Money and Mouths

Reform UK, for all their sins, have done this country a service that extends to the entire world. Firstly, as I’ve said before, they have widened the Overton window, and we can now have a more complete and therefore honest and productive debate about immigration and cultural integration, or lack thereof. Sometimes, policymakers need to think the unthinkable and discuss the undiscussable to get everything out into the open and thus construct more intelligent solutions, even if most of these solutions look nothing like the unthinkable and undiscussable. Hegel would approve (dialectically, of course).

One does not have to agree with Nige and his Band of Merry Men to appreciate the attendant promotion of free speech, inclusive discourse and the provision of a political home for the metaphorical poor and huddled masses. To be fair, this Government also provided some of these masses with a home and were looking to home an awful lot more of them – in prison cells.

The second service to this country, courtesy of Reform, is the exposing of this Government as the fascists that they are and the irony of accusations of fascism against Reform and their supporters. Any Government that seeks to apply legislation retrospectively to the detriment of its opponents is no respecter of democracy – they are fascists. I found it hilarious that while the usual suspects were slithering around, trying to nobble Nige for raising a few quid here and there, he stuck two fingers up at them by landing a cool £72m from legitimate sources. This prompted Miss Piggy and her Muppets to try and make it illegal through not fair means but foul, i.e. fascism.

All this time, Reform are making sound-bite policy announcements that should be scrutinized off the face of this burning planet. Instead, their knickers-in-twist critics are hung up on where they can manufacture and stoke the next scandal because that’s easier and safer than spotlighting policies that Joe Public might like and trying to argue against them with proper insightful debate. For example, Reform’s proposal to raise the minimum tax threshold, although attractive in many respects, is not on its own sound economics. In addition, Reform’s statement that “there would be scope for greater state involvement in utilities” is a) socialist, b) unimaginative and c) counter-productive.

Let’s go back to that £72m. It has been billed as the purchase of democracy. Nah. Reform have been criticized for not being fit to represent the people because they are unprofessional. Their operation cannot, I agree, be described as ‘slick’, partly because they’ve grown phenomenally quickly and are chasing after an increasingly distant professionalism. So this £72m will help them become more professional; except that’s not what their critics really want, is it. They want Reform to not so much wither on the vine as fall off a cliff. That £72m would also help better police their conferences and rallies so that Reform can state their case and be democratically held to account through civilized and respectful debate; except that’s not what their critics really want, is it. Trying to prevent Reform from actually stating their case, as we saw at their conference, is not holding them to account as the protestors claim, but preventing free speech because they are fearful of anyone hearing what Reform have to say.

What about the millions given to Labour by, amongst others: Trade Unions (resulting in employee-friendly/employer-bashing policies); Martin Taylor (a hedge fund manager); Lord Sainsbury; and Dale Vince (resulting in Ed Miliband, which is akin to a twisted take on the Virgin birth). Labour never got uppity about such huge donations before, so why now? That was a rhetorical question, by the way.

In any event democracy, when it’s done properly, actually takes place at the ballot box, not the bank. Reform can hoover up cash until the cows come home to roost, but if people don’t vote for them in sufficient numbers, then it’s goodnight Vienna, or Clacton. And, if you follow the logic of their haters, if people knew what Reform UK really stood for, they wouldn’t vote for them. So surely we should support Reform being well financed in order to get their message out loud and clear everywhere, so it can be scrutinized democratically and voters can make an informed decision.

Let’s take a closer look at the chaps who donated £36m each to Reform. According to the BBC, Ben Delo is an entrepreneur and philanthropist. His causes include neurodiversity, academic freedom and mathematical discovery. Delo was born in Sheffield to a civil engineer father and schoolteacher mother. He was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and attended a state secondary comprehensive. He later studied maths and computer science at Worcester College, Oxford, graduating in 2005 with a double first. He then set about his fascinating, meteoric career. However, in 2022 he was convicted in the US for “failing to implement adequate anti-money laundering controls” and sentenced to 30 months’ probation with a $10m fine. He was subsequently pardoned by The Donald (who felt Biden chronies had unfairly convicted him).

Delo commented in an article he wrote for the Telegraph, “I helped build one of the world’s first major crypto trading platforms, fell foul of US regulators, [and] accepted a plea bargain and a civil fine for a regulatory failing that isn’t even a crime in the UK”.

Delo became one of the youngest-ever signatories of The Giving Pledge in 2019, promising to give away the majority of his wealth during his lifetime. Philanthropy has become his main focus and he claims to have donated more than £100m to a range of causes. He says he is “motivated by the pursuit of truth” and by a "commitment to rationalism, intellectual honesty and frank, open debate".

Having moved back to the UK, he says he has broadened his support to initiatives concerning national renewal. He believes that "Britain is a great nation that has been badly let down by its governing classes over recent decades” and that “without radical action, it may fall into a doom loop of economic stagnation, social fracture and self-doubt” so he supports those who "champion a renewal in governance and civic life, challenge orthodoxy, and promote the discussion of new ideas with the overall objective of setting us on a path for a prosperous future". It seems that he believes that Our Nige can deliver his vision.

Delo wrote in the Telegraph, “Unlike the people who express mock concern for the health of ‘our democracy’ while doing everything they can to keep it as a cartel, I want a fair fight and a level playing field. My conclusion from Reform’s recent troubles is that they should spend less time trying to raise funds to compete on equal terms and more time preparing for government.”

The other recent mega-donor is Christopher Harborne, a British billionaire businessman and technology investor based in Thailand who holds Thai citizenship. He was an early investor in Bitcoin and Ethereum cryptocurrencies and owns approximately 12% of Tether Limited, the company that issues the Tether stablecoin. (I have no idea what any of that means.)

Harborne was born in South Yorkshire to an insurance investor father and a housewife mother. He went to Westminster School and took an MA and MEng from Downing College, Cambridge. He worked for five years as a management consultant at McKinsey and Co., before running a research company in Asia. He describes himself as an "investor in new tech, including open software blockchain platforms,” and other stuff I don’t understand.

He said that his "competitive spirit" inspired him to equal Delo's donation and that he expected "nothing personally" in return. He said he had "already accumulated enough wealth for the rest of my life", while Reform was a "start-up party" that lacked "the benefit of hundreds of years of patronage … A start-up party needs more money than can be provided by membership fees alone, to build and sustain itself and be ready for government”.

Harborne previously donated a £5m cash gift to Nige, who argued that he was under no obligation to register the "purely private" gift. He claims it is unrelated to his parliamentary or political activities. It should be easy enough for the authorities to check whether this is true or not.

I have no problem with individuals donating huge sums to political parties, as long as it’s transparent and legal. Alternative ways to fund political parties include donations from businesses and corporations, Trade Unions, membership fees, fundraising activities and through the tax payer. No source of income is without its pragmatic problems and moral issues. I also don’t object to ‘foreign’ money funding our parties because it’s tricky to define what is and isn’t ‘foreign’. The danger is that a less-foreign donation could be banned but a more-foreign donation could sneak in by the back door. If Labour were serious about protecting democracy they’d come down hard on fraudulent postal votes and ‘family voting’. But as long as that works in their favour, eh?

In other words, as long as Labour is in power, democracy is not in danger from billionaires but burkahs.