Reform UK's chronicles

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, the Representation of the People Bill currently going through the Lords was introduced in February 2026, before Reform’s major donors decided to move back to the UK after decades of living abroad to avoid paying taxes, to fund the Party that has promised to change the laws that would directly benefit those donors by hundreds of millions each year, and the limitation of donors (ban crypto-asset political donations, caps overseas elector donations at £100,000, and shifts company donation testing from revenue to profit) was part of that Bill…

so not a law yet then

Originally Posted by papa smurf

where was all the moaning about donations before reform scooped the jackpot

Originally Posted by papa smurf

so not a law yet then

[jem]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

so not a law yet then

No but it seems that this possibility was recognised back in February. It generally takes a long time for new laws to be enacted - for good reasons.

Originally Posted by jem

No but it seems that this possibility was recognised back in February. It generally takes a long time for new laws to be enacted - for good reasons.

And it was announced in the HoC on the 25th March (before any of the crypto-squad donations) that it would be retrospective to that date…

[Carth]

Ban the whole lot for me, as mentioned earlier it just opens up the doors for possible corruption, of which there's already enough of with the 2 or 3 'houses/offices' required and half the family being paid as 'staff'.

Oh, and if Andy 'the man' Burnham gets his way with the No,10 in Manchester idea, wait for the pleas for extra dosh due to the security and the overnight accommodation (which definitely won't be in a B&B or cheapo travel lodge)

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And it was announced in the HoC on the 25th March (before any of the crypto-squad donations) that it would be retrospective to that date…

if that were to happen would it mean reform/farage committed a criminal offence

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

if that were to happen would it mean reform/farage committed a criminal offence

Isn't law yet , so your premis would depend on what they do once it is.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Isn't law yet , so your premis would depend on what they do once it is.

my premise would be it's already spent

Originally Posted by papa smurf

my premise would be it's already spent

Well, if an General Election was called any time within the next 365 days, they’d be screwed, as they would not be allowed to spend any more on electioneering…

For a political party standing in a general election, their limit in each part of the UK is calculated by multiplying the number of constituencies they are contesting by a monetary value – originally £30,000 per constituency then raised by the UK Government in November 2023 to £54,010. Currently, a political party contesting all 632 seats at a UK Parliamentary general election can spend up to £34 million in the year before polling day, up from £18.96 million under the previous rules.

https://www.transparency.org.uk/news...rs-spend-money

Originally Posted by papa smurf

if that were to happen would it mean reform/farage committed a criminal offence

Yes, in theory.

I don't like retrospective laws. Ironically, it's actually a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. You can't prosecute someone for doing something that was understood to be legal at the time. It's obvious how a Government could abuse that.

Reading around a bit, it seems there are exceptions if it's in the public interest. The fact that the Government had already announced it would be illegal after a backdated date means no one can claim they didn't know might also help them. And obviously Parliament can do whatever it wants in theory.

But it seems that in those cases it needs to be something very urgent. The example given is that if they accidentally made a tax loophole that millions could take advantage of, they would immediately say they're passing legislation to fix it, and anyone abusing that loophole since that announcement would be retrospectively criminalised.

I think Reform should be allowed to keep the money, and you only ban it from the date the bill passes. Too dodgy otherwise.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, if an General Election was called any time within the next 365 days, they’d be screwed, as they would not be allowed to spend any more on electioneering…



https://www.transparency.org.uk/news...rs-spend-money

and assuming we don't drag up the most ridiculous scenario and it's the normal 5 year ish term

---------- Post added at 12:59 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes, in theory.

I don't like retrospective laws. Ironically, it's actually a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. You can't prosecute someone for doing something that was understood to be legal at the time. It's obvious how a Government could abuse that.

Reading around a bit, it seems there are exceptions if it's in the public interest. The fact that the Government had already announced it would be illegal after a backdated date means no one can claim they didn't know might also help them. And obviously Parliament can do whatever it wants in theory.

But it seems that in those cases it needs to be something very urgent. The example given is that if they accidentally made a tax loophole that millions could take advantage of, they would immediately say they're passing legislation to fix it, and anyone abusing that loophole since that announcement would be retrospectively criminalised.

I think Reform should be allowed to keep the money, and you only ban it from the date the bill passes. Too dodgy otherwise.

yes covered by article 7 of the echr oh the irony of that pure comedy gold

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Yeah that is the investment risk but those who "Hedge" their bets and follow the patterns know it is all manipulated

Funny you should say that…

[papa smurf]

Bitcoin is completely legal to buy, sell, and hold in the United Kingdom. The government classifies it as personal property, but not as legal tender.


i was out for a meal on Tuesday, out of the 12 of us 3 were heavily into crypto 1 bitcoin and the others some different form of crypto,these were young people one mid 30s the other 2 early 20s,i could hardly get my head around the conversation,but the young uns seem to like it

[OLD BOY]

Crypto is the future, as is Farage.

I think it's become clear that Crypto isn't the future. It will be around for a while, but not as a key or useful part of society.