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

A person born of immigrant parents is British. Unless you have some Reform-y racist reason, what possible objection do you have to that? And anyone British can stand for parliament, and if they are elected, what business is it of yours?

The Telegraph is the horse’s mouth?

Ah, so you're not talking about foreign nationals? You're including British people who may have been born overseas and British people with one or more immigrant parents? Surely you aren't referring to these people as "foreign"?

As to why those particular people are in Parliament, it will be because their constituents have elected them. That's how our parliamentary democracy works.

They do live here. Delo is one of the youngest billionaires to sign up to give away his wealth. Of course most countries would love an Oxbridge first mathematician who gives away millions. Except it’s to a party that makes Labour jump.

Whining about establishment unfairness is a fundamental part of the Reform playbook. Right now I think a number of their sympathisers are uncomfortable with the idea of being in the pockets of individual billionaires. If they're forced to hand the donations back, the balance shifts back to Reform being the plucky underdogs, being deprived of their rights by a callous and unfair technicality.

Firstly, what's your evidence that 11% of MPs are foreign nationals? Reliable source, please.

Secondly, can you not see the difference between foreign nationals who have chosen to make their homes in the UK and have been elected to public office by the British electorate and wealthy people who don't even live here but want to use their wealth to buy influence?

Why does that bother you so much? I mean, if you're worried about foreign influence, you should probably widen your scope to include MPs who have spouses who are foreign national. Like the PM. Or like Nigel Farage.

Or you could get over the xenophobia.

...like women being assaulted.
It's not something that should be ignored. How can you look at that and give someone £70 million pounds? And not think - I'm rewarding that? Especially if you are very intelligent
I mean it undermines all the other stuff. The optics are literally sxxt.

Why does parliament in Britain depend so heavily on MPs not born here or born to immigrant parents?

0% of our MPs are foreign, and those who were born abroad are British citizens.

They are not convicted criminals pardoned by Trump who are trying to buy cryptocurrency legislation from Reform.

Straight from the horse's mouth;

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/09/11/ben-delo-im-giving-reform-millions-make-next-election-fair/

And the answer to the question, has it been determined they don’t meet the current version?

They are invested, one of them gives millions to Oxbridge and other mathematical orgs as he got a first there after schooling here.

Plus other philanthropic causes.

£43 million in 6 years or £72 million in 2 days. Yep, exactly the same. Clearly.

It's a Bill, not an Act.

That's the point. It has been written and is currently passing through the Houses of Parliament, but hasn't yet been passed.

You're Rupert Lowe and I claim my £5.

The Labour Party is the parliamentary wing of the unions. These are optional donations made by individual British donors and we know exactly what they want for their money - better workers rights, fair taxation and decent wages.

This isn't remotely similar in scale or kind to Reform's obvious bribes.

Who are 'the worst people'?

That's what I said.

@Clavinova , why DOES Reform need to depend so heavily on billionaires living overseas?

Whether they move back here for a short period or not, they haven't been committed enough to the UK to want to actually live here or pay their taxes here – not until they have hopes of a very specific government that they would have paid millions of pounds to.

It's not illegal at the moment, but the optics for these billionaires are terrible.

Also, why are both billionaires from crapto? If Reform were to form a government and make any moves which favoured crapto, or favoured billionaires, it would make Reform look terribly corrupt.

There should be a high bar for retrospective legislation but this definitely passes the threshold, because it undermines our democracy.

Ok so the issue is the ' optics'
These are the optics
A woman was assaulted and laughed at and two blokes have immediately coughed up £70 million presumably to promote more of the same.
It's very visible that party entertains and is attracted to abusers of women.
Millions of hard working people who pay tax in the UK make individual donations of a proportion of their much lower incomes which they choose despite it being a significant commitment. That looks much better than these sus large donations.
Why should people who live abroad specifically so they don't pay tax here acquire such influence? They should sodding well pay tax. At least a year's worth if not more.

BBC yesterday:

Labour has received almost £43m from trade union donors since 2020.

As a reminder, Labour regularly receives donations from trade unions - in an earlier post, BBC Verify examined how Labour received £5m in 2025, and £12m in 2024, an election year.

Username+number seems to be a popular choice for Reform supporters lately.

Can you link to your figures. Please?