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 response to £72m donation

Reform UK has launched a fierce attack on Labour’s response to its extraordinary £72 million fundraising haul, accusing the government of attempting to change the rules after the money had already been donated.

The row centres on two £36 million donations made to Reform UK by cryptocurrency entrepreneurs Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne.

The donations, made within 24 hours of each other, are the largest political contributions recorded in British politics. Reform says the money is entirely lawful under the rules that applied when the donations were made.

Labour, however, is backing legislation that would tighten restrictions on donations from British citizens who have recently returned to the UK after living abroad. The proposed measures could have significant implications for the two donors and potentially for the £72 million itself.

The dispute has produced some of the strongest language yet from Reform figures, who have portrayed the government’s response as an attempt to undermine a political opponent through changes to the rules.

Labour rejects that interpretation and says its objective is to strengthen public confidence in Britain’s political system and prevent excessive overseas influence.

The £72 million at the centre of the storm

The controversy began with Ben Delo’s £36 million donation to Reform.

Delo, a cryptocurrency entrepreneur, said his contribution was intended to help create a more level playing field between Reform and the established political parties.

Christopher Harborne then matched the donation with another £36 million.

The combined £72 million transformed Reform’s financial position almost overnight.

Nigel Farage said the money would be used to prepare the party for the next general election, including expanding its research and policy operation and placing campaign managers in target constituencies.

Reform has said neither donor will receive a peerage, knighthood or government contract in exchange for the money.

The party has also insisted that the donations were made in accordance with the law.

But the circumstances surrounding the donors’ residency have become central to the political dispute.

Why Labour wants tougher rules

The government is supporting changes to political donation rules that would restrict certain contributions from British citizens living overseas or recently returning to Britain.

The proposals include a £100,000 annual limit for certain overseas-linked donations.

The government has also been considering a stronger residency test, potentially requiring donors to demonstrate a more substantial and continuous connection with the UK.

The issue became particularly significant after it emerged that both Reform donors had been living abroad before returning to Britain.

Labour argues that political funding rules should prevent people without a sufficiently strong current connection to the UK from having an outsized financial influence on British politics.

Andy Burnham has also defended the principle that Britain needs the highest standards of transparency and trust in political funding.

On Wednesday, however, Burnham declined to say whether Reform would ultimately have to return the £72 million.

He said the details of the donations were a matter for Reform and that their legality would depend on how the new law applies.

Reform sees a political attack

Reform’s response has been dramatically different.

The party argues that the donations were legal when they were made and that changing the rules afterwards risks undermining confidence in the political process.

Farage has repeatedly attacked the proposed restrictions, arguing that Labour is attempting to disadvantage Reform because the party has suddenly acquired substantial financial resources.

In a statement published by Reform, Farage described the donations as an attempt to “level” a political playing field that he says has historically favoured Labour and the Conservatives.

He also claimed that the donors were concerned about the government’s plans to alter political funding rules.

Those are Reform’s political claims, rather than independently established findings about Labour’s motives.

The government maintains that the reforms are about political integrity and the influence of overseas-linked money, not about targeting one party.

The controversy over retrospective legislation

One of the most contentious elements is the proposed retrospective application of the new rules.

The government has indicated that restrictions could apply from March 25, 2026.

That means donations made before Parliament has completed the legislative process could potentially be affected by rules introduced later.

For Reform, this is the crucial issue.

The party argues that donors should be judged according to the law in force when their contributions were made.

Supporters of the government’s approach argue that Parliament can legitimately change electoral law when it believes existing arrangements create unacceptable risks.

The question could ultimately become a matter for the courts if the government attempts to recover the money and Reform challenges the decision.

The Times has reported that Reform is preparing for a possible legal challenge if the government moves to block or reclaim the £72 million.

A wider argument about political money

The dispute is not limited to Reform and Labour.

The £72 million donations have reignited a much broader debate about how political parties should be funded in Britain.

Critics of mega-donations argue that very wealthy individuals should not be able to provide political parties with sums vastly beyond what ordinary citizens could ever contribute.

The Trades Union Congress has also entered the debate.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak has warned about the influence of extremely wealthy donors, although unions themselves have different views about whether a general cap on donations would be appropriate.

The issue is complicated by Labour’s own financial structure.

Trade unions are major Labour donors, and a blanket limit on all political contributions could affect the party’s traditional sources of funding.

The Guardian reported that Labour has received nearly £43 million from unions since 2020.

That creates a difficult political question.

If individual donations are capped but trade-union contributions remain outside the same restrictions, critics could argue that the system favours Labour.

Labour supporters can respond that trade unions represent large memberships and that their political funding comes from collective organisations rather than a single billionaire.

That disagreement is now part of the wider political funding debate.

Reform’s “Un-British” argument

The language surrounding the dispute has become increasingly heated.

Reform supporters have portrayed the government’s approach as fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with traditional British principles of political competition.

The phrase “Un-British” has been used in the political debate to describe what Reform sees as an attempt to change the rules after its successful fundraising operation.

But there is no neutral legal finding that the government’s actions are “Un-British”.

It is a political characterisation used to express opposition to the proposed legislation.

The government’s position is that Britain needs stronger safeguards to ensure political parties cannot be heavily financed by people whose connection to the country is insufficient.

The disagreement is therefore fundamentally about how the law should balance donor rights, political participation and protection against foreign influence.

Labour is under pressure of its own

The controversy comes at an awkward time for Labour.

The party has been trying to strengthen its finances while facing questions about membership, donations and the cost of maintaining a national political organisation.

On September 16, Labour hosted major donors at a Downing Street drinks reception as pressure grew for the party to consider changes to political funding rules.

At the same time, Labour has appealed to its wider membership for smaller donations.

That campaign has taken on greater urgency because Reform’s £72 million windfall gives Farage’s party substantial resources for organising, research and communications.

The contrast between Reform’s two billionaire donations and Labour’s appeal for grassroots contributions has made the political funding argument even more visible.

Farage’s response to the challenge

Rather than retreating from the controversy, Farage has used it to reinforce one of Reform’s central political messages.

His argument is that established parties have controlled British politics for decades and that Reform needs enough resources to challenge them.

In his own statement about the £72 million, Farage said the money would allow Reform to develop what he described as a major research and policy operation and to employ professional organisers in target constituencies.

Reform has said it is now operating on an election footing.

The party’s financial position therefore looks very different from what it was before the donations.

But the money has brought scrutiny as well as strength

The donations have not removed Reform’s existing controversies.

The party is facing a Metropolitan Police investigation into allegations relating to its finances, while Farage is also subject to a parliamentary standards investigation concerning a separate £5 million gift from Harborne.

Reform and Farage deny wrongdoing.

The new £72 million donations have therefore arrived at a time when the party was already under intense scrutiny.

The result is a paradox.

Reform now has vastly greater financial resources, but its financial affairs are receiving vastly greater attention.

Every aspect of the donations — the donors, their residency, the source of the money and the rules governing political contributions — is being examined.

Could the dispute end up in court?

That possibility is becoming increasingly significant.

If Parliament approves the proposed restrictions and the government subsequently determines that some or all of the £72 million cannot be retained, Reform could challenge the decision.

The Times has reported that the party is preparing for precisely that possibility.

Such a legal battle would raise important questions about the retrospective application of electoral law.

It could also determine how Britain treats major political donations from citizens who have lived overseas before returning to the UK.

Until the legislation is finally passed and applied, however, it is too early to say whether Reform will actually have to return any of the money.

A battle over trust

At its heart, the argument is about trust.

Labour says stronger restrictions are needed to maintain confidence in British democracy.

Reform says changing the rules after receiving legal donations undermines confidence in the political system.

Both sides are therefore appealing to the language of democratic legitimacy, but they arrive at very different conclusions.

For Labour, the concern is the potential influence of wealthy donors with recent overseas connections.

For Reform, the concern is whether governments should be able to change the rules in a way that affects money already donated to a political rival.

The final answer will depend on Parliament and, potentially, the courts.

What happens next?

The Representation of the People Bill is continuing its passage through Parliament, with provisions relating to overseas donations among the measures being debated.

Meanwhile, Reform is preparing for the possibility of a legal challenge and continues to insist that the £72 million was lawful.

Labour faces pressure from both MPs and unions to clarify whether it supports a broader cap on political donations.

Andy Burnham has so far declined to commit to such a cap.

That leaves the political funding debate unresolved.

The immediate question is whether the new restrictions will affect Reform’s unprecedented donations.

The broader question is whether Britain should introduce a more comprehensive system governing the amount individuals, companies and membership organisations can contribute to political parties.

A controversy bigger than Reform

The £72 million donation has become much more than a story about Nigel Farage.

It has exposed tensions within Britain’s political funding system that affect every major party.

Reform has gained an unprecedented financial advantage from two enormous private donations.

Labour has responded by pursuing restrictions on certain overseas-linked contributions while facing its own questions about union funding.

The Conservatives and other parties must also consider how any new rules would affect their future fundraising.

And voters are left with a fundamental question about the rules of political competition: how much financial influence should any individual or organisation be able to exercise in British politics?

For now, Reform’s answer is clear: the party says the £72 million was legally donated and should remain available for its political work.

Labour’s answer is equally clear: the government believes the rules need strengthening to protect confidence in the political system.

The dispute is far from settled.

What began as an extraordinary fundraising announcement has developed into a much wider confrontation over political money, residency, parliamentary power and the rules governing British democracy.

And with Reform preparing for a possible legal fight, the £72 million controversy is unlikely to disappear from Westminster any time soon.