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.

Or ‘Tory scum’ it’s embarrassing for a top politician. Ik people will defend Labour but really even Burnham has penned a we need wealth creators article.

Yes it takes time for a bill to progress, and while it does no one should be bound by its law. A proposed bill may still be amended or rejected, so it is unreasonable to expect people to abide by the mere idea of a future law.

Why don't you want to share what she actually said?

Ms Rayner said: “If you need a clue about whose side they (Reform) are really on, they’ve given it to us this weekend.

“Nigel Farage’s sugar daddies made their money in cry p to but there’s nothing cryptic about their motives.

“They know full well that a Reform government would act in their interest, not the public interest.

“Now when these Reform donors say they want nothing, they mean it… nothing to stand in their way and if Farage will do a cameo for £70 just ask yourself what he would do for £70m"

Yes, I can see from the AI summary that she used the expression "sugar daddies". A bit disparaging I suppose, but hardly an attempt at character assassination.

I haven't found any evidence of an attempt to "position Delo as the worst", which is what you originally claimed. She questioned his motives, as you might reasonably expect her to do, given Reform's highly favourable policies towards crapto millionaires, but I saw no evidence of any comments directed at him personally. She doesn't ever appear to mention his criminal conviction, which you would think she might have done if she was genuinely attempting to "position him as the worst".

Happy to respond to specific quotes if you've got them, but it's quite hard to discuss when it's just a vage assertion without any evidence to back it up.

Yes, that's pretty much what my AI summary told me. No character assassination of Ben Delo there, so I assumed that there must have been more. Perhaps @EasternStandard can quote the additional comments that actually back up her point.

He’s nowhere near deserving that line. You’re killing off people paying in.

It won’t help. Burnham knows this he has seen the figures after all £10bn to find again, more tax hikes which probably won’t work either. Instead Rayner and even the business secretary plus multiple peers and MPs probably are sweating over political survival.

He’s nowhere near deserving that line. You’re killing off people paying in

I don't think Delo will decide to leave the UK again because someone referred to him as a sugar daddy, tbh. I would imagine his skin is a lot thicker than that.

Right. You're attempting to change the subject so I will take this as tacit acknowledgement that you don't actually have any evidence to back up your earlier claims that Labour have been trying to "position Delo as the worst".

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that I'm "killing off" people paying in. I'm obviously not killing off anyone, but "paying in" to what exactly? And it won't help what?

He is very sensitive about mentioning his criminal conviction

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2026/04/11/reform-donors-conviction/

Of course rhetoric counts, why else would Burnham write we want wealth creators articles.

He needs people to turn up. With a Labour gov sounding like Rayner, Reynolds and co people would look at other retrospective laws they could impose. I’d wait until they’re out. Who wants a punitive retrospective tax hike.

Mind you Delo wants to give his wealth away, Labour are panicking too much about their survival to welcome him.

Have the Conservatives not expressed concerns over these donations?

Are you saying that Delo might not want to stay in the UK because Rayner called him a sugar daddy and it made him feel unwelcome?

If he isn't staying, then I guess he won't be eligible to donate to Reform after all.

Is Labour panicking? Seems to me they are all just getting on with things as normal.

I actually don’t think it is the same as the Tory scum comments, which I personally didn’t defend and which Raynor herself - presumably after pressure from within Labour - issued a public apology for: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59081482

And in terms of attracting wealth creators, and wanting wealth creators living in and contributing to our society, that’s an entirely different debate than the one about who and how much should be permissible as a donation to a political party.

Again, the legislation in the Representation of the People bill will apply to all political parties, and has come out of an independent review.

I find it genuinely bizarre that Reform are continually spinning this as somehow victimisation.

I certainly am sensing panic on this thread and similar.

It's not coming from Labour though.

Reform have fucked up hugely here. Lots of desperate spinning trying to distract onto, well, anything it can lay its hands on.

As Reform know very well, the optics of mega-donations by crapto-billionaires to a party that published a pro-crapto manifesto and pro-billionaire laws are just terrible.

Reform took down its pro-crapto manifesto after Harborne's secret £5m donation was uncovered. What does that tell you?

Maybe it's todays 'line to take'

Very repetitive and apparently without any real foundation

And this is yours.

Apologies, mixed up my posters there!

I agree. This hasn't quite landed as Reform planned, I reckon.

The reason I looked up Delo was because after the Reynolds’ interview the political analyst spoke about how off it was that a business secretary would use the phrasing he did.

She knows Delo, and obviously since he gives away millions and a highly coveted maths grad it’s typically someone who would be a success for any gov to draw back.

She too questioned Labour’s take.

Burnham knows he needs wealth to come back, his party won’t see that, perhaps they’re not getting the issue with another £10bn hole.

You’re conflating two entirely different issues here.

Obviously when Labour hike taxes again after saying the first budget would be the only time Labour posters will be happy,

It’s not working, eventually tax hikes or spending cuts won’t just be ‘other people’.

Reform hasn't published many detailed plans of what it would do in government – despite putting out a lot of hot air – but it did find time to get down in writing a proposed "Cryptoassets and Digital Finance Bill".

The proposal's Executive Summary states:
"As Prime Minister, Nigel Farage will enact the Cryptoassets and Digital Finance Bill. "

You used to be able to find this Reform document here:

https://www.reformparty.uk/reform-crypto-bill.pdf

But that's now 404 Page Not Found. It's disappeared since I downloaded it in June this year.

Happily you can still download an archived copy from:
<a class="break-all" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20260129104806/www.reformparty.uk/view-pdf/making-britain-a-crypto-hub" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20260129104806/www.reformparty.uk/view-pdf/making-britain-a-crypto-hub

(That link to the archived PDF document is called Making Britain a Crypto Hub but it's the same actual document, whose filename is "Reform-cr*pto-bill.pdf". I've checked.)

Why on earth did Reform take this document down?

Nobody expects it to be just other people. I’m not stupid enough to think I won’t be affected by any tax rises if they come. The fact is that the country’s in a mess due to a whole range of factors and the burden of sorting it out needs to be spread fairly.

Let me try that link to the archived version of Reform's ""Cr*ptoassets and Digital Finance Bill" again.

web.archive.org/web/20260129104806/www.reformparty.uk/view-pdf/making-britain-a-crypto-hub