Is changing donation laws for Reform retrospectively unfair or politically justified?

Yes, that's pretty much what my AI summary told me. No character assassination of Ben Delo there, so I assumed that there must have been more. Perhaps @EasternStandard can quote the additional comments that actually back up her point.

Yes, I can see from the AI summary that she used the expression "sugar daddies". A bit disparaging I suppose, but hardly an attempt at character assassination.

I haven't found any evidence of an attempt to "position Delo as the worst", which is what you originally claimed. She questioned his motives, as you might reasonably expect her to do, given Reform's highly favourable policies towards crapto millionaires, but I saw no evidence of any comments directed at him personally. She doesn't ever appear to mention his criminal conviction, which you would think she might have done if she was genuinely attempting to "position him as the worst".

Happy to respond to specific quotes if you've got them, but it's quite hard to discuss when it's just a vage assertion without any evidence to back it up.

Why don't you want to share what she actually said?

Ms Rayner said: “If you need a clue about whose side they (Reform) are really on, they’ve given it to us this weekend.

“Nigel Farage’s sugar daddies made their money in cry p to but there’s nothing cryptic about their motives.

“They know full well that a Reform government would act in their interest, not the public interest.

“Now when these Reform donors say they want nothing, they mean it… nothing to stand in their way and if Farage will do a cameo for £70 just ask yourself what he would do for £70m"

Yes it takes time for a bill to progress, and while it does no one should be bound by its law. A proposed bill may still be amended or rejected, so it is unreasonable to expect people to abide by the mere idea of a future law.

Or ‘Tory scum’ it’s embarrassing for a top politician. Ik people will defend Labour but really even Burnham has penned a we need wealth creators article.

I think @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack is making the point that she can’t see anything “vilifying” within that speech.

I tend to agree. There’s only really the sugar daddies line, which I’d say was very much on a par with the rhetoric around “union paymasters” or calling democratically elected trade union leaders, “union barons”

The optics of Labour trying to carve out unions alone for millions and doing the usual rich people are bad is there too. They’re struggling with a £10bn issue already, after claiming the first budget was a one off tax hike. All this celebrating of driving payers away won’t help.

I realise this isn’t a loophole - but for very pragmatic reasons I do think it’s right for legislation like this to be back dated in the same way. Otherwise you get an enormous influx of money from soon to be disallowed sources just before the cut off. As long as it’s within the Rees rules, I think it’s fine.

On the one hand, I agree that I don’t think this money will actually do Reform as much good as they might think - the optics around it are really, really appalling for them. But on the other, whichever party they are for, I think donations of this scale are completely obscene and will become a corrupting force in our politics if we let them.

And your Google overview didn’t get you this, or did you blank it

Angela Rayner delivered her "sugar daddies" line during a speech at the TUC Congress in September 2026

This does raise the question about whether Delo was already donating £1m a month to Reform.

And if so whether those donations were being declared.

Because it makes no sense to say "Oh, I'm suddenly starting a monthly donation but it isn't a monthly donation it's a lump sum upfront."

There is no "donating £1m a month" if you've never done it.

I asked about "Rayner's sugar daddy rant".

This isn't a loop hole. This is Labour making a political decision to as they think it will give an advantage themselves at an election.

Personally I think it is a load of fuss over nothing. If you have crap message spending more promoting that message will only mean a greater number of people know about the crap message.

She called them “sugar daddies” in her speech to the TUC: https://www.tuc.org.uk/speeches/angela-rayner-addresses-tuc-congress-2026

But I’d hardly have called it vilifying. In fact, I’d say it was very much on a par with the rhetoric around “union paymasters” or calling democratically elected trade union leaders, “union barons”.

I gave you the specific wording for Rayner. Did you try that?

Yeah, I tried AI. It didn't produce any evidence of Rayner or Reynolds attempting to position Delo in the worst light at all. That's why I asked for specific quotes.

Rayner questioned their motives - hardly surprising given the fact that they are both crapto millionaires and Reform has stated that it will deregulate crapto, cut tax on crapto profits and block the introduction of a state-run alternative. But that is hardly a character assassination? So what else was said?

No I haven’t the time to do that for you. See what AI brings up. Type Rayner sugar daddies and it’ll come up.

Exactly. And Reform was paying attention. The original plan was for Delo to donate £1m a month until the next GE. But plans changed and and they went with the lump sum to get around potential changes.

Can you provide exact quotes of what was said about Delo, please? I haven't got time to go off on a wild goose chase.

I do totally take this point - but the fact is it’s standard for legislation to close tax loopholes etc to be backdated and I think there are pretty obvious, pragmatic reasons why the same principles should apply here.

All political parties - including Reform - were given fair warning that these changes were coming, and that they’d be backdated to March (when the Rycroft report was published). The legislation passed through the Commons with cross party support. If Reform weren’t paying attention, that’s on them and I don’t think their desperate spinning that this legislation is uniquely victimising them will do a lot to change the growing perception that they are untrustworthy, money grabbing and in it for themselves.

Re hidden post. Shorter version

Look up Rayner’s ‘sugar daddy’ rant and Reynolds on times radio.

Labour vilify but they’ll need payers for their new £10bn hole in finances.

It isn't racist to state facts.

"The share of babies born to migrant parents reached 40pc for the first time last year, new figures show.

Latest Office for National Statistics figures showed the number of newborns with at least one parent born abroad had risen from 39.5pc in 2024 to a record high of 40.2pc last year. It was 30.1pc in 2008".

So a 10% rise over 18 years. And a less than one percent rise on last year. What is the issue anyway? We need people to have children.

Did you hear Rayner and Reynolds? Perhaps you missed both.

Rayner - ‘sugar daddies’ line. This is ridiculous from a top politician.

Reynolds - foreign money crypto billionaires along those lines you can hear it on Times radio. And the response from a political analyst who knows Delo from university l pointed out as business secretary it’s so off to alienate people Labour would like to attract. Her take led me to look Delo up.

Presumably Labour will want to attract people such as Delo, in fact Burnham wrote a piece on that. He has another £10bn hole to fill of course, their tax policies aren’t working, they’ve run out of road. They’ll need to work out whether to vilify or attract people to help pay.

What exactly have Labour said about Delo to "position him as the worst"?

And yet they have clearly. That’s their panic and mistake.

But the retrospective application of the law only dates back to the date on which the planned changes were announced and not before. So people already knew the score.

It takes time for a bill to progress through parliament. During that period, there could easily be a rush of people trying to get in quick on order to circumvent the new rules. The backdating, which was announced long before the large donations to Reform were mooted, was included in order to prevent such a rush.

That is not at all the same as moving the goalposts after the event and changing the rules after people have made their decisions.