1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

Well i thought reform were in with a good chance before this generous donation, this will only increase their chances . Burnham is a fool if he isn't concerned, the same goes for the rest of the current government, So that just leaves you, in denial.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It might also demonstrate to the electorate that Reform are the party of the hyper wealthy, with lots to hide.

there is nothing in my post above that "might also demonstrate" anything to the electorate so I have no idea what you are wittering on about.

I am far from wealthy and neither are the majority of Reform supporters,

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Key thing right now for Farage and a number of people at the top of Reform is to stay out of prison.

That's about the only way of keeping him out of Number 10

5 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

there is nothing in my post above that "might also demonstrate" anything to the electorate so I have no idea what you are wittering on about.

I am far from wealthy and neither are the majority of Reform supporters,

I’m well aware the majority of Reform voters are far from wealthy.

The owners and backers of Reform are however billionaires and multimillionaires.

They’re not spending their cash by the tens of millions for the good of anyone at your end of economic ladder.

5 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

That's about the only way of keeping him out of Number 10

I think he’ll walk and believe he’s already laying the groundwork to do so.

Brace for incoming “As a father and for the good of my family”.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think he’ll walk and believe he’s already laying the groundwork to do so.

Brace for incoming “As a father and for the good of my family”.

Just like starmers " concentrating on international issues" an elected politician and a prime minister who you adored, along with the standing Mp for makerfield forced to take the walk of shame by Burnham and the rest of the party out of sheer despair ! I

Just now, Bday Prang said:

Just like starmers " concentrating on international issues" an elected politician and a prime minister who you adored, along with the standing Mp for makerfield forced to take the walk of shame by Burnham and the rest of the party out of sheer despair ! I

You really should try to express your own thoughts on matters rather than substitute what you believe to be the thoughts of others.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m well aware the majority of Reform voters are far from wealthy.

The owners and backers of Reform are however billionaires and multimillionaires.

They’re not spending their cash by the tens of millions for the good of anyone at your end of economic ladder.

Labour are not spending any of their cash for the good of anybody as they have none. What they borrow will have to be paid back by the electorate, Pensioners will bear the brunt with the armed forces also having to tighten their belt Are you also well aware of that ?

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You really should try to express your own thoughts on matters rather than substitute what you believe to be the thoughts of others.

So you did not adore Starmer , ?

3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Labour are not spending any of their cash for the good of anybody as they have none. What they borrow will have to be paid back by the electorate, Pensioners will bear the brunt with the armed forces also having to tighten their belt Are you also well aware of that ?

Labour are in power, they are passing laws and changing Government policy for people who are not billionaires and multimillionaires.

Billionaires seem not to like this, hence bunging Reform tens of millions.

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

So you did not adore Starmer , ?

You don’t come across as very confident in your views and predictions.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Labour are in power, they are passing laws and changing Government policy for people who are not billionaires and multimillionaires.

Billionaires seem not to like this, hence bunging Reform tens of millions.

Where was the Labour outrage, when Harborne was donating to the Tories ?

Nothing, nada, zilch.

This is nothing more than feet stamping because 2 independently wealthy individuals gave massive donations to Reform, instead of Labour.

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Where was the Labour outrage, when Harborne was donating to the Tories ?

Nothing, nada, zilch.

This is nothing more than feet stamping because 2 independently wealthy individuals gave massive donations to Reform, instead of Labour.

Then you’ll have no problem with the legality of the donations being checked?

15 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

How do you retrospectively make something illegal legally?

You’re missing the point. You don’t have to retrospectively make the donation illegal the rules governing it were already in operation when it happened. If Reform is caught by the existing rules, it’s caught. What did you expect the main parties to do just roll over and let them keep £72m? Senior civil servant will be poring over the legalisation to ensure it is drafted tighter than a duck's arris and can knock Reforms donors back. And they need to do so as Reform has said they will attack them in power. All power to their pens.God speed with the lawyers as they are doing God's work.

However, if Musk had found a legal route to give Rupert Lowe £10 million, I’d hold my nose and accept it. Politics is a dirty business get over it.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you’ll have no problem with the legality of the donations being checked?

No idea, why you would think I might have a problem with the legality being checked. I couldn't care less.

What interests me, is your total avoidance of the question I posed

10 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Where was the Labour outrage, when Harborne was donating to the Tories ?

That tells me the outrage is not about donations, the legality of the donations. And is solely based on the fact that the donations were made to Reform.

Just now, beautifulthailand99 said:

You’re missing the point. You don’t have to retrospectively make the donation illegal the rules governing it were already in operation when it happened.

No they weren't. That is why they are trying to make changes to the law retrospective.

With a UK Registered address and on the Electoral Register, people can donate as much as they want.

10 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Where was the Labour outrage, when Harborne was donating to the Tories ?

Nothing, nada, zilch.

This is nothing more than feet stamping because 2 independently wealthy individuals gave massive donations to Reform, instead of Labour.

Labour are available at a much more reasonable price , On the 1st of July Burnham accepted a paltry £16,500 from Ernst and Young just before awarding them a £250 million pound "training" contract

Buying democracy clearly need not be expensive

Private Eye issue 1683 confirmed by AI

Just now, The Cyclist said:

No idea, why you would think I might have a problem with the legality being checked. I couldn't care less.

What interests me, is your total avoidance of the question I posed

That tells me the outrage is not about donations, the legality of the donations. And is solely based on the fact that the donations were made to Reform.

Harbornes donations to the Tories amounted to £2 million over a period of 21 years.

4% of what he’s handed Reform in a matter of weeks.

Shall we pretend that’s not a significant issue?

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

No they weren't. That is why they are trying to make changes to the law retrospective.

With a UK Registered address and on the Electoral Register, people can donate as much as they want.

That depends on where the money they donate came from.

24 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Labour are not spending any of their cash for the good of anybody as they have none. What they borrow will have to be paid back by the electorate, Pensioners will bear the brunt with the armed forces also having to tighten their belt Are you also well aware of that ?

You may not be aware of it, but a large proportion of Reform voters are themselves beneficiaries of the welfare state — they just don't necessarily regard the benefits they receive as “benefits”. Pensions are the obvious example, and PIP is another. Look at Clacton, where Reform has a particularly strong vote and disability and benefit dependency are significant issues. Farage's genius is persuading people that the benefits they receive are somehow different from the benefits received by people they dislike. Meanwhile, the very wealthy get to tell everyone else who's supposedly taking the piss. It's a remarkably effective political trick. The fat Reform voter having a fag whilst in their mobility scooter saying how wonderful their Nige is doesn’t know what's coming if he ever gets in power.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Harbornes donations to the Tories amounted to £2 million over a period of 21 years.

What difference does it make if it was £2 million or £100 million.

If his donation to Reform are illegal, then his donations to the Tories are illegal.

But none of them were illegal, which is why the feet stamping Labour Party are now trying to retrospectively change the Law.

Labour, too stupid to work out that they are the best recruiting tool Reform has.

11 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Labour are available at a much more reasonable price , On the 1st of July Burnham accepted a paltry £16,500 from Ernst and Young just before awarding them a £250 million pound "training" contract

Buying democracy clearly need not be expensive

Private Eye issue 1683 confirmed by AI

Labour, too stupid to understand that if Reform form the next Government.

Payback will be changing the law to make make donations from Unions illegal.

Trumpets, the lot of them.

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

What difference does it make if it was £2 million or £100 million.

If his donation to Reform are illegal, then his donations to the Tories are illegal.

But none of them were illegal, which is why the feet stamping Labour Party are now trying to retrospectively change the Law.

Labour, too stupid to work out that they are the best recruiting tool Reform has.

Because it was t a donation of £2 million, it was donations totaling £2million.

The kind of thing that might not raise questions in the same manner as two people donating £100 million in a matter of weeks.

Shall we pretend that’s not a significant issue?

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by Chomper Higgot

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Shall we pretend that’s not a significant issue?

You can pretend whatever you like in your LaLa Land.

An Illegal donation is an illegal donation, regardless of the amount.

The significant issue here, is Labour trying to retrospectively change the law, because they are butt hurt the money never went to them.

11 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

What difference does it make if it was £2 million or £100 million.

If his donation to Reform are illegal, then his donations to the Tories are illegal.

But none of them were illegal, which is why the feet stamping Labour Party are now trying to retrospectively change the Law.

Labour, too stupid to work out that they are the best recruiting tool Reform has.

The law and the courts will decide ultimately and if well drafted then Reform will lose and have to both give the money back and pay all the legal costs involved with fighting it. Bring it on.

1 minute ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The law and the courts will decide ultimately and if well drafted then Reform will lose and have to both give the money back and pay all the legal costs involved with fighting it. Bring it on.

I think you are missing a whole raft of procedure, before the Law and Courts can get involved.

Royal assent is not on the side of retrospective legislation.

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

You can pretend whatever you like in your LaLa Land.

An Illegal donation is an illegal donation, regardless of the amount.

The significant issue here, is Labour trying to retrospectively change the law, because they are butt hurt the money never went to them.

It was perhaps not a good idea to buy a political party with £100 million at the precise time that same political party is under criminal investigation for breach laws relating to political donations.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It was perhaps not a good idea to buy a political party with £100 million at the precise time that same political party is under criminal investigation for breach laws relating to political donations.

So happy you finally got there, well done, take yesterday off

We are finally in agreement. Not being a good idea, does not equate to being illegal.

4 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The law and the courts will decide ultimately and if well drafted then Reform will lose and have to both give the money back and pay all the legal costs involved with fighting it. Bring it on.

There is another dimension to this issue.

The public response to Billionaires buying a political party.

Reform have stood on a platform of tackling sleaze and corruption, and yet are now clearly up to their necks in sleaze and corruption.

It’s not simply this £100 million, it’s stream of revelations of money being handed by the shed load to Reform and Farage.

Snouts in the trough is not a good look, and it’s been noticed.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

So happy you finally got there, well done, take yesterday off

We are finally in agreement. Not being a good idea, does not equate to being illegal.

We are not in agreement and we are not ‘there’ yet.

I don’t mind waiting on the legality decisions from the multiple criminal investigations Reform is facing.

If this labour government had any policies that reflected the mood and wishes of the electorate, or were able to convince people that they had even the slightest chance of winning the next election perhaps they might be on the receiving end of some generous donations

Sadly for them , and contrary to their beliefs, people do not generally reward or encourage incompetence, what would be the point