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.

Yes. We've covered that already, and the reasons why. But if you keep repeating the claims, I will keep pointing out that you have failed to substantiate them.

Good stuff. I don’t mind if you do or don’t listen btw, ik when someone has decided already at that point will leave you to it.

Do you mean it this time?

If Labour posters don’t want to read my views there’s an easy answer to that, don’t quote me.

I’m happy to skip past some, much better. If they want to return fab. Although ik it’s hard for some.

I will be happy to read your views when you have something of substance to say.

Good to know. In the meantime feel free to skip past.

Sage.

Just look at the unions.

It's not just Labour voters who are concerned about these donations.

All parties receive donations, nothing new. Most voters welcome caps on donations.

You can easily find who donated what to whom and when, it's no secret that the unions donate to Labour, just like it's no secret that fossil fuel interests donate to the Conservatives.

Trade unions are democratically governed membership organisations representing millions of working people in the UK, so their donations are not really equivalent to a very wealthy individual writing a £36 million cheque.

Labour are keen on carving out those millions whilst capping everyone else.

Political parties accept £24.7m in donations in Q1 2026

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/political-parties-accept-ps247m-donations-q1-2026

That is across all parties.

Are you saying that Labour will be exempt from the cap? Or that their donations are below the cap?

It’s not known yet as it’s in the HoL but no it’s the former they want. Thankfully Lib Dems and Conservatives won’t want that.

Caps will apply to all political parties. Out of interest, is Reform still a limited company?

Where have you read/heard that Labour wants to be exempt?

Reynolds said the unions were different. The unions had already said no to a cap when Burnham floated it. Labour peers are a mix, have a look at the HoL debate.

It is entirely justified and has been talked about for years before this.

When you find a crack in the system that can affect democracy in your country, where your elections can be bought by one or two very wealthy individuals, particularly if they are overseas, you fix that crack. It would be idiocy not to do that.

This has nothing to do with left wing or right wing, it’s not to punish any one party, it is to protect our country and ensure everyone has a say in who runs the country, for the benefit of the country. I’m a middle of the road voter, I jump left or right depending on varying factors, but most naturally gravitate to a centrist party. I’d love a LibDem government but if I heard they were being funded entirely by one individual, they wouldn’t get my vote.

The US system is insane, and is awash with cash from vested interests which has not served the country well (but even they don’t allow foreign money). There are many organisations trying to change that system but it is near impossible. Better we change ours now before it goes to far.

If you are all for this because it benefits Reform, you’d have to be entirely ok with the Greens being able to do the same thing. If you’re happy with special interests funding beneficial laws for crypto, you’d have to be happy with the same happening to fund, say, pharma companies being able to massively increase drug prices, or BUPA lobbying for NHS to be abolished, or energy companies being able to monopolise once more.

You’d have to be happy to see China fund a far left communist party in the U.K. Even if you don’t believe Reform pose a threat and they aren’t far right, you’d have to be happy to see Russia funding a far right party. You’d have to be happy to see Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or Mark Zuckerberg buy an election here.

If you genuinely think all of that is ok and this is just about stopping Farage, you’d need to become far more politically aware. You also have to ask yourself why, if they are allegedly so popular and considered to be the change we need, why they are entirely unable to raise any significant funding from the grass roots supporters?

That does not answer my question where you have heard/read that Labour want to exempt themselves from a proposed cap.

Sharon Graham and various unions are strongly against caps. Rayner and Reynolds have both said unions are different -

However, unions suggested their own donations should be exempt.

Pressed on the BBC about union donations, Ms Rayner said they were “made up of millions of members who put in their membership fees”.

Reynolds said similar. Various Labour peers debated it in the HoL.