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.

These are a bit strange arguments. I can't really see the connections between the statements at all really sorry, so it's hard to respond to them.

I don't mean fairness for the parties I mean fairness for us. I don't actually really care about Labour, Tories, Reform, whatever. They are just organisations and their interests are not my interests. I'd like to vote for a local MP and have them represent my concerns in parliament, thanks. I'd like that to be my business.

American politics are awful and I don't want them here. I live here, not there. I think American politics are bad for ordinary people and I want something better. You should do. We really can do better than that.

They don't need to position him as anything. They just need to assess whether his return to the UK is genuine and not just a temporary measure to bypass the legislation.

I actually quoted that exact research elsewhere - and one of the main points about it is that Labour supporters also support aa cap on Trade Union donations.

I think the false equivalence that’s being drawn between the money given by two ultra wealthy individual billionaires - whose enormous wealth inevitably puts their experiences outside the rest of the populations - and money made up of thousands of donations from thousands of workers, is ridiculous and a clear distraction and whatboutery technique from Reform.

But having said that, I do also think it’s right and fair that a cap of £1 million should apply across all individuals and entities.

I think the spending cap on elections should be higher too.

I think applying any law retrospectively is generally unfair. People need certainty to be able make decisions. It is dangerous to start creating a country where what we do today maybe punishable under a future law that is yet to be conceived regardless of how sensible the law is.

Okay, but that’s an Opinion article. It’s not surprising that opinion columnists in the Times and the Telegraph are team big money,.

It’s also not surprising that you can get a different view from columnists in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/14/the-guardian-view-on-reform-uk-crypto-billionaires-must-be-stopped-from-undermining-democracy

The by-line times: https://bylinetimes.com/2026/09/14/why-reform-uk-could-be-forced-to-hand-back-their-72m-donations-from-crypto-billionaires/

But public opinion is really clear, people don’t like or want these kind of big money donations, and I do think Reform fighting desperately to cling onto them is a bad look for them as the self proclaimed “party of the people”.

But the retrospective application of the law only dates back to the date on which the planned changes were announced and not before. So people already knew the score.

It takes time for a bill to progress through parliament. During that period, there could easily be a rush of people trying to get in quick on order to circumvent the new rules. The backdating, which was announced long before the large donations to Reform were mooted, was included in order to prevent such a rush.

That is not at all the same as moving the goalposts after the event and changing the rules after people have made their decisions.

And yet they have clearly. That’s their panic and mistake.

What exactly have Labour said about Delo to "position him as the worst"?

Did you hear Rayner and Reynolds? Perhaps you missed both.

Rayner - ‘sugar daddies’ line. This is ridiculous from a top politician.

Reynolds - foreign money crypto billionaires along those lines you can hear it on Times radio. And the response from a political analyst who knows Delo from university l pointed out as business secretary it’s so off to alienate people Labour would like to attract. Her take led me to look Delo up.

Presumably Labour will want to attract people such as Delo, in fact Burnham wrote a piece on that. He has another £10bn hole to fill of course, their tax policies aren’t working, they’ve run out of road. They’ll need to work out whether to vilify or attract people to help pay.

It isn't racist to state facts.

"The share of babies born to migrant parents reached 40pc for the first time last year, new figures show.

Latest Office for National Statistics figures showed the number of newborns with at least one parent born abroad had risen from 39.5pc in 2024 to a record high of 40.2pc last year. It was 30.1pc in 2008".

So a 10% rise over 18 years. And a less than one percent rise on last year. What is the issue anyway? We need people to have children.

Re hidden post. Shorter version

Look up Rayner’s ‘sugar daddy’ rant and Reynolds on times radio.

Labour vilify but they’ll need payers for their new £10bn hole in finances.

I do totally take this point - but the fact is it’s standard for legislation to close tax loopholes etc to be backdated and I think there are pretty obvious, pragmatic reasons why the same principles should apply here.

All political parties - including Reform - were given fair warning that these changes were coming, and that they’d be backdated to March (when the Rycroft report was published). The legislation passed through the Commons with cross party support. If Reform weren’t paying attention, that’s on them and I don’t think their desperate spinning that this legislation is uniquely victimising them will do a lot to change the growing perception that they are untrustworthy, money grabbing and in it for themselves.

Can you provide exact quotes of what was said about Delo, please? I haven't got time to go off on a wild goose chase.

Exactly. And Reform was paying attention. The original plan was for Delo to donate £1m a month until the next GE. But plans changed and and they went with the lump sum to get around potential changes.

No I haven’t the time to do that for you. See what AI brings up. Type Rayner sugar daddies and it’ll come up.

Yeah, I tried AI. It didn't produce any evidence of Rayner or Reynolds attempting to position Delo in the worst light at all. That's why I asked for specific quotes.

Rayner questioned their motives - hardly surprising given the fact that they are both crapto millionaires and Reform has stated that it will deregulate crapto, cut tax on crapto profits and block the introduction of a state-run alternative. But that is hardly a character assassination? So what else was said?

I gave you the specific wording for Rayner. Did you try that?

She called them “sugar daddies” in her speech to the TUC: https://www.tuc.org.uk/speeches/angela-rayner-addresses-tuc-congress-2026

But I’d hardly have called it vilifying. In fact, I’d say it was very much on a par with the rhetoric around “union paymasters” or calling democratically elected trade union leaders, “union barons”.

This isn't a loop hole. This is Labour making a political decision to as they think it will give an advantage themselves at an election.

Personally I think it is a load of fuss over nothing. If you have crap message spending more promoting that message will only mean a greater number of people know about the crap message.

I asked about "Rayner's sugar daddy rant".

This does raise the question about whether Delo was already donating £1m a month to Reform.

And if so whether those donations were being declared.

Because it makes no sense to say "Oh, I'm suddenly starting a monthly donation but it isn't a monthly donation it's a lump sum upfront."

There is no "donating £1m a month" if you've never done it.

And your Google overview didn’t get you this, or did you blank it

Angela Rayner delivered her "sugar daddies" line during a speech at the TUC Congress in September 2026

I realise this isn’t a loophole - but for very pragmatic reasons I do think it’s right for legislation like this to be back dated in the same way. Otherwise you get an enormous influx of money from soon to be disallowed sources just before the cut off. As long as it’s within the Rees rules, I think it’s fine.

On the one hand, I agree that I don’t think this money will actually do Reform as much good as they might think - the optics around it are really, really appalling for them. But on the other, whichever party they are for, I think donations of this scale are completely obscene and will become a corrupting force in our politics if we let them.

The optics of Labour trying to carve out unions alone for millions and doing the usual rich people are bad is there too. They’re struggling with a £10bn issue already, after claiming the first budget was a one off tax hike. All this celebrating of driving payers away won’t help.

I think @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack is making the point that she can’t see anything “vilifying” within that speech.

I tend to agree. There’s only really the sugar daddies line, which I’d say was very much on a par with the rhetoric around “union paymasters” or calling democratically elected trade union leaders, “union barons”