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.

Quote "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?"

Depends on what they expect back for their investment.

The Koch brothers ( I think it was them, can't remember for sure sorry), said they would donate a billion to the republicans. Because if the repubs got their proposed tax cuts through, it would save the Kochs more than that in the long term.

When you say it's all about optics, is that because you think that most Reform supporters lack the intelligence to engage with the facts?

I don't necessarily disagree. Personally, I think it's very likely that the Reform donors never had any intention of donating the money.

But what do you think the government should do? The bill has already gone through the Commons with a substantial majority in favour and it's now going through the Lords.

Do you think Parliament should abandon the bill retrospectively because it doesn't suit Reform donors?

Or do you think the legislation should progress as planned, but Reform should be given special dispensation to break the new law because...optics?

Or what?

What history are you suggesting that I'm missing here, exactly?

I completely agree - there are really good reasons why legislation to close tax loopholes etc is retrospective, so there isn’t a last minute flood of money before the rules change. There are clear constitutional guidelines (the Rees Rules) that set out how to do this fairly and the Representation of the People’s Act follows them. They gave fair warning (in March - when the Rycroft report was published). So, if these crypto billionaires hasn’t been living in this country for a year leading up to March, their donations aren’t permissible. There’s no big conspiracy. It’s straightforward. And the same rules apply to all political parties - if Reform MPs weren’t paying attention as this legislation passed through the House of Commons, more fool them.

Nigel Farage is clearly trying to spin this as a stitch up and it’s really important that people - whatever party they support - don’t let him. No one who cares about our democracy should want such an unprecedentedly large amount of big money from flooding in.

My reply was hidden because we can’t even type the word for the unregulated, money laundering friendly industry these ultra wealthy men made their money in. That tells you everything we need to know about why the Representation of the People act is cracking down on this kind of untraceable money flooding into our democracy!

I'm sure that you did do your best to not look like a Reform supporter, @Gav1961 .

However, when you pop up as a brand new user specifically to start a thread about why Reform should be allowed to keep its huge donations regardless of the legislation already progressing through parliament and you cite a completely spurious and invalid comparison about a grooming gang leader who could not be deported in order to justify your argument, then it is inevitable that people may wonder.

“When you say it's all about optics, is that because you think that most Reform supporters lack the intelligence to engage with the facts?”

Some may lack the intelligence! Others simply don’t want to hear any more from the people in charge they hold accountable for the bad-running of the country. Those alienated and disaffected parts of the electorate will be highly receptive to Reform demagoguery and SM sound bites without bothering to challenge deeply what’s said.

“But what do you think the government should do? Do you think Parliament should abandon the bill retrospectively because it doesn't suit Reform donors?”

I don’t think the government can do anything about it. They have to press ahead. So whatever steps the new law requires will be taken - but it won’t be a clear “win” because of the political that Reform may gain from spinning the “unfairness” of it all in the eye of the wavering voters. Regardless of the fact it probably isn’t unfair!

What history are you suggesting that I'm missing here, exactly?

That demagoguery worked very well in the 1930s for Hitler - appealing to the electorate who feel poorly served by the existing political parties; the politics of hate; a strong sense of being “cheated” (people are now poorer whilst the rich get richer ; Brexit wasn’t delivered “properly”; a corrupt few are getting away with actual crimes and misdemeanours). If you reduce incredibly complex problems into a few sound bites on SM and you repeat it over and over, people lap it up. It doesn’t mean people are stupid - it means they are only interested in hearing a simple answer that suits their own feelings and once they have that answer they don’t search for a deeper truth. I’m not saying that Reform are Nazis - but the political tactics that served Hitler well, serve Trump well, and can serve Farage well too.

As I said - it’s a dangerous situation.

As said by a pp, the proposed law was always going to be retrospective. Nothing to do with recent donations. And Reform's proposed law on ILR would also be retrospective, so sauce, goose, gander.

Well, yes, I think we all know the history and we can all see how people are being manipulated. None of that is news.

And we are all well aware that Reform will be able to spin this to their advantage.

But what can any of us actually do about it if large swathes of the electorate aren't interested in the facts? Surely the only option we have is to try and counter it the best we can? Or do you have another solution?

BBC today;

When the government set out its plans to cap foreign donations in March and July, it did not mention the idea of an enhanced residency test for political donors.

Asked repeatedly by reporters whether the idea of tightening residency rules had only been discussed after Delo and Harborne's most recent donations to Reform, the prime minister's official spokesman would not give a timeframe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw3d7mv5v72ro

The intention to ban large donations from non-UK residents was made clear.

Is it not therefore reasonable to want to ascertain that people are genuinely resident in the UK before they are permitted to donate? How exactly could this be done without some sort of minimum qualifying period? If that wasn't in place, what would have stopped wealthy overseas donors from popping over to the UK for a couple of weeks, saying that they are resident and then "changing their minds" a couple of weeks later?

How do you propose the legislation could be implemented without some sort of qualifying period?

Rycroft recommended it

Even the Guardian has acknowledged that the bill goes further than some of Rycroft's recommendations.

The bill has been linked, you can read it for yourself.

Is there any point? The BBC's Chris Mason has published this;

But, crucially, the law hasn't changed yet and some of the key details in that proposed new law - such as what residency requirements would need to be passed to be classified as no longer being abroad - haven't been decided yet.

WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY (14 SEP 2026) IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS: ✅ OFFICIAL STATUS — CONFIRMED FACTS: • ✅ There was NO vote, NO debate, NO Bill passage, NO final decision on new law — relating to the Rycroft Review or political donations. • ✅ What DID occur: Peers raised the Rycroft Review and donation reform during general questions / debate on political finance / elections — it was raised as a topic of discussion only — NOT a legislative stage. • ✅ Key points stated by ministers/peers: ◦ ✅ Government confirmed: “We are still considering the Rycroft Review’s full recommendations — no final Bill has been published, introduced, or brought to the Lords yet.” ◦ ✅ Repeated official position: “Any new rules will apply PROSPECTIVELY only — to donations made AFTER the law comes into force — NOT retrospectively.” ◦ ✅ Explicitly confirmed: “British citizens remain eligible donors — the core eligibility test is NOT being removed.” ◦ ✅ Several peers from all parties warned: “Retrospective application is legally risky, constitutionally questionable, and likely unlawful under UK law and ECHR Article 7 — we will insist on proper safeguards.”

11 percent of MPs in Britain are foreign. This foreign influence seems to be perfectly acceptable.

Is there any point?

If you are interested in what the bill is, yes.

What do you mean with 11% of MP's are foreign?

They are all British citizens.

According to some people, naturalised doesn't count. It's where Rupert Lowlife stands.

The same Rupert lowe who couldn’t actuallu say that King Charles III was a British citizen?

11 percent are foreign, including 6 of the 11 percent not born here.

Like Boris Johnson?

Not that it matters, they are all British citizens.

That foreign influence doesn't matter. Over one in ten MPs.

Is that a problem for you?

They are British citizens so no foreign influence.

Hilarious

This! They knew it was going to become law and are trying to beat the legislation and spin it.

Personally I can’t understand why somebody would pay 36 mil to a political party that wants to legislate in a way that will enhance their personal wealth and say they do it for the benefit of a country that they don’t live in or pay taxes in. It says something about the donors view of Britain as somewhere where they can make money from