Ben Delo, Reform UK's largest donor, loaned £350,000 to Nina Power, a conservative writer and academic, while she fought a defamation case that a judge ultimately ruled against her. The court found Power engaged in online bullying and conduct bearing "the whiff of threat and antisemitism," raising questions about the financial backing of controversial figures within Nigel Farage's party.
Power and her collaborator Daniel DC Miller sued performance artist Luke Turner for defamation, claiming he falsely accused them of antisemitism. Turner countered with a harassment claim. The judge's ruling sided with Turner, finding that Power and Miller's social media posts constituted harassment and displayed regrettable conduct with antisemitic undertones. The legal judgment delivered a rebuke to both the writers' methods and their claims.
Delo's involvement matters because he represents the new money fueling Reform UK's rapid growth. The billionaire investor, who made his fortune in cryptocurrency and finance, has become the party's financial backbone as it challenges the Conservative Party from the right. His £350,000 loan to Power signals how Reform's donor network supports figures aligned with its ideological direction, regardless of their legal troubles or conduct findings.
The timing compounds the optics problem. Reform UK has positioned itself as a populist alternative to both major parties, yet its mega-donor backs individuals whom courts have found engaged in antisemitic behavior. This undermines the party's claims to represent a fresh approach to British politics. Farage and Reform leadership have not yet addressed the loan or the judgment against Power.
The Power-Turner case reflects broader culture war battles playing out in British intellectual circles. Power has written for conservative publications and podcasts, building a following among right-wing audiences. Her alignment with figures like Delo and backing from Reform-adjacent donors suggests a coordinated ecosystem supporting conservative intellectuals. Turner's counter-claim succeeded where Power's defamation suit failed, reversing the narrative of victimhood that Power and Miller had advanced.
The judicial findings carry weight beyond the parties involved. A sitting judge examined the evidence and determined that Power's conduct crossed legal thresholds for harassment. The "whiff of threat and antisemitism" language indicates the judge found credible evidence of behavior that courts take seriously. This stands as a formal rebuke, not merely a dispute between rival commentators.
Delo's financial support came while the case remained active, suggesting he either knew the risks or deliberately signaled support for Power's position regardless of legal exposure. Either interpretation raises questions about due diligence among Reform's leadership. As Reform UK expands its donor base and prepares for potential government involvement, its financial architecture draws scrutiny. Who funds the party matters for understanding its values and judgment.
The story also reveals how defamation law functions in cases involving public figures and online speech. Power attempted to use courts to silence criticism, a familiar tactic in culture war disputes. The judge rejected her framing and instead validated Turner's counter-claim, suggesting courts remain skeptical of using defamation law to suppress speech in these contexts.
Reform UK faces pressure to clarify its relationship with Delo and its standards for donor conduct. The party's growth depends on mainstream acceptance, yet its financial backing increasingly ties it to controversial figures and causes. The Power loan demonstrates potential vulnerability as Labour and Conservative rivals scrutinize Reform's funding sources and the values of those bankrolling the party's rise.