12 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

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.

Royal Assent hasn’t been withheld since 1708.

It’s a dead power.

1 minute ago, Bday Prang said:

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

They have, they wrote them in their manifesto and won an election on it.

Hence Billionaires buying Reform in the hope of getting a Government that serves their needs, not those of the electorate

53 minutes 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.

And why pray would Labour play fair with the the defence of the realm and pursuit of power it is very naive of you to believe that this is anything but dirty. But the law will be applied legally of that I am sure. If you don't like it vote into power a party that can change it. Them's the rules.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have, they wrote them in their manifesto and won an election on it.

Hence Billionaires buying Reform in the hope of getting a Government that serves their needs, not those of the electorate

And then promptly ignored their manifesto in their haste to attack pensioners and implement digital ID

Its obvious that you detest "the wealthy" and people more successful than your self the chip on your shoulder is clear for all to see

But, If they can become billionaires under the current and recent governments It suggests to me that their needs have already been met, they have no need to influence any future government.

The electorate does not consist solely of benefit scrounging work shy leftists despite what you might think, Labour won the last election on the basis of a protest vote, nothing to do with their worthless manifesto , and that is exactly the same way they will lose the next one

On 9/12/2026 at 11:05 PM, WIAA Alfie said:

This will have a hugely negative impact with voters who do not want to see tax avoiding billionaires, who live abroad, trying to buy UK democracy.

They are paying taxes in other jurisdictions, so they are not tax avoiding. They are no different in that regard than the Asean Now members who have relocated to Issan or Pattaya. Wealthy people do not relocate unless the tax burden is unreasonable and/or their business is conducted elsewhere.

As much as I am opposesd to such payments, one cannot single them out if one is not going to address the large donations from unions and special interest groups as well.

One could always do what some other jurisdictions do and that is to cap the size of political donation. Labour has opposed such a cap.

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

Yes the wider issue is the utter corruption and venality of Forage and his stick wielding cronies. Crypto is by definition a dodgy murky world much loved by autocratic governments to get round sanctions. Iran loves it. Nobody decent wants to go anywhere near it.

Edited 19 hours ago19 hr by beautifulthailand99

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have, they wrote them in their manifesto and won an election on it.

Hence Billionaires buying Reform in the hope of getting a Government that serves their needs, not those of the electorate

ok. Then Andy can run on that stellar record and see if he can win the confidence of the electorate.

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

ok. Then Andy can run on that stellar record and see if he can win the confidence of the electorate.

Why should he - did any Tories that jumped ship to Reform do so , did Sunak or Badenoch or Gordon Brown or many many others.

On 9/13/2026 at 10:05 AM, WIAA Alfie said:

This will have a hugely negative impact with voters who do not want to see tax avoiding billionaires, who live abroad, trying to buy UK democracy.

I don't think most people share the fanatical hatred of the wealthy, as demonstrated by the vocal minority on this forum.

The only negative impact seems to be on the poor misguided souls hoping for labour to win a second term,

If their policies were popular and successful they would be in with a chance regardless of what donations were received however that is clearly not the case,

On 9/13/2026 at 5:27 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s two reasons why anyone might make such huge donations.

1. They for some reason want Reform to win the next General Rlection.

2. They for some reason need Reform to win the next General Election.

With two such donors they might not share the same reason.

You're ignoring the obviously correct one: they want to make sure that a bunch of Marxist pro-terrorist amateur student politician clowns do not win the next General Election, perpetuate poverty and remove all chance of the uplifting of the working class to middle class then complete their planned destruction of Britain and in turn, Europe.

16 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

And why pray would Labour play fair with the the defence of the realm and pursuit of power

In case you missed it. From Burnhams lips " Welfare spending before Defence spending "

But have a think ( Probably difficult ) about this from the BBC

Ministers are seeking to put a £100,000 annual cap on donations from British expats, backdated to 25 March 2026.

That single sentence, should be all it takes to understand that the £72 million in donations are not illegal.

The part in bold, should be all it takes to understand that it is feet stamping from a butt hurt Labour Party.

Here is your sausage, before your blood pressure goes through the roof

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c623xee9dkdyo

2 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Why should he - did any Tories that jumped ship to Reform do so , did Sunak or Badenoch or Gordon Brown or many many others.

Didn't Farage just put himself through a byelection to reaffirm the voters' confidence?

Besides, this isn't about MPs crossing the floor seeking voter confidence. It is about a government that only received 33.7% of the popular vote and which has seen its support plummet. Confidence in the UK government is at an historic low.

8 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

It is about a government that only received 33.7% of the popular vote and which has seen its support plummet. Confidence in the UK government is at an historic low.

A small correction if I may.

Labour received 33.7% of the vote from the 58% of registered voters that could be bothered voting.

24 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I don't think most people share the fanatical hatred of the wealthy, as demonstrated by the vocal minority on this forum.

The only negative impact seems to be on the poor misguided souls hoping for labour to win a second term,

If their policies were popular and successful they would be in with a chance regardless of what donations were received however that is clearly not the case,

I certainly don't have a fanatical hatred of the wealthy.....I yearn to be one of them.

There does seem to be a negative impact, Farage's popularity is nose diving......and these donations are the only thing that would seem to account for that.

Populist policies, which attempt to appeal to low IQ voters are not a good way to go.....Stalin, Hitler, Trump are a testament to that.

43 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

And then promptly ignored their manifesto in their haste to attack pensioners and implement digital ID

Its obvious that you detest "the wealthy" and people more successful than your self the chip on your shoulder is clear for all to see

But, If they can become billionaires under the current and recent governments It suggests to me that their needs have already been met, they have no need to influence any future government.

The electorate does not consist solely of benefit scrounging work shy leftists despite what you might think, Labour won the last election on the basis of a protest vote, nothing to do with their worthless manifesto , and that is exactly the same way they will lose the next one

Don’t spend too much time imagining the success or otherwise of my life.

The idea that billionaires think their needs have already been met is as ludicrous as you defending them buying a political party.

16 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

A small correction if I may.

Labour received 33.7% of the vote from the 58% of registered voters that could be bothered voting.

That’s how first past the post works.

41 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

ok. Then Andy can run on that stellar record and see if he can win the confidence of the electorate.

I expect he will do just that when the next General Election comes around.

43 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

They are paying taxes in other jurisdictions, so they are not tax avoiding. They are no different in that regard than the Asean Now members who have relocated to Issan or Pattaya. Wealthy people do not relocate unless the tax burden is unreasonable and/or their business is conducted elsewhere.

As much as I am opposesd to such payments, one cannot single them out if one is not going to address the large donations from unions and special interest groups as well.

One could always do what some other jurisdictions do and that is to cap the size of political donation. Labour has opposed such a cap.

Wealthy billionaires don't avoid tax......??? Seriously???

A wide range of institutions and individuals contributing to a political party........can in no way be compared to two individuals with the same focus (crypto) contributing huge sums to what is a business, not a political party.

28 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Didn't Farage just put himself through a byelection to reaffirm the voters' confidence?

Besides, this isn't about MPs crossing the floor seeking voter confidence. It is about a government that only received 33.7% of the popular vote and which has seen its support plummet. Confidence in the UK government is at an historic low.

No, he pulled a stunt to try to avoid scrutiny.

It didn’t work, the investigation is back on.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It didn’t work, the investigation is back on.

What the Slam Dunk £5 million gift ?

😂😂😂

Top Tip for you. Don't hold your breath waiting for your hoped outcome.

15 minutes ago, WIAA Alfie said:

Wealthy billionaires don't avoid tax......??? Seriously???

Don't confuse tax avoidance, with tax evasion.

2 different things. 1 is illegal, the other isn't.

56 minutes ago, Katatonica said:

You're ignoring the obviously correct one: they want to make sure that a bunch of Marxist pro-terrorist amateur student politician clowns do not win the next General Election, perpetuate poverty and remove all chance of the uplifting of the working class to middle class then complete their planned destruction of Britain and in turn, Europe.

Got that from your Billionaire chums did you?

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by Chomper Higgot

10 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

What the Slam Dunk £5 million gift ?

😂😂😂

Top Tip for you. Don't hold your breath waiting for your hoped outcome.

Top tip for you.

Don’t assume you know what I hope for.

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Top tip for you.

Don’t assume you know what I hope for.

Your obsession with Farage / Reform, spells out , with no room for misinterpretation what you are hoping for.

But I suspect, that Harbornes Accountants and legal eagles will be no match for the dullards that infest the HoC

raynor is spouting venom cos they fear the worst ,theyve been enforcing payments to the unions from salarys for years

i remberr when i was an aprentice i had to pay for the unions from my meagre salary and you couldnt not pay it ,it was enforced

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

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.

2 hours later

Farage says a Reform UK government would stop unions funding Labour if they block £72m donations

Interesting article…..

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-given-4m-from-tax-haven-based-hedge-fund-with-shares-in-oil-and-arms/

Hypocritical Rayner got tied up in knots on this one.

I will just leave this here, for Asean Now's very own versions of Owen Jones, from that bastion of Right Wing support, otherwise known as the Guardian.

Ministers seek law change to make £72m donations to Reform illegal

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

there is indeed another dimension to this, the publics response, which will become apparent at the next general election

Reform have never stood on a platform of tackling sleaze or corruption , of course they have called it out when they saw it, but the foundational pillars of their political identity are secure borders and immigration control

Their criticisms of the current government have generally revolved around economic mismanagement, higher taxes, and the ridiculous self flagellating net zero debacle But obviously issues like rayners tax evasion and Mandelson's lies etc , are gifts they would never be able to ignore and neither should they

Anyway Its not £100 million its £144 million

As the "trough" is not full of public money in this case , I doubt the public are as bothered as you like to believe. The majority of them are after all reform supporters