There are plenty of objections to preventing Elon Musk from donating to Reform. The first is it’s politically motivated. A party shouldn’t (the theory goes) use its power in government specifically to target another party.
Of course, Labour could do this in a way which prevented all foreign donations to all parties, thus side stepping that objection. In fact, it committed in its manifesto (yes, I know) to reform party financing, placing it on a fairer and more transparent level. While simply banning all foreign donations is hard, just because something is hard doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.
The second line — and this is what Labour appears to be saying — is this would backfire and increase the popularity of Reform. This is astounding on so many levels. This is a government only a few months into its first term. It would have plenty of opportunities to claw back any short-term gain for Reform, particularly if its work on the economy starts to bear fruit.
Unfortunately, this appears to be a hallmark of Starmer’s Labour: operating like it will be having an election next year, rather than in 2028 or 2029. This is leading to the kind timidity which disheartens its supporters, and causes the people who voted for them – on a platform of “Change” – to think twice about them next time.
I understand Labour doesn’t want to get too unpopular too quickly. The amount of pain that is required to raise enough money to fix even half of the horrors that 14 years of Tories inflicted is going to mean lost votes. Why, the theory goes, make yourself more unpopular in the short term if you don’t need to?
But a policy preventing foreign donations doesn’t have to be unpopular. In fact, it can tap into exactly the kind of desire for change which is powering Reform: “do we really want foreign elites influencing our elections?” That sounds like a vote winner over the long term, as it can be pitched as standing up for Britain. If — as it likely — the Trumpist project rapidly unravels in the US, and it’s obvious how much pain their policies cause to ordinary people, standing up to the billionaires who got Trump elected will prove very popular indeed.
And a move to cap donations would be broadly will-liked. As The Observer’s story notes:
The latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows that most voters believe there should be a cap on political donations. It found that 56% believe there should be such a limit, while only 16% think there should be no cap. A third wrongly believed a cap was already in place.
The most significant issue this highlights about Labour is their complete inability to comprehend that the world has evolved, and outdated rules are no longer applicable. And that, I think, will be the kind of issue which could lose them the next election. No matter what happens in the US, not understanding that we are not in the 1990s is going to hurt Labour.
The fact is the forces which want a right wing, cultural warrior, billionaire-friendly future for Britain do not play by the old rules. This has been the failure of the Democratic Party in the US. Despite the Republicans no longer acting like a mature party in a democracy — think back their refusal to allow Obama to nominate to the Supreme Court as a “lame duck” president — the Democrats have kept operating by the same old rules of bi-partisan work and coalition building.
People are attracted to the likes of Trump and Reform because they are prepared to break the rules. They are seen as politicians who will get things done, no matter what, who will ignore the establishment rules and “the diktats of elites” to act. It’s the same old “men of action” story we saw in the 1930s, of course: and you don’t win against those kinds of people by playing polite politics.
The old world is over, and Labour appears not to have realised it. We now live in a world where some individuals possess resources similar to a state, and are prepared to wield them to gain and hold political power. And in terms of how we treat them, we should act as if they were states.
Would we allow Russia, or Iran, or even the US to give a $100m donation to a British political party? No. We would treat it as what it is: a threat to our democracy. And yet, we consider it perfectly acceptable for an individual.
The liberal, “New Labour” approach can be summed up as “if we rock the boat, we will lose votes”. The world where that rule could be successful has gone. It relied on a consensus – among voters, among the wealthy, among parties – which no longer exists.
And as every boxer knows, if you get in the ring, you better be sure that everyone is following the same rules.