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.

If the donations have to be returned, Reform would be entitled to keep the interest earned on it.

That is quite a win win situation

https://bylinetimes.com/2026/09/16/reform-uk-could-pocket-nearly-500000-in-interest-if-they-are-forced-to-return-72-million-crypto-billionaire-donations/

In case it takes a while for my post with a link to the Bylines Times to be unhidden

🔴 Reform UK Could Pocket Nearly £500,000 in Interest if They Are Forced to Return £72 Million Cypto Billionaire Donations

Exclusive: Electoral Commission confirms interest earned on impermissible gifts can be kept, prompting calls for Nigel Farage to hand any proceeds to charity

It’s not. You’ve all focused on nonsense about quoting radio interviews. The point is there’s a gap between representation of Delo and his huge amount of giving to good causes.

Reform could burn through the money and still not win anyway.

No, I don't listen to the morning radio. I commute by train.

Good to know. You can listen via headphones but ok.

I think laws often only get created when a problem is identified so it’s reasonable

I think personal donations and organisational donations to political parties should be capped

and I think footballer wages and how much you can spend on footballers should also be capped

Given he has only just come back to.the UK, what initially drove him away? It wasn't Labour.

Somewhat asinine.

That presupposes that the public finances are being managed correctly.
Hint: They are not.

I so admire your warm and welcoming posting style which encourages civilised debate.🥰

Yes, you're right. I have decided before listening because I'm 100% confident that, if there was any substance to back up your claims, you'd have already shared the details here.

In any case, I would have to trawl through hours of recordings to even find the clip that you're talking about, seeing as you are so unwilling to give details.

I've done an AI search based on the extremely limited info that you've provided here, and it has not produced any evidence that backs up your claims. That, combined with your very evasive approach on this thread, leads me to the conclusion that I have already outlined above... that you have realised that there is no evidence to back up your original claim.

I find signal on commuter trains unreliable for streaming content, and using headphones tends to be obnoxious for the fellow traveller, as it's rare that sound does not 'leak' out. So I read.

But thanks for the info.

Labour’s war on landlords risks fuelling domestic inflation and creating a “political problem” before the next general election.

Simon French, an economist at Panmure Liberum, said the Angela Rayner’s Renters Reform Act was behind a 4.2pc rise in rent costs, which should “worry” the Prime Minister.

Inflation rose to 3.1pc last month after the Iran war pushed up energy costs, while so-called core inflation, which strips out energy and food prices, held firm at 2.6pc.

Mr French said: “Typically rents lag core inflation by ~18 months (due to lease renewal lags) so the pick coming now – with more inflation likely in the new year – risks making this a big political problem heading into an election.

I prefer reality over vibes.

Oh well stick to whatever news content you like. I can’t get you there with what you’ve missed on the radio.

It’s pretty good in the morning for politics and economics.

It is understood there is unease among editorial staff at the Telegraph about Reform’s repeated use of the outlet for “spoilers”: a media tactic designed to pre-empt a problematic story by placing it with a title seen as more sympathetic.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/sep/15/significant-unease-the-telegraph-reform-farage-spoiler-tactics

@EasternStandard At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if Delo is a good guy or not. The legislation in the Representation of the People’s act says you can’t give a donation of over £100,000 to a political party - any political party - if you live overseas. That has already passed through the commons with cross party support. It’d be mad for there to be “unless you went to Oxbridge” or “unless you donated X amount to charity” exceptions.

If Delo did come back to reside in the UK long ago enough ago to be within the backdated rules, then all good: and I guess congratulations to the Labour government for attracting him and his wealth back on their watch. Unless that is, he only came back when he did to get around this upcoming legislation: in which case, that’s a very clear argument for why backdating to the time the legislation was announced is a pragmatic and necessary move (in keeping with the constitutional norms for closing tax loopholes).

TBF, I do agree with you that it’s very possible - even likely - Reform will burn through the money and still not win, because the optics of these donations and their desperate scrabble to defend them are really, really bad for a party a majority of people already see as untrustworthy and in it for themselves.

I have some sympathy for the Times take on retrospective laws in principle.

That aside I would prefer it if Labour could keep it more neutral but I think they need to position Delo in the way they do so people agree they’re not good uns. Of course it works in their favour, but reading more on him the gap is obvious.

To add if the law passes as is without amendments to try and stop it and they were here long enough then fine. If not they’ll probably just wait.

Still making unsubstantiated claims about how Labour is "positioning Delo"? We've been over that one at some length already, and you didn't have any evidence to back it up.