Please or to access all these features

Politics

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

455 replies

Gav1961 · 15/09/2026 08:19

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
EasternStandard · 21/09/2026 10:43

TopPocketFind · 21/09/2026 10:42

You had affiliation fees explained to you.

Is this you accepting Stella Creasy and co / Labour want to exempt unions?

No longer your notion of an “opinion or hunch” but the Labour Party.

TopPocketFind · 21/09/2026 10:52

EasternStandard · 21/09/2026 10:43

Is this you accepting Stella Creasy and co / Labour want to exempt unions?

No longer your notion of an “opinion or hunch” but the Labour Party.

Edited

No

There is no evidence that the unions will be exempted from any possible future domestic donation cap.

BIossomtoes · 21/09/2026 10:53

There’s an easy way to make union donations compliant which is to make affiliation fees explicit with transparency about how many individuals have contributed to them. A competent lawyer could easily find the required wording.

EasternStandard · 21/09/2026 10:53

TopPocketFind · 21/09/2026 10:52

No

There is no evidence that the unions will be exempted from any possible future domestic donation cap.

Did you read your earlier link and proposed new clauses from three Labour MPs?

Notsurewhattodonowattheend · 21/09/2026 11:21

Perhaps any kind of aggregation should be excluded. So no organisations whether they are charities, businesses, unions, etc. All donations must be directly from individuals.

That would deleverage politics nicely.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page