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 definitely think political donations should be capped and very strongly restricted, whether individual or from a union. I don't think any new legislation that passes should be applied retrospectively, nor can anyone be bound by a possible future law that may or may not become statute. A code of honour in the first place would be nice but that's probably too much to ask for. (I also think there should be rules against carpetbagging but here we are with Farage and other MPs from all parties benefiting).

By the political analyst, I assume you mean Kate Andrews of the Spectator? It’s hardly surprising that was her view - if it had been Polly Toynbee, or Ash Sarkar or George Monibot I’m sure they’d have expressed different ones.

But again, how we attract wealth is a different issue to if mega donations from billionaires should be part of our democracy. The overwhelming majority of the public don’t think they should be.

Taking party politics, and whataboutery and “everybody does it” out of the equation, I’m genuinely not sure where you stand.

But I personally think all donations to all political parties - from all companies, individuals, and entities (yes, even including the heavily regulated money Labour get from Trade Unions) should be capped somewhere around £1 million per donation to stop big money polluting our democracy.

So you were influenced by the "political analyst" to believe that the phrasing used by Reynolds was off, rather than concluding it yourself?

Can you quote exactly what the phrasing was that the "political analyst" took issue with, what the "political analyst" actually said and who the "political analyst" actually was? Then perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion. It's a bit too vague at the moment, and AI has not been able to shed any light on what you are talking about.

You say it would be a success for any government to draw someone like Delo back to the UK. I understand from your previous posts that Delo has recently moved back to the UK, so I expected you will be congratulating the Labour government on having drawn him back?

What’s with the “ air quotes “ you’ve decided before listening to it.

so I expected you will be congratulating the Labour government on having drawn him back?

Logic would lead you to believe that, wouldn’t it?

Just drawing attention to the seemingly deliberate vagueness in your post.

So are you now going to tell us who this mysterious "political analyst" was, what she said and what specific phrasing of Reynolds she was commenting on?

No one wants to pay more tax, but if that's what is needed that is what is needed.

Well yes I can’t pull a radio transcript out of the air. You’ll need to listen.

Do you listen to the radio btw they often have a regular political analyst covering politics. Times has politics, finance, sport etc regulars.

So was the political commentator Kate Andrews?

OK. So you don't actually remember the phrasing that Reynolds used, the name of the political analyst or what she actually said?

And yes, I listen to the radio daily, and I listen to a lot of political analysts, but if I was going to quote one in a political discussion, I would always name them as they are not usually politically neutral. It's ok if you can't remember/don't want to say.

Yes I know the phrasing, quoting a day or so later isn’t going to be a transcript for you. You’ll need to listen to get what you want to know.

You sound as if you’ve dismissed it already though.

Upthread you said that you didn’t have time
to link a PP to the specific commentaries you mentioned.

It seems like you’ve spent a lot more time responding subsequently than you would have spent just posting the links.

Reminds me of when my kids spent 20 minutes arguing why they didn’t want to do a 10 minute spelling homework.

So you know the phrasing but you don't want to share it, and you don't even want to tell us who the "political analyst" was?

Perhaps if you could provide at least a little bit more detail, we could ask AI for exact quotes. I've given AI the details that you've provided and it isn't coming up with anything that matches your description.

If you have a point, please make it, rather than sending us off on wild goose chases to listen to random unidentified radio commentary from unnamed political analysts.

If you aren't willing to provide the detail, then I will assume that that's because you know that the evidence doesn't actually stack up.

You edited your post after I had started typing my response.

As things stand, there is nothing of substance to dismiss. No quotes, no details, not even the name of the mysterious political analyst. It isn't so much that I have dismissed it, it is rather that you have failed to present your case.

Blimey.

"Ask AI to invent something from scraping dodgy internet content" is certainly a step up from "Google it because although I know all the details I'm not going to provide a link."

Doesn't look at all evasive!

You’ll have to listen instead. Besides what it prompted was looking up Delo and I can see an Oxbridge first, maths and finance success who wants to give away millions to universities and maths education is a big gap to Labour’s lines.

I want people here who give millions to maths education, and £25m to a charity he founded to help dc with autism. I’d prefer it if politicians welcomed them rather than drive them away.

I’m not writing up radio interviews, it’s not even possible. You’ll need to turn on what you want to listen to instead.

But you could say something like - "it's on Politics with Joe Bloggs, Times Radio, here's the link to the episode"

Well, you've said that he has now relocated to the UK and plans to stay here, so it doesn't seem the Labour government has driven him away. Quite the contrary, in fact.

As for the radio thing, I understand that you're telling us to listen to it because that's all you've got. You don't want to tell us what was actually said (even though you claim to know) and you don't want to tell us who said it. I think we both know that you would be very quick to share quotes if there was anything concrete to actually back up your argument.

So, it seems that we have now established beyond reasonable doubt that there was no actual substance to your earlier assertion that Labour have been seeking to "position Delo as the worst". Perhaps we can get back to the rest of the discussion now?

But I’m genuinely not sure how saying “you can’t donate an unprecedentedly large amount to a political party, and neither can any other billionaires who don’t reside in the UK” is driving him away. The legislation isn’t targeting him specifically, it will apply equally to all political parties.

And as a PP has suggested, if he is recently returned to reside in the UK - which seems to be what he and Reform are suggesting - then surely it is under a Labour government that he has been attracted back?!

You sound very keen to hear it. There’s playback for exactly that.

Well indeed.

I refer us to my earlier comment that there is a palpable desperation in the attempts to distract us onto ANYTHING rather than actually discuss the central facts.

Viz that two crapto-billionaires are donating a record-breaking amount of money to a party which has stated that if it gets into power it will introduce crapto-billionaire-friendly legislation.

And that the crapto-billionaires in question are so keen for this party to be in power that they say they are actually moving to the UK in order to donate this money (however temporarily).

I have no particular interest in hearing it, it would be much more efficient if you would just tell us what was said and by whom. As you are clearly unwilling to do this, we can only draw our own conclusions.

And my conclusion is that you made a vague allegation (that Labour have tried to "position Delo as the worst"), then realised when challenged that you couldn't back it up with any hard evidence.

Well no. Do people not listen to the morning radio? Just turn stuff on and Reynolds or whoever will be doing the rounds.

If you’ve missed it use playback from the day they did the rounds, which you can check. But probably two days ago I don’t keep a diary on it.

As said you’ve already decided without listening, so yes that’s this isn’t surprising.