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

Has that been confirmed? That it’s impermissible under the current Act.

If that’s the case then new amendments won’t be needed to stop them.

...but the perception of targeted funding donations from crip toe billionaires when everyone knows it's a power grab by the worst people.....that's ok? We should be powerless?
Can we get our big girl.pants on here.

Also quoted in the Guardian;

Teresa O’Neill, a shadow local government minister in the Lords, said some of the measures in the bill were deeply troubling. “Even just the perception of partisan, targeted legislation risks breaking down longstanding political conventions and, crucially, trust in the system,” she said.

Well he's got himself into a complete fluster about that statue. I doubt he'll be thinkig of much else at the moment.

Yep. Rather obvious

This! They knew it was going to become law and are trying to beat the legislation and spin it.

Personally I can’t understand why somebody would pay 36 mil to a political party that wants to legislate in a way that will enhance their personal wealth and say they do it for the benefit of a country that they don’t live in or pay taxes in. It says something about the donors view of Britain as somewhere where they can make money from

Hilarious

Is that a problem for you?

They are British citizens so no foreign influence.

That foreign influence doesn't matter. Over one in ten MPs.

Like Boris Johnson?

Not that it matters, they are all British citizens.

11 percent are foreign, including 6 of the 11 percent not born here.

The same Rupert lowe who couldn’t actuallu say that King Charles III was a British citizen?

According to some people, naturalised doesn't count. It's where Rupert Lowlife stands.

What do you mean with 11% of MP's are foreign?

They are all British citizens.

Is there any point?

If you are interested in what the bill is, yes.

11 percent of MPs in Britain are foreign. This foreign influence seems to be perfectly acceptable.

Is there any point? The BBC's Chris Mason has published this;

But, crucially, the law hasn't changed yet and some of the key details in that proposed new law - such as what residency requirements would need to be passed to be classified as no longer being abroad - haven't been decided yet.

WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY (14 SEP 2026) IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS: ✅ OFFICIAL STATUS — CONFIRMED FACTS: • ✅ There was NO vote, NO debate, NO Bill passage, NO final decision on new law — relating to the Rycroft Review or political donations. • ✅ What DID occur: Peers raised the Rycroft Review and donation reform during general questions / debate on political finance / elections — it was raised as a topic of discussion only — NOT a legislative stage. • ✅ Key points stated by ministers/peers: ◦ ✅ Government confirmed: “We are still considering the Rycroft Review’s full recommendations — no final Bill has been published, introduced, or brought to the Lords yet.” ◦ ✅ Repeated official position: “Any new rules will apply PROSPECTIVELY only — to donations made AFTER the law comes into force — NOT retrospectively.” ◦ ✅ Explicitly confirmed: “British citizens remain eligible donors — the core eligibility test is NOT being removed.” ◦ ✅ Several peers from all parties warned: “Retrospective application is legally risky, constitutionally questionable, and likely unlawful under UK law and ECHR Article 7 — we will insist on proper safeguards.”

The bill has been linked, you can read it for yourself.

Rycroft recommended it

Even the Guardian has acknowledged that the bill goes further than some of Rycroft's recommendations.

The intention to ban large donations from non-UK residents was made clear.

Is it not therefore reasonable to want to ascertain that people are genuinely resident in the UK before they are permitted to donate? How exactly could this be done without some sort of minimum qualifying period? If that wasn't in place, what would have stopped wealthy overseas donors from popping over to the UK for a couple of weeks, saying that they are resident and then "changing their minds" a couple of weeks later?

How do you propose the legislation could be implemented without some sort of qualifying period?

BBC today;

When the government set out its plans to cap foreign donations in March and July, it did not mention the idea of an enhanced residency test for political donors.

Asked repeatedly by reporters whether the idea of tightening residency rules had only been discussed after Delo and Harborne's most recent donations to Reform, the prime minister's official spokesman would not give a timeframe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw3d7mv5v72ro

Well, yes, I think we all know the history and we can all see how people are being manipulated. None of that is news.

And we are all well aware that Reform will be able to spin this to their advantage.

But what can any of us actually do about it if large swathes of the electorate aren't interested in the facts? Surely the only option we have is to try and counter it the best we can? Or do you have another solution?

As said by a pp, the proposed law was always going to be retrospective. Nothing to do with recent donations. And Reform's proposed law on ILR would also be retrospective, so sauce, goose, gander.

“When you say it's all about optics, is that because you think that most Reform supporters lack the intelligence to engage with the facts?”

Some may lack the intelligence! Others simply don’t want to hear any more from the people in charge they hold accountable for the bad-running of the country. Those alienated and disaffected parts of the electorate will be highly receptive to Reform demagoguery and SM sound bites without bothering to challenge deeply what’s said.

“But what do you think the government should do? Do you think Parliament should abandon the bill retrospectively because it doesn't suit Reform donors?”

I don’t think the government can do anything about it. They have to press ahead. So whatever steps the new law requires will be taken - but it won’t be a clear “win” because of the political that Reform may gain from spinning the “unfairness” of it all in the eye of the wavering voters. Regardless of the fact it probably isn’t unfair!

What history are you suggesting that I'm missing here, exactly?

That demagoguery worked very well in the 1930s for Hitler - appealing to the electorate who feel poorly served by the existing political parties; the politics of hate; a strong sense of being “cheated” (people are now poorer whilst the rich get richer ; Brexit wasn’t delivered “properly”; a corrupt few are getting away with actual crimes and misdemeanours). If you reduce incredibly complex problems into a few sound bites on SM and you repeat it over and over, people lap it up. It doesn’t mean people are stupid - it means they are only interested in hearing a simple answer that suits their own feelings and once they have that answer they don’t search for a deeper truth. I’m not saying that Reform are Nazis - but the political tactics that served Hitler well, serve Trump well, and can serve Farage well too.

As I said - it’s a dangerous situation.