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

If Labour posters don’t want to read my views there’s an easy answer to that, don’t quote me.

I’m happy to skip past some, much better. If they want to return fab. Although ik it’s hard for some.

Do you mean it this time?

Good stuff. I don’t mind if you do or don’t listen btw, ik when someone has decided already at that point will leave you to it.

Yes. We've covered that already, and the reasons why. But if you keep repeating the claims, I will keep pointing out that you have failed to substantiate them.

The worry is, of course, that this behaviour by Reform and the The Telegraph will lead to other media outlets significantly reducing the period of time they give people to reply. Which will be bad for the quality of journalism and thus for us the public

Excellent point @PerkingFaintly , I hadn't thought of that angle.

Or perhaps just limiting Reform’s time to reply.

Ok you do you. I can see you’ve decided already.

Thanks for that, @TopPocketFind .
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/sep/15/significant-unease-the-telegraph-reform-farage-spoiler-tactics

I see the nub of the concern is not that The Telegraph is generally sympathetic to Reform, but something more specific.

Good journalistic practice in political reporting is that a story is put to the people/party mentioned before publication, to give them an opportunity to reply.

Reform have been taking advantage of this practice to run to mummy The Telegraph and offer their own version entirely before the original story has come out. The Telegraph has been playing along.

On the occasion of the revelation about Harborne's £5m, Reform went further and actually asked the Guardian for more time to respond, which the Guardian granted. Reform used the time to work with The Telegraph to publish "fawning interviews" with Harborne and Farage.

The Telegraph says it wasn't aware in all of the cases that there was another story about to be published. Nonetheless, it's getting to be a habit.

The worry is, of course, that this behaviour by Reform and the The Telegraph will lead to other media outlets significantly reducing the period of time they give people to reply. Which will be bad for the quality of journalism and thus for us the public.

As I've said, there is nothing to dismiss, apart from very vague, unsubstantiated claims. You can keep repeating them, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to back them up.

Nobody gives a shit about Delo. It’s not about him. It’s about large individual donations to buy political influence. Remember he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Yes you’ve said a few times, ik whatever I put you’ll dismiss so I’ll leave you with that. You could listen to what you’re asking about but won’t, not much I can do.

Still making unsubstantiated claims about how Labour is "positioning Delo"? We've been over that one at some length already, and you didn't have any evidence to back it up.

I have some sympathy for the Times take on retrospective laws in principle.

That aside I would prefer it if Labour could keep it more neutral but I think they need to position Delo in the way they do so people agree they’re not good uns. Of course it works in their favour, but reading more on him the gap is obvious.

To add if the law passes as is without amendments to try and stop it and they were here long enough then fine. If not they’ll probably just wait.

@EasternStandard At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if Delo is a good guy or not. The legislation in the Representation of the People’s act says you can’t give a donation of over £100,000 to a political party - any political party - if you live overseas. That has already passed through the commons with cross party support. It’d be mad for there to be “unless you went to Oxbridge” or “unless you donated X amount to charity” exceptions.

If Delo did come back to reside in the UK long ago enough ago to be within the backdated rules, then all good: and I guess congratulations to the Labour government for attracting him and his wealth back on their watch. Unless that is, he only came back when he did to get around this upcoming legislation: in which case, that’s a very clear argument for why backdating to the time the legislation was announced is a pragmatic and necessary move (in keeping with the constitutional norms for closing tax loopholes).

TBF, I do agree with you that it’s very possible - even likely - Reform will burn through the money and still not win, because the optics of these donations and their desperate scrabble to defend them are really, really bad for a party a majority of people already see as untrustworthy and in it for themselves.

It is understood there is unease among editorial staff at the Telegraph about Reform’s repeated use of the outlet for “spoilers”: a media tactic designed to pre-empt a problematic story by placing it with a title seen as more sympathetic.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/sep/15/significant-unease-the-telegraph-reform-farage-spoiler-tactics

Oh well stick to whatever news content you like. I can’t get you there with what you’ve missed on the radio.

It’s pretty good in the morning for politics and economics.

I prefer reality over vibes.

Labour’s war on landlords risks fuelling domestic inflation and creating a “political problem” before the next general election.

Simon French, an economist at Panmure Liberum, said the Angela Rayner’s Renters Reform Act was behind a 4.2pc rise in rent costs, which should “worry” the Prime Minister.

Inflation rose to 3.1pc last month after the Iran war pushed up energy costs, while so-called core inflation, which strips out energy and food prices, held firm at 2.6pc.

Mr French said: “Typically rents lag core inflation by ~18 months (due to lease renewal lags) so the pick coming now – with more inflation likely in the new year – risks making this a big political problem heading into an election.

I find signal on commuter trains unreliable for streaming content, and using headphones tends to be obnoxious for the fellow traveller, as it's rare that sound does not 'leak' out. So I read.

But thanks for the info.

Yes, you're right. I have decided before listening because I'm 100% confident that, if there was any substance to back up your claims, you'd have already shared the details here.

In any case, I would have to trawl through hours of recordings to even find the clip that you're talking about, seeing as you are so unwilling to give details.

I've done an AI search based on the extremely limited info that you've provided here, and it has not produced any evidence that backs up your claims. That, combined with your very evasive approach on this thread, leads me to the conclusion that I have already outlined above... that you have realised that there is no evidence to back up your original claim.

I so admire your warm and welcoming posting style which encourages civilised debate.🥰

Somewhat asinine.

That presupposes that the public finances are being managed correctly.
Hint: They are not.

Given he has only just come back to.the UK, what initially drove him away? It wasn't Labour.

I think laws often only get created when a problem is identified so it’s reasonable

I think personal donations and organisational donations to political parties should be capped

and I think footballer wages and how much you can spend on footballers should also be capped