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

It is entirely justified and has been talked about for years before this.

When you find a crack in the system that can affect democracy in your country, where your elections can be bought by one or two very wealthy individuals, particularly if they are overseas, you fix that crack. It would be idiocy not to do that.

This has nothing to do with left wing or right wing, it’s not to punish any one party, it is to protect our country and ensure everyone has a say in who runs the country, for the benefit of the country. I’m a middle of the road voter, I jump left or right depending on varying factors, but most naturally gravitate to a centrist party. I’d love a LibDem government but if I heard they were being funded entirely by one individual, they wouldn’t get my vote.

The US system is insane, and is awash with cash from vested interests which has not served the country well (but even they don’t allow foreign money). There are many organisations trying to change that system but it is near impossible. Better we change ours now before it goes to far.

If you are all for this because it benefits Reform, you’d have to be entirely ok with the Greens being able to do the same thing. If you’re happy with special interests funding beneficial laws for crypto, you’d have to be happy with the same happening to fund, say, pharma companies being able to massively increase drug prices, or BUPA lobbying for NHS to be abolished, or energy companies being able to monopolise once more.

You’d have to be happy to see China fund a far left communist party in the U.K. Even if you don’t believe Reform pose a threat and they aren’t far right, you’d have to be happy to see Russia funding a far right party. You’d have to be happy to see Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or Mark Zuckerberg buy an election here.

If you genuinely think all of that is ok and this is just about stopping Farage, you’d need to become far more politically aware. You also have to ask yourself why, if they are allegedly so popular and considered to be the change we need, why they are entirely unable to raise any significant funding from the grass roots supporters?

I wonder if others have a view on this:

I should start by saying I am no supporter of the Reform Party… not by any measure… but it sometimes we all have a right and indeed a duty to speak up when we see injustice. Even when done to those we might dislike. An old-fashioned notion I know, but a valuable one none the less.

So… The Labour party (temporality constituting the government) , who have received tens of millions of pounds from union member subscriptions over the years… so effectively from one body… have decided that whilst the massive donations to Reform are currently legal, they, the labour government with the approval of all the other parties, will make the receipt of such currently legal gifts, retrospectively illegal.

Mmmm…

Last month I saw that same government protest that the convicted ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, cannot be sent back to Pakistan when he is released from prison… because any law made to do this could not be retrospective…. It just would not be British.

OK I have my disagreements and issues with Reform… but does a legitimate UK political party really deserve to be treated worse than a convicted gang leader of groomers?

Anyone else see that as a bit odd, a bit contradictory, a bit self-serving… unconstitutional and illogical? Come on, don’t be shy… it’s just an opinion.

Funny thing is that whilst the cash would undoubtably have helped reform in its bit to run the UK there is one thing that would be more effective in swelling its ranks…. That is a blatantly unfair and self-serving retrospective law hamstringing their attempts to grow.

For anyone who doubts the unintended effects of grossly and manifestly unfair treatment of a one group over another (regardless of its actual merit)… study internment in N Ireland. The single most effective recruited campaign for any organisation… ever. But then not one had at the time tried to bribe the voting public with £5000 dollars each… 😊

People do not like unfairness. I would go so far as to say that Labour are walking into a trap… So predictable was this reaction. Think about it… maybe these guys never thought their £36m was at risk… or am I now getting a little conspiracy theorist?

What are the strategists thinking? Apart from being unfair, non-democratic and blatantly self-serving… There could be no better way to swell the ranks of Reform. The very thing they want to avoid.

@EasternStandard I think you might be confused - and I’m not surprised TBF as Reform are spinning alot of misinformation.

The Representation of the People’s Act that has already passed, with cross party support through the commons, includes specific legislation about capping donations from individual overseas donors. It will affect the rules for individual donors from overseas giving to all political parties.

Even with amendments in the Lords, this specific legislation doesn’t cap companies - that means it won’t cap Trade Unions, but it won’t cap hedge fund companies or oil companies or whoever else either.

There is talk that - given the amount of big money flooding into our democracy - further legislation will be needed to create a cap on donations from companies and other entities (which may include Trade Unions). The Unions are obviously lobbying against that - as I’m sure plenty of companies who donate to other parties too. But there are Labour supporters and backbenchers who do concede Union funding will need to be looked at as and when any further legislation is brought forward.

None of that makes these obscenely large donations from two individuals any less disquieting - and I genuinely don’t see how anyone who’s sincerely worried that a much smaller amount, spread over a much longer time frame from the Unions has had an undue influence over our democracy, can defend these much bigger, much less regulated donations.

Data: According to tracking data from DonationWatch Overview, Reform UK led all UK political parties earlier in the year with roughly £14.9 million in cumulative donations exceeding £1,000, alongside a historical timeline tracking total declared funding near £9.2m–£15m+ prior to the latest September

So, before the 72m.

You were saying?

Eh? You’ve just confirmed caps are being looked at. Which is what I’ve posted.

I don’t listen to what you do if you are following Reform. I have said the Labour politicians I listened to on this.

Btw if Reynolds and Rayner are ready to cap the unions they could have easily indicated that and answered with a yes rather than saying they’re different.

I must’ve misread you then, sorry, because I thought you seemed to be suggesting the bill being debated in the lords right now might include a blanket cap on corporate entities and/ or Trade Unions.

That’s legislation to be fully debated in future - if the Lords amend it heavily it’ll have to come back to the commons.

Aside from whataboutery, I still don’t see what it has to do with these unprecedentedly high donations from individual billionaires. Do you genuinely feel comfortable with two billionaires donating this amount of money? Because if so, fair enough - but that really is a minority view.

Yes it’s at amendment stage.

I do think we have a system heavily rigged towards two main parties and it makes it very hard for anything new.

I also agree with Times guy on retrospective laws.

I don’t see it’s a given the money will help Reform, it could put people off and that’s fine. In a democracy people can say it’s not for them.

As you've said, Ben Delo is an intelligent guy. He obviously believes that the money will make a substantial difference, otherwise he would presumably have given it to another cause such as maths education or autism charities or whatever, which could have done so much with this money.

Whether he believes that the difference that his money will make will be greater success at the ballot box or more in terms of his own influence with the Reform party leadership, or perhaps a combination of both, I presume that he expects it to have some sort of impact and not merely be wasted.

Ben Delo may be intelligent, but he is also supporting a party whose leadership cheered on a violent assault on a woman. Nice guy. 🙄

Well, indeed. There are different kinds of intelligence, I guess. My comment was based on the pp's earlier statements about how brilliant he was. But I agree, I don't rate his judgement much.

FWIW, I don't think any amount of money will be enough to persuade the British electorate, en masse, to support a far right party like Reform. There are clearly those who believe that it could make a substantial difference. Only time will tell.

There you go. It won’t necessarily do much. You’ve agreed here.

Personally, yes, I do agree. But that is not the really the point.

As a matter of principle, I don't think it is advisable for any country to sanction major interference in its democratic processes from people who are not even resident in that country.

Personally, I do also have concerns about large donations from inside the UK enabling wealthy individuals to buy access or influence, but that is a separate debate. And as it does not seem likely that we will be bringing in state funding for political parties any time soon, that is perhaps a debate that won't be resolved any time soon.

As things stand, if Harbourne and Delo move back to the UK and satisfy any qualifying period, then there will be nothing to stop them donating to any political party in exactly the same way as other UK-bases donors.

But this doesn’t in any way disprove the point that the same rules will apply to everyone.

Personally, yes, I do agree. But that is not the really the point.

As a matter of principle, I don't think it is advisable for any country to sanction major interference in its democratic processes from people who are not even resident in that country.

Personally, I do also have concerns about large donations from inside the UK enabling wealthy individuals to buy access or influence, but that is a separate debate. And as it does not seem likely that we will be bringing in state funding for political parties any time soon, that is perhaps a debate that won't be resolved any time soon.

As things stand, if Harbourne and Delo move back to the UK and satisfy any qualifying period, then there will be nothing to stop them donating to any political party in exactly the same way as other UK-bases donors.

As to your last para, we all know that Labour would still try to block it. Those 14 years in the wilderness really did make them all bitter and twisted.

Where have they explicitly stated that they will try to block it if the donors meet the criteria? Can you provide a link? Or are you just making assumptions?

Where have they explicitly stated that they will try to block it if the donors meet the criteria? Can you provide a link? Or are you just making assumptions?

Where do they explicitly state anything? They are masters of deliberate opacity, and the u-turn.

Call it a hunch.

Or call it what it is: conspiracy bollocks.

Where do they explicitly state anything? They are masters of deliberate opacity, and the u-turn.

Call it a hunch.

OK, thanks for confirming that you're just making assumptions about what they might do.