchange of influence even where no provable quid pro quo exists.

There is also a strategic calculation: £10 million spent helping a party move from the political fringe into a position where it can determine who governs may potentially buy considerably more political access than £10 million spent simply supporting an already dominant governing party. The donor is effectively buying a place at the table before the table exists.

13 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The legislation going through Parliament will be carefully drafted to catch this, which I think it effectively already does, and the other parties will either openly or quietly support it. Reform will then have to give it back, and if they choose to pursue a legal fight, they will have to bear the costs of that fight.

I don't think they should give back.

Better if the government taxes every donation over £500,000 at 99% and says thank you to the billionaires

That should net a nice little £70,290,000 for the treasury.

Still leaves Reform with £2 mill.

Now thats winning.

Musk makes the first billion pound donation

in UK politics !

Sorry ......bit early.... that's next week 's news !

Reform and Farage's rating have gone down since the donations.

The UK's not America some things can't be bought.

On 9/13/2026 at 9:46 AM, Social Media said:

“Labour could have stopped this years ago by capping donations. Burnham promised to do it then backtracked,” she said.

That's because they thought they'd get more from the trade unions than the other parties got from elsewhere.

Oops. 😄

Asking these two donors to demonstrate where they got the millions they bunged Reform might be a good idea.

Edited 21 hours ago21 hr by Chomper Higgot

On 9/13/2026 at 5:27 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s two reasons why anyone might make such huge donations.

1. They for some reason want Reform to win the next General Rlection.

2. They for some reason need Reform to win the next General Election.

With two such donors they might not share the same reason.

3. They of course , believe reform have a very good chance of winning the next general election, and so does Burnham and So do you and so do I Who would have thought I could ever agree with You and Burnham

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

3. They of course , believe reform have a very good chance of winning the next general election, and so does Burnham and So do you and so do I Who would have thought I could ever agree with You and Burnham

You seem to know stuff that isn’t true.

On 9/13/2026 at 5:16 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

The party of the working class

Bought and owned by billionaires and multimillionaires.

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Asking these two donors to demonstrate where they got the millions they bunged Reform might be a good idea.

Well there's enough millionaires in the current labour government Starmer , Burnham, Lammy, Rayner ,Streeting to name but a few, Perhaps they could have a bit of a whip round to help their struggling party'

After the source of their funds has been "demonstrated"

Champagne socialists, every single one of them

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You seem to know stuff that isn’t true.

Well i thought reform were in with a good chance before this generous donation, this will only increase their chances . Burnham is a fool if he isn't concerned, the same goes for the rest of the current government, So that just leaves you, in denial.

17 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The legislation going through Parliament will be carefully drafted to catch this, which I think it effectively already does, and the other parties will either openly or quietly support it. Reform will then have to give it back, and if they choose to pursue a legal fight, they will have to bear the costs of that fight.

The key thing is to ensure that the legislation catches both of these donors. I strongly suspect that, once it is in place, their tax affairs, residence status and Home Office immigration history will all be scrutinised very carefully to make sure they are caught if there is a legitimate legal basis for doing so. That’s how the Establishment works.

He will call foul, of course, but ultimately he will have to accept it. I do hope he fights it and loses, because that would mean even more money coming out of the coffers to fund the legal costs of that fight.

"The key thing is to ensure that the legislation catches both of these donors."

Actually the "key thing" as far as the current government is concerned is to desperately cling on to power and avoid losing their jobs, In their and your tiny one track minds the only hope they have of doing that is to attack reform , I have never seen such panic and desperation , What's not to enjoy?

They could always dream up some policies that put Britain and British people first, To quote Burnham " there is room for movement" Admittedly these would have to be policies that were not in their electoral manifesto , but won't bother them , at least it hasn't in the past.

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by Bday Prang

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

Well i thought reform were in with a good chance before this generous donation, this will only increase their chances . Burnham is a fool if he isn't concerned, the same goes for the rest of the current government, So that just leaves you, in denial.

It might also demonstrate to the electorate that Reform are the party of the hyper wealthy, with lots to hide.

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

"The key thing is to ensure that the legislation catches both of these donors."

Actually the "key thing" as far as the current government is concerned is to desperately cling on to power and avoid losing their jobs, In their and your tiny one track minds the only hope they have of doing that is to attack reform , I have never seen such panic and desperation , What's not to enjoy?

They could always dream up some policies that put Britain and British people first, To quote Burnham " there is room for movement" Admittedly these would have to be policies that were not in their electoral manifesto , but won't bother them , at least it hasn't in the past.

The Key thing right now for Farage and a number of people at the top of Reform is to stay out of prison.