Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[deptfordmarmoset]

I hope the £72m that cryptoad Farage has been given gets spent as well as Spurs' £300m team facelift.

 

[Pinno718]

Let's hope the cap on donations of £100k annually decision goes through as apparently, they are going to possibly retrospectively apply it from March.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Not sure how they could apply it retrospectively. It would be challenged in the courts and the govt would lose.
I do agree though that there needs to be a limit, and the limit for non-residents on the electoral roll should be very low.

I wonder if Reform's bank might freeze the account again given the first donation is from a convicted money launderer.....

 

[Pinno718]

Not sure how they could apply it retrospectively. It would be challenged in the courts and the govt would lose.
I do agree though that there needs to be a limit, and the limit for non-residents on the electoral roll should be very low.

I wonder if Reform's bank might freeze the account again given the first donation is from a convicted money launderer.....

Given that one of the donor's is a (pardoned) convicted criminal, there must be sort of angle the powers that be can challenge it?

 

[briantrumpet]

Not sure how they could apply it retrospectively. It would be challenged in the courts and the govt would lose.
I do agree though that there needs to be a limit, and the limit for non-residents on the electoral roll should be very low.

I wonder if Reform's bank might freeze the account again given the first donation is from a convicted money launderer.....

I'd have thought that 'Know Your Client' would provoke a weary eye-roll from Farage's or Reform's bankers. They certainly should know what their clients are like by now.

 

[monkers]

Not sure how they could apply it retrospectively. It would be challenged in the courts and the govt would lose.
I do agree though that there needs to be a limit, and the limit for non-residents on the electoral roll should be very low.

I wonder if Reform's bank might freeze the account again given the first donation is from a convicted money launderer.....

The Child Support Act 1991 applied retroactively. Court cases against the government were lost.

 

[Pross]

Not sure how they could apply it retrospectively. It would be challenged in the courts and the govt would lose.
I do agree though that there needs to be a limit, and the limit for non-residents on the electoral roll should be very low.

I wonder if Reform's bank might freeze the account again given the first donation is from a convicted money launderer.....

Agreed, it would just come across as them trying to stop Reform getting donations. It’s something that should have been sorted out decades ago. It’s ridiculous that an individual or business can donate such huge sums as they’ll obviously be expecting a return on their ‘investment’.

 

[monkers]

Agreed, it would just come across as them trying to stop Reform getting donations. It’s something that should have been sorted out decades ago. It’s ridiculous that an individual or business can donate such huge sums as they’ll obviously be expecting a return on their ‘investment’.

It could operate without successful legal challenge provided the statute operated to a single standard.

 

[briantrumpet]

It could operate without successful legal challenge provided the statute operated to a single standard.

It's all OK, guys. Jenrick says so.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgwkeg1vy8o

Angela Rayner said "We said that because of the intention of the legislation and the recommendations, which we accepted, was known in the public domain that it would be retrospective to that date."

Rayner [...] would not be drawn on whether the proposed changes would apply to Delo and Harborne, saying: "I don't know the individual circumstances of those donors."

She said the changes proposed by the government were "directly as a result" of a review by former top civil servant Philip Rycroft, published on 25 March.

Rayner said: "We said that because of the intention of the legislation and the recommendations, which we accepted, was known in the public domain that it would be retrospective to that date.

"That legislation is going through Parliament at the moment and we've also written to the Electoral Commission, which is an independent body, to see what further measures we need to take to protect our democracy."

 

[briantrumpet]

I think it could be fairly easily argued that the two donations were deliberately made in haste with the intention of bypassing the proposed legislation... ironically rather like Jenrick tipping off a property developer to avoid tax on a £45mn development in Tower Hamlets, and the Tories getting a £12k donation in return.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53172995

 

[monkers]

It's all OK, guys. Jenrick says so.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgwkeg1vy8o

Angela Rayner said "We said that because of the intention of the legislation and the recommendations, which we accepted, was known in the public domain that it would be retrospective to that date."

The lawyer's question is, ''please give definition to what you mean by 'that date'.''

That would lead to an examination of whether the intention is to be ''retrospective'' as Raynor states it, or as a matter of fact 'retroactive' - there being difference as a matter of law.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

It could operate without successful legal challenge provided the statute operated to a single standard.

Existing laws about party funding being avoided/circumvented should be enough for a legal challenge i think?

 

[monkers]

Existing laws about party funding being avoided/circumvented should be enough for a legal challenge i think?

You've placed a question mark after ''I think''. I can't really answer that except to say that I do not offer Vulcan mind melding services.

If you'd like my legal opinion about whether existing laws are sufficient or insufficient to protect what we understand to be a functioning democracy, then I have a one word answer - insufficient.

 

[Psamathe]

I think it could be fairly easily argued that the two donations were deliberately made in haste with the intention of bypassing the proposed legislation... ironically rather like Jenrick tipping off a property developer to avoid tax on a £45mn development in Tower Hamlets, and the Tories getting a £12k donation in return.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53172995

And probably less effective at boosting Reform. I think how many spend actually depends to a large extent on how wealthy they feel eg risk of economic downturn and people start spending less even though they are just as wealthy and nothing has changed because they feel less wealthy.

Reform will now be feeling very wealthy and they love extravigant living (changagne and oyster lunches, helicopter rides, etc.) so they feel it can all be afforded no worries.

Had they been on a £1m a month bank balances would have been lower and expenditure would have ben under tighter controls and with far more scrutiny.

Add that £1m a month might have hit headlines in 1st month at £1m but after that not newsworthy. But massive donations from questionable sources can be labelled "dirty money" and "selling our democracy", etc. all saved ready to be printed on opposing party election pamphlets (and the electorate will remember when reminded with numbers like have happened).

 

[monkers]

I think it could be fairly easily argued that the two donations were deliberately made in haste with the intention of bypassing the proposed legislation... ironically rather like Jenrick tipping off a property developer to avoid tax on a £45mn development in Tower Hamlets, and the Tories getting a £12k donation in return.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53172995

Strictly speaking it is impossible to bypass a law that doesn't exist. A better legal construction would be ''in anticipation of'' (beliefs concerning the effects of hereto known proposals).