Fiona Bruce had Reform MP Danny Kruger floundering on Question Time as she pointed out how hypocritical his party’s anger at retroactive laws was.
This week, Reform have faced questions and scrutiny after Christopher Harborne and Ben Delo, two billionaire crypto tycoons, both donated a record-breaking £36m to the party.
However, some have questioned whether the donations will be permissible under electoral law. This is because Labour announced earlier this year that they would be introducing a £100,000 donation cap for overseas-based donors.
If donors decide to return to the UK from overseas, the £100,000 cap will apply for a full calendar year from the date they moved back to the country.
READ NEXT: Reform ‘waging war on what Britain is’, says Peter Oborne
Harborne and Delo have both previously been based overseas. Harborne has been based in Thailand but is registered to vote in the UK, whilst Delo said earlier this year he was moving back to Britain from Hong Kong.
Reform have not clarified exactly when the pair returned to the UK and Nigel Farage has seemingly admitted that the donations may not comply with the legislation spelt out in the Representation of the People Bill.
Reform’s anger is with the fact the government plans to retroactively implement the donations cap from the date it was announced, 25 March.
The government, led by Keir Starmer at the time, made clear in the bill, which is at its second reading in the House of Lords, that the rules would be applied retrospectively.
This hasn’t stopped Reform reacting furiously though, claiming retrospective laws are undemocratic and unconstitutional.
But when Reform MP Danny Kruger tried to make this point on Question Time, host Fiona Bruce pointed out to him that one of his party’s key policy proposals would involve retroactive implementation.
Bruce asked the East Wiltshire MP: “Do you think laws should never be applied retrospectively?”
When he replied that this is a “very important principle,” Bruce asked: “Then why does Reform want to retrospectively change the law by rescinding indefinite leave to remain to people that already have it?”
As Kruger tried to argue this was actually a matter of future status, Bruce explained that it would still make people who already have ILR have to “jump through the same hoops” again, so was very much a retrospective law.