Should we be shocked by the two gigantic donations to Reform UK totalling £72million?

I admit to being taken aback. These are by far the largest amounts ever given to any British political party. Neither donor is necessarily the sort of chap with whom one would like to cross the Gobi Desert sharing a single water bottle.

Both have made huge fortunes in cryptocurrencies, which few of us begin to understand. I’d be happier if they had built up businesses offering ordinary people more useful goods and services.

One benefactor, Ben Delo, was charged by the US government in 2020 with failing to introduce anti-money laundering controls. He paid a £7.5million fine and was later pardoned by Donald Trump, who has himself made a fortune from dealing in cryptocurrency.

The other donor, Christopher Harborne, is a mysterious figure who lives in Thailand, of which country he is a citizen (as he is of Britain). It was he who gave Nigel Farage a personal gift of £5million, which the leader of Reform is accused of not declaring in accordance with the rules.

So, yes, some of us may choose to hold our noses at the size and origin of these two donations of £36million each from the cryptocurrency kings. Delo’s was announced first, and Harborne’s followed hard on its heels.

The high-minded outrage of Labour is nonetheless as egregious a piece of hypocrisy as you are likely to find. That terrifying creature Bridget Phillipson climbed into her pulpit to declare that: ‘Farage can’t buy his way out of the sleaze and scandal he and Reform UK are drowning in.’

Yet her party has trousered hundreds of millions of pounds over the decades from trade unions and rich donors. According to DonationWatch, the unions have given Labour £150million since 2010.

We may be certain that the brothers haven’t done this out of the goodness of their hearts. They want something back for their money – and they get it. The Government has obligingly introduced the Employment Rights Bill, which greatly extends the powers of the unions.

And there are, of course, other ways of rewarding the comrades for their generosity. In the year to August, average earnings in the unionised public sector were increased by 6.1 per cent, more than double the 2.8 per cent rise in the private sector.

Nor is Labour averse to receiving huge donations from private individuals or companies. As recently as late May 2024 – five weeks before the General Election – it pocketed £4million from Quadrature Capital, which describes itself as ‘a systematic trading firm’.

The seemingly virtuous Lib Dems aren’t much better. They have also worked themselves into a frenzy over Reform’s £72million with their Cabinet Office spokeswoman, Lisa Smart, calling for the Government to introduce emergency legislation to cap donations.

They, too, are rank hypocrites. Since 2010 the party has received £123million in contributions and public funds. Most donations are relatively small, but by no means all. Lord (David) Sainsbury gave the Lib Dems a single gift of £8million in 2019.

The fury expressed by Labour and Lib Dems is pretty nauseating. At least the Tories, who have benefited from many large donations over the years, have wisely not got on their high horse over Reform’s good fortune.

Labour has cheerfully accepted the principle that individuals or organisations such as trade unions should be able to make sizeable donations. It now objects because Nigel Farage’s party is in receipt of larger sums than it has been able to attract.

What has changed is the sheer scale of the gifts. Labour is terrified of being outspent by Reform. Its response is to suggest that there should be a limit on the size of donations, and even to imply that this might be retrospective.

That was the sinister suggestion made yesterday by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner – the brains behind the pro-union Employment Rights Bill – on BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg.

Ms Rayner said in her holier-than-thou way that she wanted to stop people ‘being able to overpower and buy their way into democracy’. She is perfectly happy for the trade unions and Labour donors to do precisely that.

She raised the possibility that the Government might still impose a cap of £100,000 per year on gifts from a single source – from which you can bet your bottom dollar that the unions would be exempt.

Angela Rayner also insinuated that Reform’s two donations could fall foul of overseas funding rules announced in March but not yet enacted. Labour might try retrospectively to scupper the gifts.

What shameless effrontery! Fair-minded people should surely set aside any qualms they might feel about Messrs Delo and Harborne and concentrate instead on Labour’s cynical ambitions to rig the system to its own advantage.

Why shouldn’t Reform UK accept this money? It’s a new party that hasn’t built up an extensive national organisation over the decades with the benefit of large donations.

It doesn’t have a single peer in the House of Lords, which Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have packed with their own friends (including their donors, whose presence on the red benches is invariably attributed to the benefactors’ great qualities).

Only yesterday it was reported that Sir Keir Starmer is drawing up a resignation honours list despite having explicitly undertaken never to do so if he became prime minister. Old mates will be rewarded with titles, ermine and a £371 daily allowance.

This is just one example of the lush pastures open to the traditional parties that are denied to Reform. Ben Delo made a reasonable point when he wrote about wanting to enable ‘a fair fight and a level playing field’ for the party.

But will these vast sums make any difference? That is the crucial question. Kemi Badenoch spoke wisely over the weekend: ‘You can buy staff and advertising, but you can’t buy judgment or integrity. Sometimes a bigger cheque just means you make more of the same mistakes.’

The Tory leader is parti pris, but she’s right. Reform could spend its £72million windfall to no advantage unless it addresses the fundamental shortcomings that have dragged it down over recent months.

One is a tendency to cut corners and ignore the rules. There was the recent sting, broadcast by Channel Four News, which appeared to show two senior aides brushing aside legal requirements about political donations. There have been other apparent oversights.

The other problem is organisational weakness. Farage should appoint an experienced and trustworthy chief of staff, and get rid of the turbulent, flaky young men who surround him. There should be more women at the top of Reform.

All the money in the world can’t save the party unless it addresses these frailties. Does its leader have the grit and determination to force through necessary changes? He is a terrific campaigner but hasn’t yet shown he can run a political party.

The Tories aren’t strong enough to make it alone. The Right in Britain still needs Nigel Farage. If these two enormous gifts help to rescue Reform – and aren’t foiled by a self-serving Labour Party – we should all rejoice.