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

[Gav1961]

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.

I think this is silly really. It's not about fairness like this is a theoretical game. It's not a game it's our country.

No ordinary voter wants this sort of money in politics. Nobody wants to be bought and paid for by billionaires. We can see with our eyes what happens to ordinary people when politics goes this way, across the sea. Two men should not be allowed to buy our democracy.

We should get rid of all these donations. For all the parties. Put an end to it. Let's make it as hard as possible to buy votes in this country.

No, no it is not. It’s essential to maintain any semblance of democracy.

Hope that helps.

Making the ban retrospective isn't something new that's only been suggested after the billionaires' donations last week.

The Representation of the People Bill already had provision for the ban to be retrospective to 25 March 2026, at the time it was passed to the House of Lords on 3 September,

(You can find the Bill in its various stages here:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4080/publications )

So Delo and Harborne already knew that their donations would become impermissable as they stood their announcing them. (Well, either that or they're billionaires who can't afford decent legal advice.)

This isn't the sort of law they could be sent to prison for breaching. They'll just get their money back.

I agree with @PerkingFaintly and I think that the two huge donations are an attempt by Reform to get the £5m bribe and the Channel 4 doc buried by the media, by giving them something else to talk about.

But I personally believe that ALL political donations to ANY party should be capped at a max £1,000, so that it's accessible to everyone, and not just for the rich. And before anyone comes at me about people on low incomes, I completely agree that £1,000 is a lot of money - it's just an abritrary figure

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.

Where did you see this? Apart from the UK immigration law saying he arrived in the 1970s so can’t be deported, I read another issue is also that he was a British and Pakistani citizen but he renounced his Pakistani citizenship prior to the hearing where he was informed that his British citizenship would be stripped. Pakistan is refusing to accept his deportation as he’s no longer Pakistani. UK would be in violation of international law if it did move forward with stripping his British citizenship by making him stateless so his last & only citizenship governs - he is still British- so he cannot be deported.

Even if we changed our laws, we can’t change international law.

Its obviously gerrymandering. There's been a few long threads on this already.

A pedantic point of order re the OP's header post. Quote "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…"

You have to go back a hell of a lot of years to get the cumulative Union donations into the tens of millions.

Eg, in 2024, I get this

• Unite the Union – £362,625.00
• GMB – £290,125.00
• Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) – £213,574.42
• UNISON – £158,175.00

Source

The top 20 donors to Labour this year in the lead-up to the general election - LabourList

For sure, looking at that list there could be worries there about potential influence, from other donors. But unions are member driven and they want legislation that helps their big membership. So any influence they might be able to exert, is for the benefit of their members. As in, workers. And if you add up the number of members in the above unions, that is a lot of workers.

Not for the benefit of individual billionaire donors.

I think the optics of making the ban apply retrospectively will play straight into the hands of Reform.

The two major parties have both been in power - they could easily have legislated more decisively and strongly in this area. Political corruption is as old as society itself and the political elites weren’t bothered when the rules could be bent in their own favour. There has been a heck of a lot of “turning a blind eye” in the last thirty years.

We have the political elite collectively ignoring what Andrew is up to as British trade envoy allegedly hiring dozens of prostitutes whilst on business trips and selling secrets to American paedophiles - they aren’t interested until someone brings it all into daylight, but I bet a lot of them “knew”. And the former prime minister not asking the hard questions when known a sleaze ball was being considered for the job of US Ambassador.

All of this plays into the very easily spun tales of the elites being not fit for purpose: taking our money in tax and handing it out in tax breaks to their rich buddies in corporate life; not holding ANYONE accountable for the shit show that was the financial crisis; handing out contracts that allowed mates to make windfall profits from covid whilst having parties in Downing Street.

And now - when faced with a fresh challenge - they want to pass laws to make the historically acceptable receipt of funds illegal?

It doesn’t matter if it’s “just” or sensible or previously what the Tories/Labour wanted “all along”.

Reform can sell the story all too easily in a package that the electorate will eat up. Demagoguery will win, just like it did in the Brexit debate. Truth, whatever that is, doesn’t matter. You only have to look at 20th century history to see it.

Glad you made it clear you’re not a Reform supporter…..

As explained the retrospective element has already been part of the Bill

Rycroft recommended it to stop donors rushing money in ahead of the legislation.
The irony

Reform and their donors were well aware and now try to play the 'against the establishment' card.

@TopPocketFind and as I said, I suspect they’ll succeed.

Hate, anger and jealousy are easy emotions to appeal to. And we’ve all seen that Trump can spout a pack of lies and nonsense and get away with it. Farage is probably making notes every time he flicks on his SM.

Gav is falling for it

The Tories failed to neutralise Farage when they had the chance - that idiot Cameron and his cronies, gambling on a referendum!

And now, they are still clueless. The best outcome was that Brexit may have delivered the independence and prosperity it promise. It didn’t. At the same time, our key ally, the USA, no longer really likes us much. The country doesn’t feel prosperous. We are failing to afford the measures we need to take to prevent environmental catastrophe. The workforce has become sickly and unproductive. Our young people are in crisis. Core services are at breaking point. We are saddled with national huge debt, and huge problems we have no money to tackle. It’s a proper mess.

Farage and Reform won’t fix it, just like Brexit was never going to fix it. But that’s not what people will hear. They’ll hear a simple message that the Establishment is running scared, that they will do anything to try to stop Reform which threatens the cosy position they’ve built for themselves. It’s a dangerous situation for us all.

Its buying influence, and distorting coverage and hence also buying votes. Its wholly wrong and we’ll end up with corrupt shit for brains in government like the US.

Yep, as @PerkingFaintly and others have already explained, the retrospective aspect of the bill was announced long before the two large Reform donations were announced. There is precedent for this kind of retrospective application of legislation and the idea is to stop people rushing to bypass the new rules while the bill progresses through parliament.

This is not Labour trying to move the goalposts in response to the donations as it might first appear.

We don't know whether the Reform donors had failed to acquaint themselves with the detail of the new legislation prior to announcing their donations. Or whether they knew all along that the donations wouldn't be allowable under the new legislation but saw an opportunity to a) divert media attention away from the criminal investigations into other Reform donations and b) create a narrative that the establishment is attempting to block Reform by changing the law retrospectively.

IDK, I live in a white working class town in the North with a Reform council, and nobody in my local is happy about crypto billionaires buying "their" party.

I don't think it's wise to only listen to bots on X. It's a magic mirror. Political actors can use bots to manufacture some sentiment, sure, but don't fall for it yourself.

I wonder what was in my post that triggered the auto hide! Mental.

Did you mention cr*pto? It automatically gets hidden.

Oh I did! Because it's the subject of the post. Good to know!

Have been caught out by it myself previously.

@Gav1961 now that it has been explained to you, do you now understand that this is not about moving the goalposts retrospectively, which would be unfair imo. It is about the retrospective application of new legislation which was always intended to be applied retrospectively in order to prevent people from seeking to bypass the new rules while the bill progressed through parliament. As such, the earlier effective date was announced long before the large donations to Reform were mooted.

As you say that you are not a Reform supporter and you're only concerned with the fairness of the government's approach, you are hopefully now reassured that all is above board?

Putting the unions in the same category as individual donors, is nonsensical. The unions have a large number of members of whom they are representing. The things the unions do have the potential of improving everybody's lives not just the vested interest of a few.

No one said it was. That one makes something retrospective now or before still means it is retrospective. I think several miss the point... It is all about optics. Forcing the return of the funds in a manner generally perceived as unfair will be a huge boost to the Reform party. As I say, when the Brits introduced Internment the results were the polar opposite to what they intended. Same with the Hunger Strikes ... and it will be so for Trump and his silly bribe.

It may be that the donors and Farage are students of history... just a bit more than Mr B. Do yo really think that these men want to give away £36m each?

I di my best to be neutral regards Reform and I am it seems being accused of being a reform supporter. What a pity.. Bye

Bye @Gav1961 , maybe next time read the legislation before posting.