Post

They are not union donations to Labour. They are donations collected from members passed on to Labour. In my case 10p per week that I ticked a box to opt in to. Unions are not allowed to make donations of their own money to parties - Thatcher saw to that years ago.

Nothing like each other. I and thousands of other union members chip in 10p a week to a political fund so organised labour (workers) have parliamentary representation. There is no benefit to me at an individual level. A £36m lump sum from one person buys a seat at the policy making table.

It's entirely different. A lump sum payment of millions of pounds puts a party (or limited company in the case of Reform) in debt to one overseas activist. Payment from the unions relies on grassroots support from thousands of individuals with some kind of collective vision.

Tory leadership hopeful Robert Jenrick has told activists the party will "die" unless it advocates leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The former Home Office minister told supporters at the party's annual conference the convention had made it "impossible to secure our borders”.

Jenrick says TU since 2010 donated £150m since its inception in 2019 reform have received over £110m. So truly levelled up. Last year all political parties raised a total of £65m. This year from 2 crypto billionaires, mainly based abroad, reform have had £72m.

The hypocrisy across the board Evoking ECH Complaing about retrospective decisions (which they know is in the bill) Yet they would retrospectively stop migrants rights to remain in uk. Disingenuous - adding union donations from 2010. What’s theirs - close to £150m over shorter period

It may be just a typo, but describing Jenrick as "Treasury Spokesperson" is elevating him beyond his important. He is one of EIGHT MPs who represent a COMPANY, which is not a party in the generally usage of the word. Reform has no democratic structure unlike the real parties represented in HoP.

Read it more carefully. The (unfortunately very reasonable) objection is the retrospective element. From the commentary over read recently, some limited retrospectivity is acceptable e.g. for the time between Gov't announcing tax changes and the legislation passing so the detail will matter.

Reform say they will challenge the donations measure on grounds of being retrospective legislation saying it is "not the British way", but retrospective legislation on the loss of indefinite leave to remain is its own immigration policy. Complete hypocrisy.

You didn't expect consistency from a Farage outfit did you? It's definitely worth remembering but I think the sad reality is that they have an arguable court case on the donations issue and no one will pay the blindest but of attention to the equivalent element of their immigration policy*.

The change was announced in July and the retrospective aspect goes back to that point. That's why Reform say it complies with the current rules but not as they will be. They will chip and moan but they were told

Thank you. It's getting unbelievably hard to get to the pertinent details these days. I suspect there is probably still an arguable case but, as I said, the details will matter so this makes it look like a much more difficult prospect for them.

It’s not just the sheer hypocrisy of calling on their hated ECHR which they want to scrap it’s that they’re opposed to being governed by an unelected European bureaucratic organisation. Nevertheless their moronic fans will STILL manage to square that circle. Because they’re emotional not political

Oh for goodness sake. Neither he nor Reform are getting anywhere near government. Will mainstream media please stop giving Reform column inches needlessly. The tactical voting network will make it so.

A few months ago Zia Yusuf was on BBC breakfast saying that they would use the ECHR to send migrants back to France and now this from Robert Strange how something they hate so much suddenly becomes the best thing since sliced bread when it suits