@lembitopik , I knew I remembered you differently. Back when you were a Liberal Democrat MP, you apparently thought enormous political donations were enough of a democratic problem that you voted for a £50,000 annual cap on how much any single donor could give a political party. Yes, really. On 2 March 2009, the Commons voted on a Liberal Democrat proposal stating that a political party should not be allowed to accept more than £50,000 from one donor in a calendar year. You voted for it. The Lib Dem argument at the time was that simply knowing who gave the money wasn't enough — there needed to be a limit on the amount of financial power a single donor could wield. Fast-forward to 2026 and two crypto billionaires commit £36 MILLION EACH to Reform, and suddenly your position is: “Successful businessmen! Nothing to see here!” 😂 Lembit, each of those donations is 720 times the annual individual-donor limit you personally voted to introduce. Together, Delo and Harborne have committed £72 million in around 48 hours — more than either Labour or the Conservatives spent during the last general election campaign. That's quite the ideological journey. And don't pretend the objection is that businessmen shouldn't donate to political parties. Nobody is saying that. The question you yourself apparently understood in 2009 is whether one extremely wealthy individual should be able to translate their personal fortune into vastly more political influence than an ordinary citizen could ever exercise. A nurse can give £10. A shop worker can give £20. Thousands of union members can pool relatively small contributions through a regulated political fund. Ben Delo can personally commit £36,000,000. Christopher Harborne can see that and personally commit another £36,000,000. Those things aren't democratically equivalent merely because they all appear in an Electoral Commission spreadsheet under the heading “donations”. And since you've brought up unions, let's be precise about that too. Trade-union political funds normally derive mainly or wholly from members' contributions. Individual members have statutory rights over whether they contribute, and those funds are separately regulated. So calling organised contributions from thousands upon thousands of workers “self-serving union donations” while describing two billionaires personally producing £72 million as the generosity of “successful businessmen” tells us rather a lot about whose political influence you now regard as legitimate. It also rather spectacularly contradicts the Lembit Öpik who used to worry about political-funding loopholes. In 2006, you were warning Parliament that experience showed political parties would “do anything to get round” restrictions and questioning whether foreign money could find its way into British politics. Twenty years later, Britain is once again debating the risks of concentrated and overseas-linked political money, the government is tightening donor rules, and Reform is itself under investigation over separate allegations concerning foreign funding — allegations Reform denies. Yet apparently your concern about money in politics has disappeared precisely when the enormous cheques are landing in the account of the party you favour. Funny, that. 2009 Lembit: no donor should give more than £50,000 a year. 2026 Lembit: £36 million from one billionaire? Stop picking on successful businessmen! So perhaps Labour's alleged double standard isn't the most interesting one here. What happened to yours?