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.

Not quite as large is an understatement! These donations are £72 million from two donors over a single weekend. Before that, I think I read that the biggest single donation in British political history was £10 million left to the Conservatives in a Will.

I agree big money pollutes all politics - that’s why I believe in a donations cup - along with the majority of the public. And of course it should apply to all parties.

It’s worth bearing in mind that there was fierce outcry - including from Labour supporters - when Labour took that £4 million from a hedge fund company in the Cayman Islands.

That kind of outcry led to the Rycroft report - and the recommendations from that report have led to the Representation of the People act.

Reform are spinning this as some kind of targeted attack on them - it simply isn’t. The legislation will apply to all political parties.

I presume that they perceive it as a targeted attack because they are struggling to attract donations from within the UK, as one of their officials stated in the Channel 4 undercover report.

Sure, but my point is people are in favour of this legislation, and I think they’ll see the very clear pragmatic reasons why - like all legislation to close tax loopholes - it needs to be retrospective.

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

But the article actually says

''One of Delo’s associates, Jeremy Hildreth, a branding consultant who has been described as his chief of staff, donated £26,755 in legal costs to Badenoch in 2021 related to advice on online harassment, abuse and intimidation..''

There is whole long section about who Delo was 'partying' with from the right/far right - you have cherry picked a paragraph and then called it 'tenuous' - cheap tactics on your part

For anyone who wants to read a non-Clavinova interpretation here is the actual article

Revealed: a crypto billionaire’s political base hosting ‘anti-woke’ and rightwing activists in Westminster
This article is more than 5 months old

Pardoned by Trump after violating US banking law, Ben Delo provides funding, networking, and podcasting space for a range of groups, including those with hardline views on migration and abortion

Ooops got crapto'd by the spam filter

It's a good question which I've never seen answered

Why can't Farage/Reform UK attract homegrown UK donors?

Another article this evening from the Times;

The Times View
Backdating law to stop Reform donations will backfire

Shifting the goalposts to make Reform’s donations impermissible would hand the insurgents a new weapon to club the establishment with. Any party in power should avoid seeking to fix the system to help themselves or harm their opponents.

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/backdating-law-to-stop-reform-donations-will-backfire-2ljcvmzcg

40 percent of babies in Britain have at least one foreign parent. Racist to mention this. No foreign interest in Britain. Offensive.

Two British men - foreign donations corrupting British democracy. The British democracy of 40 percent of births to foreign parents.

More people want to ban or cap donations from trade unions:

YouGov tracker survey
It shows the highest level of public support was for an outright ban on all political donations, especially donations from trade unions and businesses, and caps were less popular the higher they were set. Over 50% of respondents supported either a ban, a £500 limit or a £5,000 limit on donations from individuals (55%), business (54%) and trade unions (59%).

Given that trade union donations benefit the Labour Party, it might be expected that union donations are viewed more favourably by Labour voters than other forms of giving. However, 59% of Labour-affiliated voters support either a ban, or a cap of £500 or £5,000 on donations from trade unions.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-11072/

It isn't racist to mention that many British people have at least one parent who was born abroad. Including our current head of state, the king.

It is racist to insinuate that those people are somehow "foreign" which seems to be what you are attempting to do.

We see it. We get what you are trying to do. We reject it.

That’s very funny.
Even funnier because it’s a true observation.

What is a donation from "within the UK" when 40 percent of family formation "within the UK" is foreign parents.

Is their money "within the UK"?⁸

People who are UK citizens, living in the UK, regardless of where they or their parents were born can donate money to any political party incl Reform

Reform has said [in the Channel 4 programme] that they have a problem attracting donations from these people above

Why do you think that is?

Is this a serious question? Or just more goading?

Donors who are resident in the UK still have to meet the ordinary eligibility requirements such as being on the UK electoral register etc.

Why are you so hung up on the number of babies with at least one parent having been born abroad. Do you accept that those babies are British? And do you understand that many of their "foreign born" parents will also be British?

👑 Queen Victoria (Prince Philip's great-great-grandmother)
➡️ 🇬🇧 Princess Alice of the United Kingdom (His great-grandmother, Victoria's daughter)
➡️ 🇩🇪 Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine (His grandmother, Alice's daughter)
➡️ 🇬🇧 Princess Alice of Battenberg (His mother, Victoria's daughter)
➡️ 🇬🇧 Prince Philip

Because Queen Elizabeth II was also a great-great-grandchild of Queen Victoria (through Victoria's eldest son, King Edward VII), this maternal lineage is exactly what made Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II third cousins.

Queen Victoria was famously known as the "Grandmother of Europe" because she arranged for her children and grandchildren to marry into royal families across the continent.
Her second daughter, Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, married Prince Louis of Hesse, a German royal. This began the chain of marriages that eventually led to Prince Philip's birth in Greece.

Therefore everyone from all 200 countries on the planet are "British" the second they arrive or just buy a plane ticket to "Britain", unless of course they donate to Reform.

Hung up? I'm highlighting the extraordinary hypocrisy.

Philip was born overseas. Yes, he had some British heritage, but the fact remains that our current monarch had one foreign-born parent.

So did Winston Churchill. And many others who you would no doubt readily acknowledge as British.

I think you already know that your last paragraph is wildly inaccurate, so I am not going to dignify it with a response. It's abundantly clear that you're trying to make your racist points as clearly as possible without saying explicitly what you actually mean because you know you'll get deleted. As I said earlier, we see it, and we reject it.

There is no hypocrisy.

You have responded as you, an individual, you are no more entitled to say "we" than I am.

Do carry on calling people racist. I am endlessly fascinated by people that use that word in a way they think is in service of the success of this nation.

After calling us racist for decades do you actually think this has made us like the people that call us racist more or less? More or less?

I say "we" because I know that there are many on Mumsnet and beyond who reject racism. I know that I am not alone in this.

I will certainly carry on calling people racist if they say racist things. I believe that there is a moral obligation on me to do so.

As to whether I think that calling you racist makes you like me more or less, I can't say I've ever given it much thought. It really isn't important to me to be liked by people whose opinions I don't value. I would presume that you like me less, which is your prerogative, but that simply isn't a concern for me.

I just don't think that you can buy support this well. In the Clinton vs Trump election, Clinton outspent Trump by an enormous margin, and lost.

Also, if it's not about fairness, why bother having elections? Just let the "good" parties govern, and keep out the bad ones, this is our country after all, we don't want the wrong ones winning.

I've put you on the side of the people that look away from racial rape of working class children in Britain. They use that word. You are definitely one of those women to me. You will want this deleted because it's true.

You're grasping at straws now. This is just a baseless personal attack which you cannot back up with any evidence. It isn't helping your case.

I have observed that you are racist based on the explicitly racist content of your posts on this thread - specifically, your repeated assertions and insinuations that British people from ethnic minority backgrounds, or those with one or more parents born overseas, are not really British but somehow "foreign".

You have accused me of being on the side of those who look away from child rape, without any grounds whatsoever for that egregious allegation. You appear to be trying to imply that anyone who ever identifies words or behaviours as "racist" must inevitably turn a blind eye to the rape of white children by non-white perpetrators. This is extremely offensive but it is also patently absurd. And frankly, as a strategy, it comes across as a bit desperate.

I could report your post to MN as a personal attack, but personally, I think daylight is the best disinfectant. I actually think it's good for others to see how you have attempted in your post above to to exploit horrific crimes against children to shut down a completely unrelated challenge about racism. I am afraid it says far more about you than it does about me.

Good night.

@Theseagullwhispererweird, as I never heard about any fierce outcry from Labour supporters. I voted for them in this election and I feel they conduct themselves in a similar way to the Tories. But with the added caveat of ‘we plead ignorance or we didn’t know the rules’ I hate Reform. And the donations are an insane amount, but I also find Labour hypocrisy a bit grim too! Seeing Raynor doing the rounds, knowing she can’t even organise her own tax affairs - when the rest of us would have been in trouble for doing the same - leaves a bitter taste for me! Will not vote for them again!

On this and the ‘homegrown’ stuff below Delo is British. He went to state school here, Oxbridge and then with a 1st he was obviously highly attractive to o/s opportunities. Most countries don’t do what Labour do and drive that kind of success away, they offer what attracts.

He obviously still is invested as a British citizen as he’s given more than nearly all with millions to his alma mater and other top maths education eg in London.

Obviously Labour need to position him as the worst so they can politically survive, so there’s nonsense from Rayner and the business secretary joins in.

They’re overridden by panic.