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

Okay, but that’s an Opinion article. It’s not surprising that opinion columnists in the Times and the Telegraph are team big money,.

It’s also not surprising that you can get a different view from columnists in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/14/the-guardian-view-on-reform-uk-crypto-billionaires-must-be-stopped-from-undermining-democracy

The by-line times: https://bylinetimes.com/2026/09/14/why-reform-uk-could-be-forced-to-hand-back-their-72m-donations-from-crypto-billionaires/

But public opinion is really clear, people don’t like or want these kind of big money donations, and I do think Reform fighting desperately to cling onto them is a bad look for them as the self proclaimed “party of the people”.

I think applying any law retrospectively is generally unfair. People need certainty to be able make decisions. It is dangerous to start creating a country where what we do today maybe punishable under a future law that is yet to be conceived regardless of how sensible the law is.

I actually quoted that exact research elsewhere - and one of the main points about it is that Labour supporters also support aa cap on Trade Union donations.

I think the false equivalence that’s being drawn between the money given by two ultra wealthy individual billionaires - whose enormous wealth inevitably puts their experiences outside the rest of the populations - and money made up of thousands of donations from thousands of workers, is ridiculous and a clear distraction and whatboutery technique from Reform.

But having said that, I do also think it’s right and fair that a cap of £1 million should apply across all individuals and entities.

I think the spending cap on elections should be higher too.

They don't need to position him as anything. They just need to assess whether his return to the UK is genuine and not just a temporary measure to bypass the legislation.

These are a bit strange arguments. I can't really see the connections between the statements at all really sorry, so it's hard to respond to them.

I don't mean fairness for the parties I mean fairness for us. I don't actually really care about Labour, Tories, Reform, whatever. They are just organisations and their interests are not my interests. I'd like to vote for a local MP and have them represent my concerns in parliament, thanks. I'd like that to be my business.

American politics are awful and I don't want them here. I live here, not there. I think American politics are bad for ordinary people and I want something better. You should do. We really can do better than that.

On this and the ‘homegrown’ stuff below Delo is British. He went to state school here, Oxbridge and then with a 1st he was obviously highly attractive to o/s opportunities. Most countries don’t do what Labour do and drive that kind of success away, they offer what attracts.

He obviously still is invested as a British citizen as he’s given more than nearly all with millions to his alma mater and other top maths education eg in London.

Obviously Labour need to position him as the worst so they can politically survive, so there’s nonsense from Rayner and the business secretary joins in.

They’re overridden by panic.

@Theseagullwhispererweird, as I never heard about any fierce outcry from Labour supporters. I voted for them in this election and I feel they conduct themselves in a similar way to the Tories. But with the added caveat of ‘we plead ignorance or we didn’t know the rules’ I hate Reform. And the donations are an insane amount, but I also find Labour hypocrisy a bit grim too! Seeing Raynor doing the rounds, knowing she can’t even organise her own tax affairs - when the rest of us would have been in trouble for doing the same - leaves a bitter taste for me! Will not vote for them again!

You're grasping at straws now. This is just a baseless personal attack which you cannot back up with any evidence. It isn't helping your case.

I have observed that you are racist based on the explicitly racist content of your posts on this thread - specifically, your repeated assertions and insinuations that British people from ethnic minority backgrounds, or those with one or more parents born overseas, are not really British but somehow "foreign".

You have accused me of being on the side of those who look away from child rape, without any grounds whatsoever for that egregious allegation. You appear to be trying to imply that anyone who ever identifies words or behaviours as "racist" must inevitably turn a blind eye to the rape of white children by non-white perpetrators. This is extremely offensive but it is also patently absurd. And frankly, as a strategy, it comes across as a bit desperate.

I could report your post to MN as a personal attack, but personally, I think daylight is the best disinfectant. I actually think it's good for others to see how you have attempted in your post above to to exploit horrific crimes against children to shut down a completely unrelated challenge about racism. I am afraid it says far more about you than it does about me.

Good night.

I've put you on the side of the people that look away from racial rape of working class children in Britain. They use that word. You are definitely one of those women to me. You will want this deleted because it's true.

I just don't think that you can buy support this well. In the Clinton vs Trump election, Clinton outspent Trump by an enormous margin, and lost.

Also, if it's not about fairness, why bother having elections? Just let the "good" parties govern, and keep out the bad ones, this is our country after all, we don't want the wrong ones winning.

I say "we" because I know that there are many on Mumsnet and beyond who reject racism. I know that I am not alone in this.

I will certainly carry on calling people racist if they say racist things. I believe that there is a moral obligation on me to do so.

As to whether I think that calling you racist makes you like me more or less, I can't say I've ever given it much thought. It really isn't important to me to be liked by people whose opinions I don't value. I would presume that you like me less, which is your prerogative, but that simply isn't a concern for me.

You have responded as you, an individual, you are no more entitled to say "we" than I am.

Do carry on calling people racist. I am endlessly fascinated by people that use that word in a way they think is in service of the success of this nation.

After calling us racist for decades do you actually think this has made us like the people that call us racist more or less? More or less?

There is no hypocrisy.

Philip was born overseas. Yes, he had some British heritage, but the fact remains that our current monarch had one foreign-born parent.

So did Winston Churchill. And many others who you would no doubt readily acknowledge as British.

I think you already know that your last paragraph is wildly inaccurate, so I am not going to dignify it with a response. It's abundantly clear that you're trying to make your racist points as clearly as possible without saying explicitly what you actually mean because you know you'll get deleted. As I said earlier, we see it, and we reject it.

Hung up? I'm highlighting the extraordinary hypocrisy.

👑 Queen Victoria (Prince Philip's great-great-grandmother)
➡️ 🇬🇧 Princess Alice of the United Kingdom (His great-grandmother, Victoria's daughter)
➡️ 🇩🇪 Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine (His grandmother, Alice's daughter)
➡️ 🇬🇧 Princess Alice of Battenberg (His mother, Victoria's daughter)
➡️ 🇬🇧 Prince Philip

Because Queen Elizabeth II was also a great-great-grandchild of Queen Victoria (through Victoria's eldest son, King Edward VII), this maternal lineage is exactly what made Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II third cousins.

Queen Victoria was famously known as the "Grandmother of Europe" because she arranged for her children and grandchildren to marry into royal families across the continent.
Her second daughter, Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, married Prince Louis of Hesse, a German royal. This began the chain of marriages that eventually led to Prince Philip's birth in Greece.

Therefore everyone from all 200 countries on the planet are "British" the second they arrive or just buy a plane ticket to "Britain", unless of course they donate to Reform.

Is this a serious question? Or just more goading?

Donors who are resident in the UK still have to meet the ordinary eligibility requirements such as being on the UK electoral register etc.

Why are you so hung up on the number of babies with at least one parent having been born abroad. Do you accept that those babies are British? And do you understand that many of their "foreign born" parents will also be British?

People who are UK citizens, living in the UK, regardless of where they or their parents were born can donate money to any political party incl Reform

Reform has said [in the Channel 4 programme] that they have a problem attracting donations from these people above

Why do you think that is?

What is a donation from "within the UK" when 40 percent of family formation "within the UK" is foreign parents.

Is their money "within the UK"?⁸

That’s very funny.
Even funnier because it’s a true observation.

It isn't racist to mention that many British people have at least one parent who was born abroad. Including our current head of state, the king.

It is racist to insinuate that those people are somehow "foreign" which seems to be what you are attempting to do.

We see it. We get what you are trying to do. We reject it.

More people want to ban or cap donations from trade unions:

YouGov tracker survey
It shows the highest level of public support was for an outright ban on all political donations, especially donations from trade unions and businesses, and caps were less popular the higher they were set. Over 50% of respondents supported either a ban, a £500 limit or a £5,000 limit on donations from individuals (55%), business (54%) and trade unions (59%).

Given that trade union donations benefit the Labour Party, it might be expected that union donations are viewed more favourably by Labour voters than other forms of giving. However, 59% of Labour-affiliated voters support either a ban, or a cap of £500 or £5,000 on donations from trade unions.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-11072/

Another article this evening from the Times;

The Times View
Backdating law to stop Reform donations will backfire

Shifting the goalposts to make Reform’s donations impermissible would hand the insurgents a new weapon to club the establishment with. Any party in power should avoid seeking to fix the system to help themselves or harm their opponents.

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/backdating-law-to-stop-reform-donations-will-backfire-2ljcvmzcg

It's a good question which I've never seen answered

Why can't Farage/Reform UK attract homegrown UK donors?