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.

Yeah, I think it's fair as long as it applies across the board, which I believe is entirely the intention. It's also suss that big money goes to the guys who are all 'Oh no, don't tax those hardworking multimillionaires!', I wonder why?!

The existing rules were not made for a world of billionaires and centibillionaires. There are now individuals rich enough to potentially 'buy democracy' even in affluent countries, so a cap has to be put in. Especially as this sort of wealth does not seem to produce people who are empathetic and understand the problems of ordinary people. And these people will be having kids who will grow up never having not had billions and they're going to start wanting to get involved with politics too. So yes, rules that limit individual power to skew elections through money alone are a good idea.

Telegraph View

Self-serving cant from Labour.

Moving the goalposts on foreign donation caps simply to thwart Reform is unacceptable.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2026/09/13/self-serving-cant-labour-foreign-donation-cap-reform-rayner/

Ethnicity and nationality are totally different, as has already been pointed out. There is no such thing as a "foreign ethnicity", and by using this phrase, you are seeking to imply that people from ethnic minority backgrounds are "foreign", as stated explicitly in your earlier post which was deleted.

The implication is both incorrect and offensive. As you know.

Now, back to my question. What was your point about India not allowing dual citizenship? Did you actually have a point that you were trying to make?

Did you find any links for these claims?

Extensive detailed investigation about 6 months ago by 2 Guardian journalists

There's no such thing as a foreign ethnicity? it's offensive to claim these men are making "foreign" donations then.

Link to the article?

You're not engaging in good faith now.

And no. For the last time, ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing, so you can't use "foreign" as an adjective to describe ethnicity. I suspect that you understand this very well, but it suits your racist agenda to pretend that you don't. Whatever.

Donations have neither an ethnicity nor a nationality, obviously. The issue is where they come from and whether or not the donors are resident in the UK. As you well know.

I note that you haven't answered my questions about the relevance of India not permitting dual citizenship, so I presume that you don't actually know what point you were trying to make.

It was linked in yesterdays Guardian - I'm sure you can find it for yourself if you look

The "issue is where they come from".

Another liberal knot.

Why is that a liberal knot?

Who are the foreign MP's?

Public opinion is very clearly in favour of a donations cap: https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260914-9dc17-1

And I do think the majority of the public are pragmatic and realistic enough to understand why it makes absolute sense for this kind of legislation to be backdated - just like the legislation for closing tax loopholes regularly is. People aren’t idiots - and it’s very obvious that if this wasn’t backdated there’d be a huge influx of money from people who choose not to even live in this country, but who want to buy influence over our democracy, just before the legislation came into force.

Politically, I think Reform have to tread a bit carefully here: fighting tooth & nail to be able to keep this money & making out they’re being uniquely victimised by laws which the public clearly support - and which apply to all political parties - doesn’t exactly help dispel the image of Reform as the party most in the pocket of big money.

Britain earns approximately £417.1 billion annually in cross-border foreign income (known economically as "primary income" credits), according to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Office for National Statistics

This specific type of "foreign income" represents money flowing into the UK from overseas investments, international assets, and UK residents working abroad.
Office for National Statistics +1

📊 How the Earnings Break Down
To understand what Britain earns from the rest of the world, economists track international inflows through two main categories in the UK Current Account: Primary Income (money earned on capital and labour) and Exports (money earned selling goods and services.

1. Foreign Investment & Asset Earnings (Primary Income)
Britain holds massive wealth overseas. Over a single rolling 12-month period, UK receipts consistently hover around £100 billion to £108 billion per quarter:
Office for National Statistics +2

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): Earnings on UK-owned businesses and factories physically located abroad generate roughly £132.5 billion annually.
Office for National Statistics

Portfolio & Other Investments: This includes international stock dividends, interest on foreign bank accounts, and returns on overseas debt securities, which bring in the remaining £280+ billion.
Office for National Statistics +1

2. Trade Inflows (Exports of Goods & Services)
While separate from pure asset "income", Britain’s broader earnings from overseas buyers are driven heavily by its status as a global service powerhouse.

Services Surplus: Britain generates roughly £140.3 billion per quarter purely by exporting services (led by financial services, insurance, and professional consulting).

Shabana Mahmood would call you a "littler Englander".

Talking of optics, the latest polling (and this was before the latest donations furore):

Around six in ten Britons see Reform UK as untrustworthy, serving their own interests, prejudiced and extreme, while also tending to see the party as out of touch,
(yougov.com/en-gb/articles/55550-political-favourability-ratings-september-2026)

I don’t think these obscenely, unprecedentedly large donations by billionaires - and still less the way Reform are screeching and whining about legislation designed to limit foreign influence and untraceable money corrupting our democracy as if it’s uniquely victimising them- does anything to dispel those perceptions.

I hate these donations because I don’t want to see big money pollute our democracy in the way it has America’s, but on another level I do think they’re a bit of a poisoned chalice for Reform.

What does any of that AI generated information have to do with political donations from overseas?

Presumably you understand why there is a difference between money from overseas flowing into our economy and money from overseas being used to influence our democracy?

And are you going to clarify your previous posts as requested, or were you just posting word salad that didn't actually have any point to it?

I don’t really see how that is relevant to my point - which was about why it is sensible and pragmatic for this legislation, like other legislation to close tax loop holes, to be backdated.

FWIW I’d like to see all political donations capped - but I do think starting with capping donations from people who don’t even choose to live in this country makes sense.

I’m not a fan of Reform by any means but I don’t think this is fair! It’s just Labour using any tactic possible to not get them into power

@Theseagullwhispererbut big money pollutes all politics! I was listening to an interview where the presenter flummoxed Angela Raynor by flagging Labour had taken big donations (not quite as large as Nigel’s) for various hedge fund companies that work with companies that make arms!

A lot of Reform donor rhetoric about the dominance of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and them being effectively in cahoots with each other to preserve the status quo is getting more and more reminiscent of what certain people were saying in 1934. There were people there who beat up protestors at their rallies too, although on a greater a scale then

he helped Badenoch out when she got caught out hacking

The article talks about one of Delo's associates, Jeremy Hildreth, donating legal costs to Badenoch in 2021. However, the legal advice referred to would have been the spat with a HuffPost journalist - who asked why Kemi Badenoch had not taken part in a video featuring Black MPs, encouraging people to get the Covid-19 vaccine.

His 'philanthropy' has also extended to Yaxley-Lennon

A somewhat tenuous link;

Other guests [to the summer party] included Habib, a former deputy leader of Reform UK, who left to form the rightwing political party Advance UK last year, which subsequently received the backing of Tommy Robinson.

That’s a different question from whether people want retrospective laws. It also didn’t ask if there should be caps on donations from institutions: unions, businesses, etc.

Even if they retrospectively change it, Nigel and co will find a way to worm their scummy way around it, as proven so many times before (c4 expose one recent evidence example)

What are you concerned about exactly?

Are you completely comfortable with such huge amounts of money being funnelled into our politics from people who don't even live in the UK? Do you think it's OK for people who haven't chosen to live here to have so much influence?

If it's the retrospective aspect, does it make a difference that the retrospective aspect of this was announced long before the large Reform donations were mooted, and that there is precedent for this kind of backdating in order to prevent people from rushing to bypass the new legislation while the bill progresses through parliament?

Which aspect do you think is unfair?