Nigel Farage’s party received £72m in 48 hours (Image: Getty)
Reform UK has hit back at Labour after a furious row broke out about two £36million gifts to Nigel Farage’s party from crypto billionaires.
The donations from Christopher Harborne and Ben Delo, disclosed over the weekend, total three-quarters of the money spent by all parties combined at the last General Election. Reform has said it will use the money to fund its preparations for office, and that the men want “nothing” in return.
Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice said the Government is “trying to literally change the rules to suit their own narrative any day of the week at the drop of a hat”, adding: “That’s not the fair way, it’s not the British way.”
Campaigners have said the £72million gifts demonstrate the need for a cap on political donations. Spotlight on Corruption said the situation “creates risks that the game will be rigged in favour of those with the most cash”.
Proposals for a cap are likely to feature heavily in the House of Lords, which will debate the Government’s Representation of the People Bill on Monday. Questions remain over whether Reform will be able to keep all of the £72million.
‘Un-British!’ Reform UK Savages Labour Over £72 Million Donation Row
Reform UK has launched a fierce attack on Labour over the government’s response to the party’s record-breaking £72 million in political donations, accusing ministers of undermining democratic fairness by considering changes to the rules after the money was received.
The dispute erupted after cryptocurrency entrepreneurs Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne each donated £36 million to Nigel Farage’s party in September 2026. The combined £72 million contribution prompted renewed calls for restrictions on political funding and placed the government under pressure to explain how it intends to prevent wealthy individuals from exercising disproportionate influence over British politics. <Cite refs={[“turn224885news12″,”turn224885news13”]}/>
Reform has insisted that the donations were lawful when made and that neither donor expects anything in return. Labour, meanwhile, argues that the existing rules need stronger safeguards to protect the democratic process from potential foreign interference.
At the centre of the confrontation is a question that could shape the future of British political funding: should the government be able to introduce tighter restrictions that apply to donations already received, or would doing so risk undermining the principle that laws should be clear before people act?
Reform Accuses Labour of Changing the Rules
Reform UK has portrayed Labour’s response as an attempt to disadvantage a political rival by changing the rules after an enormous financial contribution has already been made.
Deputy leader Richard Tice accused Labour of hypocrisy, arguing that the donations complied with the rules in force at the time. The party has maintained that its donors are entitled to contribute under the existing framework and that any attempt to force the money to be returned would require a clear legal justification. <Cite refs={[“turn224885search3″,”turn224885search7”]}/>
The party’s argument centres on the principle of legal certainty. Political parties and donors need to know which rules apply when money changes hands. If restrictions are introduced retrospectively, they can create uncertainty about transactions that were permitted when they took place.
Reform has also argued that the funding will allow it to expand its campaign operation and compete with the established parties. Its representatives say the donations will support staffing, policy development and preparations for the next general election.
From the party’s perspective, the contributions are a legitimate form of political support rather than evidence of improper influence.
However, the government’s position is that existing rules may not adequately address questions about the residency and eligibility of some donors. Ministers have said the purpose of the proposed changes is to protect British democracy, rather than to target Reform specifically.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about the amount of money involved. It is about how the law should balance political freedom, fairness and safeguards against potentially improper funding.
Why the £72 Million Donations Caused Such a Reaction
The scale of the donations explains why the controversy has attracted so much attention.
Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne each provided £36 million, giving Reform UK a financial boost without modern British political precedent. The combined sum exceeded the election spending of either Labour or the Conservatives at the previous general election. <Cite refs={[“turn224885news12″,”turn224885search8”]}/>
For Reform, the money offers the opportunity to build a much larger organisation. It could finance additional campaign staff, strengthen constituency-level operations, support research and help the party communicate its policies to voters.
The donations also change the political fundraising debate because they demonstrate how quickly one or two wealthy individuals can transform a party’s financial position.
Reform argues that this helps it challenge parties with long-established networks and greater institutional resources. Its supporters may see the contributions as an example of private citizens exercising their democratic right to support the political movement they prefer.
Critics, however, worry that such extraordinary financial support could create an imbalance between parties and increase the risk that political decision-making becomes overly dependent on a small number of wealthy benefactors.
Those concerns do not establish that the donors have bought influence or that Reform has promised them favourable treatment. They do, however, raise questions about transparency, accountability and public confidence.
The challenge for lawmakers is to address those concerns without assuming that every large donation is improper.
Angela Rayner Defends the Government’s Approach
Angela Rayner has been at the centre of the debate over the proposed changes. She has argued that the government must ensure people cannot use enormous financial contributions to overpower the democratic process.
Ministers have been examining changes to the Representation of the People Bill, including tighter rules for donations from certain overseas electors and people who have recently returned to the United Kingdom.
The proposals have included a £100,000 annual limit for specified categories of overseas donors, alongside stronger residency requirements. The government has also considered applying certain restrictions retrospectively from 25 March 2026. <Cite refs={[“turn224885search2″,”turn224885news13”]}/>
The residency question is particularly important because both donors have had connections with life outside Britain. Delo had been based in Hong Kong, while Harborne has spent substantial time in Thailand. Both have been reported as registered to vote in the UK, a status that has allowed them to make political contributions under the rules described in reporting on the dispute. <Cite refs={[“turn224885search2″,”turn224885news13”]}/>
The government argues that registration alone may not be sufficient to establish the ongoing connection that new rules could require. A stronger residency test would seek to establish whether donors have a genuine and continuing presence in the country.
Reform rejects the implication that its donations should be prohibited, maintaining that the money was lawful and that the donors meet the relevant requirements.
Until the legislation and the donors’ circumstances have been assessed, it would be premature to conclude that the £72 million must be returned.
Is Retrospective Legislation Fair?
The possibility of retrospective restrictions has become one of the most controversial elements of the dispute.
Reform argues that changing the rules after donations have been made risks setting a troubling precedent. If a government can introduce new restrictions and apply them to earlier transactions, parties may become uncertain about whether money lawfully received today could later be deemed unacceptable.
That concern is especially significant when the affected party is a political opponent of the government introducing the legislation.
Labour’s position is that the issue involves protecting the integrity of elections and addressing weaknesses in the existing system. Ministers have argued that the proposed rules are intended to prevent foreign interference and would not be designed specifically around Reform or its donors.
Both the principle and the practical details matter. Retrospective measures require careful scrutiny because they can affect established expectations and property interests. At the same time, governments may argue that changes are necessary where the existing framework leaves significant gaps.
A credible solution would require clearly defined eligibility criteria, transparent decision-making and an impartial process for determining whether a donation falls within the restrictions.
It would also need to explain what happens if a donation is found to be ineligible, including the timeframe for returning the funds and the process for challenging a decision.
Without those safeguards, the dispute could deepen public mistrust rather than resolve it.
Labour Faces Questions About Its Own Funding
The controversy has also exposed divisions within Labour over whether the government should introduce a general cap on political donations.
Some Labour MPs and campaigners have argued that the £72 million contributions demonstrate the need for stricter limits on large individual donations. Others have warned that a general cap could affect trade union contributions, which are an important source of funding for Labour.
Trade union leaders have argued that money collected through members’ subscriptions is different from a vast personal donation made by a billionaire. They say union funding represents the collective participation of workers and is subject to its own regulatory requirements. <Cite refs={[“turn224885search0″,”turn224885search4”]}/>
That distinction has become politically significant. If a donation cap is introduced, lawmakers will need to determine whether it applies equally to individual contributions, trade union funding and other forms of political support.
Exemptions could protect collective participation but might also invite criticism that the rules favour particular parties. Applying an identical limit to every funding source could appear more consistent, yet it could substantially change the relationship between unions and Labour.
The government therefore faces a wider challenge than deciding whether Reform should retain the £72 million. Any lasting reform will have to account for the funding arrangements of all political parties.
What Reform Could Do With the Money
Reform says the donations will help it prepare for future elections and strengthen its organisational capacity. A larger budget could support recruitment, local campaigning, policy research, communications and the development of a nationwide operation.
The money could also allow the party to maintain a substantial organisation between elections, rather than concentrating most of its spending in the final stages of a campaign.
However, the financial windfall comes with increased scrutiny. Large donations can attract public attention to a party’s financial arrangements, its relationship with donors and the safeguards it has in place to prevent conflicts of interest.
The controversy has also renewed attention on questions about Reform’s wider finances. Separate scrutiny of an earlier £5 million gift from Harborne to Farage, which is the subject of a parliamentary standards investigation, has added to the political debate. Reform and Farage have denied wrongdoing. <Cite refs={[“turn224885news13″,”turn224885search8”]}/>
These issues should be considered separately. The investigation into the earlier gift does not itself prove that the later £72 million in party donations was unlawful.
Nevertheless, the scrutiny underlines the importance of complete declarations, reliable records and clear explanations of how political money is received and used.
A Wider Battle Over British Democracy
The row has become a test of how Britain balances the right to support a political party with the need to protect democratic institutions from undue influence.
Reform’s criticism raises legitimate questions about legal certainty and the risk of governments changing rules in ways that affect political opponents. Labour’s response raises equally important questions about whether existing safeguards are strong enough to address the scale and international nature of modern private wealth.
Neither argument removes the need for evidence. The legality of the donations depends on the applicable rules and the circumstances of the donors, not on whether the government or Reform finds the political consequences convenient.
Any new restrictions should therefore be assessed on their wording, practical effectiveness and fairness across the political system.
The £72 million donations have placed unprecedented pressure on Britain’s political funding framework. They have also exposed disagreements over the role of wealthy donors, the treatment of trade unions and the limits of retrospective legislation.
Reform UK has condemned Labour’s response as unfair, while ministers insist that stronger safeguards are needed to protect democracy. The final outcome will depend on Parliament’s decisions and the application of the law.
Ultimately, the central issue is not which party benefits from the donations. It is whether Britain can establish clear, transparent and consistently enforced rules that allow political competition to flourish without allowing financial power to overwhelm public confidence in the democratic process.