46 Comments
User's avatar
Lesley Snell's avatar

Rayner tried to deflect the size of union donations by saying it was made up of many individual donations. But the collective clout is wielded by the unions and we have observed their control over the Labour .Party . I suggest Reform policy should make political donations when you join a union an opt in option , rather than an opt out option as it is currently . Getting out of this donation involves a bit of effort and paperwork but surely now is the time for a bit of publicity on this front for ex Labour supporters who might still be supporting Labour financially .

I am very uncomfortable about this retrospective application of legislation Labour are employing . It’s bending rules to fit circumstances and allows them to stop anything they don’t like. Surely a judicial review would be in order given all the evidence Matt has set out , if Labour try this on which they certainly will if they can get away with it. This is democracy under threat , or an exacerbation of an erosion that has been going on for some time

Ken Norman's avatar

A class-action lawsuit against the government might wake them up!

Let's face it, what they're proposing cannot be lawful, surely?

Lesley Snell's avatar

I read somewhere that it would be against the rules of the ECHR . Now wouldn’t that be funny

Ken Norman's avatar

Needs investigating further.

EppingBlogger's avatar

Any collective donations machine, like the Unions, should require annual individual voluntary choices.

Lesley Snell's avatar

I would agree . That would respect democratic choices. People are allowed to change their minds

Whizjet's avatar

Thanks Matt, great content!

And, of course, Labour changed the electoral rules applying to the Manchester mayoral election just weeks before it happened - that seemed to sink without trace of mention in the MSM.

As you point out, it’s the utterly blatant nature of what Labour (and the UniParty) are trying to do! They really DO think we’re stupid.

Ken Norman's avatar

Well, we really must BE stupid if we are going to just sit on our hands and do nothing about it.

David Garner's avatar

Yes. Reform need to hit hard when they get exposure in the media. No compromise. No pretence. Hard facts. Like the interview Zia Yusuf had when he called out the BBC with Laura Kuennsberg. Did you see her face by the way? No pussyfooting. Highlight the rigged system to all. No playing nice. The public need reminding constantly because media cycles come and go as they are fickle. And the media itself is rigged. It needs to be at the forefront of everything. Just how undemocratic this country is. Rayner knows nothing of democracy. Their manifesto was a lie. The PM arrived without a vote. They tried to cancel elections. All this should be shown for what it is, like Communist Soviet Union. Say it. Hard. Loud. Shout it.

Stephen Rose's avatar

In the pursuit of power, there is nothing that the Uniparty will not stoop to.

Suggesting that this Labour administration are protecting democracy by opposing this donation to Reform, has a dark, hollow ring of hypocrisy about it. If they could arrest Nigel Farage or Rupert Lowe, much like Marianne Le Penn was, they wouldn't hesitate to do so.

Labour are heading for an almighty reckoning, it will come.

Carole Waters's avatar

Who's surprised that Labour are frothing at the mouth and the likes of fraud's like Rayner are trying to block Reform's legitimate donations? I knew the moment the donations were announced that the hypocrites that makes up the Labour government would try everything in their power to block them. Two tier donations now folks, it's acceptable for Labour to be financed by the Unions, Sainsbury, Ali and every other Tom, Dick and Harry but not acceptable for Reform to receive one penny legitimately. It's called rank hypocrisy about the only thing Labour are good at displaying.

judy's avatar

Labour are not just under threat from Reform, but also from the devolved powers they created SNP and PC. Plus an attack from the far left Green Party and any block ethnic votes they can obtain.

Our Andy has already cancelled PMQs on Weds and if they lose Holborn by election he is finished.

Prepare for a Gen Election real soon.

Ken Norman's avatar

Cancelled PMQ's? Is that just this week, or further?

judy's avatar

I think it is this week.

Lesley Snell's avatar

Do you know why? I can’t find anything on it . Starmer tried this as well . Convention as we know says if PM absent someone deputises. I am suspicious that this is to avoid discussion of Reforms donations while they cook something up and make an announcement . Am sure Reform will have lawyers all over this .

This government do not attempt to get on with the business of governing do they . It’s all about attacking Reform and plotting . Meanwhile Andy is out taking selfies while preparing for the great north run

Monique Clifton's avatar

Hypocrites, every last one of them. And as for Angela Rayner, the brass neck of someone who was sacked as housing minister for bending the rules when she bought the house in Brighton! You couldn’t write the script. They are truly scared of Reform, and bending the rules to try to stop them will only serve to strengthen their lead in the polls. Voters will see right through them and what they’re trying to do. No doubt they’ll find other means to try and stop Reform but we’re all on the case now and see Labour for what it really is, a lying bunch of traitors.

Ken Norman's avatar

What a shitshow for a Western government to field:

An unelected Prime Minister with no mandate

A Deputy PM convicted of fraud

A First Secretary of State convicted of fraud

A Housing Secretary who failed to pay tax

An Education Secretary who called child exploitation “a dog whistle”

A Defence Secretary with no military experience

An Agriculture & Farming Minister who fainted at the sight of hung beef

An Interior Minister who is Pakistani

My anger and frustration knows no bounds! 😡

Brucey Boy's avatar

You and millions of others!

Ian Munro's avatar

As far as I am aware Matt, Labours beloved ECHR rules ban retrospective law application?

Ken Norman's avatar

Interesting 🤔

Steve's avatar

Retrospective judicial penalties are illegal under Article 7 of the ECHR. I wonder how Labour will deal with that given they treat the ECHR as gospel.

Nick Doran's avatar

That is great news Steve and makes Rayner's absurd hypocrisy even more laughable. I suspect the Reform hierarchy were also aware of the ECHR Article 7 you mention, before they made the announcements. They know full well they will be attacked on all fronts by a corrupt government/establishment/media, as they always are. It would most amusing, and ironic, to see Nigel Farage say "It clearly states retrospective judicial penalties are illegal under Article 7 of the ECHR".

Steve's avatar

This is the relevant part of the article:

"1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

Steve's avatar

So I suppose it hangs on if what labour are putting in place could have a criminal conviction as a penalty.

EppingBlogger's avatar

They know the court is political not judicial. It will find a way to help Labour.

Sam's avatar

Is anyone surprised? Labour are basically a third world dictatorship at this point

The Martyr's avatar

It’s the pure hypocrisy of Labour to send Rayner out to criticise Reform’s donations! Talk about putting a fox in the chicken coop.

Ann Marie's avatar

I share your fury. Excellent article, Matt. I posted a comment in response to Gawain Towler’s article - ‘Sixty Days’ -earlier this morning. I am replicating my thoughts here because it is vital we spread the truth on this issue. “This is outrageous hypocrisy from Labour - the plan appears more like the kind of action we’d see from a dictator - solely to control and to retain power. Ben Delo is a major donor to The Battle of Ideas Festival because he believes in democracy, free speech and debate. This festival brings people together from the whole political spectrum. I salute these successful self made businessmen for supporting our democratic process. Fair play must win in the end just like the enterprising human spirit wins over authoritarianism. 🙏”

Ken Norman's avatar

Who is going to stand up and a) bring this to the attention of the general public, most of whom are unaware of these disclosures, and b) how do we field a bulldog representative of not just Reform UK, but also a representative of "the Right", who can aggressively counter the msm's hostility, belligerence, and antagonism towards Reform, and set straight these URGENT truths that MUST be brought to the voting public's attention?

Colin Martin's avatar

The corruption within the Establishment is breathtaking. We have had years of Antifa, BLM and Free Palestine marches where the participants have worn face coverings, yet now, when the Patriots are copying these tactics, the Government has rushed through a law to ban them, BUT AT A POLICE OFFICER'S DESCRETION. Blatant two-tier policing. Now, because Reform are receiving significant donations, the Government are trying to change the rules because they say that it is wrong to 'buy your way into democracy'; well, what has Labour been doing for a hundred years with its union subscriptions? For a hundred years the unions have been bribing the Labour Party to bend to their will, with outrageous pay rises and special treatment, but this, apparently is not 'buying one's way into democracy'. Corruption, corruption, corruption.

Anthony's avatar

We need a campaign to publicise trade members right to opt out of the Labour contribution in their membership fee. Once in power Reform can be make it an opt in decision renewable annually

judy's avatar

Great idea but the folk in these jobs are terrified of losing them which is what happens if you make waves against the blob.

Kevan Chippindall-Higgin's avatar

Passing retrospective legislation is the thin end of a very ugly wedge. This government is skint. This is common knowledge. What would stop it from hiking taxes on the rich, or at least the few that are left and then making the starting point say the beginning of the fiscal year?

Financial planning is quite hard enough. Backdating rule changes would make it impossible and totally gum up capital markets. Labour will not or cannot recognise this. Even if it did, Labour would not care because they are rich gits ripe for the plucking.

If this plan goes through, watch the brain drain turn into a deluge.