Trade unions have called on Andy Burnham to respond to Reform’s reported £72million windfall in donations, while defending the unions’ own financial support for Labour.

Paul Nowak, the TUC’s general secretary, said the contributions from cryptocurrency billionaires Christopher Harborne and Ben Delo highlighted the political clout wielded by the “super-rich”.

His comments followed Angela Rayner’s warning on Wednesday that planned measures targeting foreign political donations, though still progressing through Parliament, would be applied retrospectively.

The Communities Secretary said expatriates who donated from the end of March onwards — even if they later returned to Britain — would face an annual political donation cap of £100,000.

Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice hit back on Thursday, accusing Labour of “hyperventilating hypocrisy”. The party says it is “100 per cent confident” the donations are lawful and will not need to be returned.

Former prime minister Boris Johnson also condemned calls for tighter restrictions as “absolutely pathetic”, arguing that Labour had spent years “troughing” on union funding.

Appearing on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme before his planned address to the TUC conference in Brighton, Mr Nowak was asked whether he believed the donations should be stopped retrospectively.

“I’m not quite sure what the detail of the law would look like, but I am quite sure about this,” he said.

‘Nobody can be comfortable about the prospect of the super-rich effectively buying and selling British politics…

‘This is the Americafication of our politics and I don’t say that in a good way.’

Mr Nowak dismissed the idea that union funding was comparable to the Reform donations.  

‘Everybody knows what we’re after because we are open democratic organisations that represent millions of working people up and down this country,’ he said.

‘I am concerned about the impact of these huge donations. As far as I’m concerned trade union money is the cleanest most transparent money in British politics.’

However, Labour former Cabinet minister Lord Blunkett said he believed union donations should be covered by a limit.

‘Obviously, we’ve been talking about overseas donations. I think there should be a cap on donations internally as well for domestic reasons,’ he told Times Radio.

‘And I think we should reach an agreement that respects that both business, trade unions, and wealthy individuals, as well as the poor devils who sustain the Labour Party over the many years I’ve been in it, which is giving £20 here and £50 there. 

READ MORE: Why AI Tycoons Are Urging a Slowdown as Risks Mount

‘All of us deserve a system that protects our freedom, protects our democracy and allows us to argue the case without distorting that case.’

Mr Johnson waded in to condemn Labour’s hypocrisy on funding. 

‘Just because some people want to support one party very generously, Labour kicks up a huge fuss and says they’re going to cap donations,’ he told GB News.

‘They’ve got huge amounts of money – troughing it from the trade unions. It’s absolutely ridiculous Labour are trying to cap donations.

‘I think the next election is going to be fought on the shape of the British economy and on British society and the government that has the most credible [plan] and I think it’s the Conservatives…

‘Kemi Badenoch, I think, has the most credible plan for cutting the grotesque expansion in welfare spending, in spending more on defence, as some of your correspondents have just been saying.

‘That is where the argument is going to be.’

Under the Representation of the People Bill, which will be debated in the Lords today, a ‘minimum residency period’ could prevent expats returning to Britain from breaching the limit for a calendar year after they come home.

Asked in interviews yesterday whether the law could spell problems for two recent £36million donations to Reform from cryptocurrency billionaires living abroad, Ms Rayner replied: ‘It will be backdated.’

She said the rules would apply to ‘overseas donators’ and those who have ‘recently returned to the UK’, affecting all donations received since March 25, when the Government published a review of foreign influence on politics by former mandarin Philip Rycroft.

She added: ‘Look, we’re saying that if you don’t pay taxes, if you don’t live here, you can’t buy your way into our democracy.’

Asked if Reform might have to return the sums, she said she didn’t know their ‘individual circumstances’. But she added: ‘With the retrospective action, anyone that’s received donations that don’t comply with what was in the Rycroft review, what legislation is currently going through Parliament, would have 60 days to return that money.’

Mr Tice told ITV’s Good Morning Britain today: ‘These donations are made in accordance with the rules and the regulations, and you’ve now got a hyperventilating hypocrisy from the socialists ruining this country, who are trying to change the rules retrospectively, which is it’s not the fair way, it’s not the British way, and I think most people will say ”does that just mean that Labour are terrified of the progress of Reform and they’re trying to create an unlevel playing field?”

‘What these two donations are trying to do is to actually level the playing field. We’re relatively new, we haven’t had the vast donations over the last five to 10 years that Labour and the Tories have had, so we need to employ campaign managers up and down the country, we need to employ brilliant policy people, the best minds, in order to ensure that we have the best policies.’

He said the donors would have ‘absolutely zero’ influence on Reform’s policy platform.

‘They haven’t made any asks, they haven’t made demands and nothing would be given in return, we’ve made that crystal clear,’ he said.

It is thought that Mr Delo, who lived in Hong Kong, and Mr Harborne, who was based in Thailand, both moved back to Britain before the March cut-off date.

Speedboat killer Jack Shepherd has been handed a further 20-month jail term after attacking his girlfriend with barbecue tongs that were burning hot.

The 39-year-old appeared at court by video link from prison, where he was warned that he posed a danger to society, particularly to women.

Shepherd voiced remorse and said he would tackle his alcohol problem, but Judge Martin Edmunds KC rejected his claims. ‘I place no faith or value in such expressions of responsibility and remorse,’ the judge told him.

The self-described Casanova gained notoriety after fleeing following the death of his 24-year-old date, Charlotte Brown, when he capsized his speedboat while drunk.

Rather than stand trial at the Old Bailey on a manslaughter charge, Shepherd absconded while on bail in 2018. He remained at large in Georgia for 10 months before the Daily Mail located him at his hideaway in January 2019.

After being returned to London, Shepherd received a 10-year prison sentence: six years for the London speedboat manslaughter and a further four years for violently ‘glassing’ a barman at a Devon hotel after being refused a drink.

He was released on licence in January 2024 after serving half of the 10-year term. But instead of using the opportunity to rebuild his life, he returned to alcohol abuse and violence against women.

After moving into a shared house in Southall, west London, Shepherd struck up a friendship with another resident, a woman in her 50s. The pair played badminton together and, by August 2024, they were in a relationship.

But in 2025, Shepherd began calling her an ‘old lady hag’ and a ‘rat’, and belittling her with jibes about her weight and age and accusing her of flirting with other men.

Then in February last year, Shepherd became angry when she threatened to speak to his probation officer about him. Pinning his girlfriend down, he punched her repeatedly, causing bruising to her arm and the top of her leg, Isleworth Crown Court heard.

In a second incident, in June 2025, Shepherd was cooking a barbecue for them, and she made a comment he had burnt a pizza, said prosecutor Katherine Lloyd. 

‘The defendant had some sharply-pointed barbecue tongs, and he turned and stabbed the tongs into the victim’s left breast,’ she said. It broke her skin and started bleeding, and she ran to the bathroom. Shepherd followed her, said it had only happened because he was drunk. She is left with a permanent scar.  

After she reported him to the police, Shepherd tried to blame her. He was recalled to prison a year ago, in September. He pleaded guilty at a hearing this July and was sentenced today at Isleworth Crown Court in west London.

Shepherd followed proceedings from a room at category B prison HMP Swaleside in Kent. He spoke clearly to confirm his name and date of birth, and put his hand up to say he wanted to ‘correct’ a claim made by the prosecutor that he had been driving the speedboat.

The judge, who is the Recorder of Kensington and Chelsea, dismissed the point, saying Shepherd had been drunk in charge of the speedboat.

He applied the ‘dangerousness test’ to sentencing Shepherd, which allowed him to extend the period of licence for Shepherd even after his jail sentence ends in 2029.

The judge said: ‘It is patent from the commission of these offences on licence and from your prior history that you pose a significant risk of causing serious harm to members of the public by the commission of further specified offences. 

‘The threat you pose is particularly to any new girlfriend and will be aggravated if you cannot control your drinking – and your track record so far is that you cannot.’

The judge explained that he was not allowed by law to add the new 20 months to the end of Shepherd’s current 10-year sentence, which ends in January 2029. The 20 months will be served ‘concurrently’, in other words alongside his sentence for killing Miss Brown and glassing the barman.

But once he is freed, he will remain ‘on licence’ for a further three years and four months, or May 2032.

The judge said: ‘The offences are seriously aggravated by your previous convictions.’

The court also revealed a previously unknown conviction, from 2010, when Shepherd had driven a motor vehicle whilst drunk. Although this was a long time ago, and a ‘spent’ conviction, the judge said it was relevant because of his abuse of alcohol.

The judge said: ‘You have expressed acceptance of responsibility and remorse but I place no faith or value in such expressions of acceptance or remorse from you. Your pattern is to commit offences and afterwards apologise, and produce excuses… to shift blame anywhere but yourself.’

When he went on the run in Georgia, Shepherd had tried to make a new life for himself in the former Soviet republic, but caused public outrage by launching an appeal against his manslaughter conviction from his sunshine hideaway. To add insult to injury, British taxpayers were funding his appeal via legal aid, despite him having dodged his trial.

With the backing of Miss Brown’s devastated family, the Daily Mail ran a campaign to hunt him down, and in January 2019 we succeeded in flushing out Shepherd who gave himself up in the capital Tbilisi as the net closed in.

Extradited back to Britain in April 2019 and put before an Old Bailey judge, Shepherd was asked by a court clerk to admit he had breached bail and absconded from justice, and he replied: ‘Er, yes.’

He begged to be given credit for handing himself in to police in Georgia, but Judge Richard Marks said he had only given himself up because of the Daily Mail, telling him: ‘It was only a matter of time before the net closed in on you.’

Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties have struck an agreement with Sinn Féin, committing to cooperate on efforts that could ultimately reshape — and potentially break up — the United Kingdom.

Leaders of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru unveiled a “memorandum of understanding” with Irish republican representatives ahead of what has been described as a separatist summit in Cardiff.

John Swinney, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Michelle O’Neill and Mary Lou McDonald said they would pursue shared priorities, including “supporting the right of each nation to determine its own future”.

Mr Swinney said the gathering of political leaders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland marked a “pivotal moment in the constitutional journey of the UK”. He also claimed that Mr Burnham would be the country’s final prime minister.

Scotland’s First Minister argued there should be “no obstacle” preventing voters in the three devolved nations from determining their own futures. He said the countries should be free to “move forward” and “decide their own future”.

However, the meeting drew a sharp response from unionist politicians. It comes after US President Donald Trump caused controversy by expressing support for a united Ireland.

Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: “The majority of Scots don’t want another damaging and divisive referendum. They want Swinney to do his actual job.”

‘But he would rather waste a working day on separatist fantasy league politics. This follows a week where the SNP’s failures in education have been brutally exposed by PISA scores well behind those in England.

‘The former education secretary should be answering questions about how badly he has let down pupils, parents and teachers.’

Ms Little-Pengelly, the DUP joint head of the Stormont powersharing Executive, accused Ms O’Neill of attempting to ‘weaponise the role of First Minister’.

In a social media post she said: ‘Let me be absolutely clear. Michelle O’Neill is not travelling to this ”summit” as First Minister, she has no authority to present herself as representing the FM role at any such ‘summit’ and nor does she have any authority to sign anything as First Minister of Northern Ireland at any such ”summit’.’

‘She has not sought any agreement or permission from me to travel, attend or sign anything as First Minister.’

It came after Mr Trump doubled down on his comments in support of Irish unity, saying it was ‘one of the naturals of all time’.

Speaking on the second day of his trip to Ireland, Mr Trump also dismissed the diplomatic backlash to his remarks, which have dominated his trip.

Sinn Féin vice president Michelle O’Neill said the comments in support of Irish unity show the independence debate is ‘very much alive’.

‘I think that tells us where we’re at with where the thinking is around what is the big prize here for our people, and the big prize here is unification,’ she said.

‘It is the end of partition and it is that new beginning in a new Ireland.

‘I think the comments that we’ve seen over the weekend very much reflect that there is a chorus now of people that are engaged in this debate.’

The group, who met in their capacity as party leaders – rather than as officials in their respective governments, also stated their ambitions for partnership around the economy, energy and international co-operation.

The agreement says: ‘The political landscape across these islands is changing.

‘For the first time ever, people across these islands have first ministers in Scotland, in Wales and in the North of Ireland who are all committed to independence from the United Kingdom.

‘For people watching across these islands – for people watching around the world – there could be no clearer sign that Westminster’s time is coming to an end.

‘We believe there is a better way: nations working together as equals, sharing ideas and expertise, and building relationships based on mutual respect and common interests.

‘Momentum is behind our movements; we believe that constitutional change is coming.

‘We therefore commit to strengthening cooperation between our parties and identifying practical areas where working together can make a real difference.’

The agreement sets out plans to ‘reject Whitehall’s broken economic model’ and share ideas on economic growth, expand energy resources, and states that ‘the future of our nations belongs in the European Union’.

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said the agreement was was ‘historic’, adding:  ‘It is that moment where we assert collectively our inalienable right to decide our futures.’

A leading AI safety expert set off fresh concern last week with a stark prediction: artificial intelligence could pose an existential threat to humanity before the decade is out.

Jacob Coxon, who worked on training Anthropic’s newest AI systems in San Francisco, said the public should not dismiss the technology’s potential — especially if AI reaches a “superintelligent” stage.

The 27-year-old, formerly employed by ChatGPT maker OpenAI and later by Claude developer Anthropic, argued that both companies were falling short of responsible AI safety practices.

His warning has intensified an already heated discussion involving technology executives, researchers and global political leaders.

Those who share the concerns say AI presents major dangers, from potential attacks on nuclear facilities and disruption of political systems to the prospect of helping bad actors access weapons of mass destruction.

Sceptics have pushed back, insisting such catastrophic scenarios are unlikely to materialise. Some also contend that demands to slow AI development may be driven less by safety than by commercial self-interest.

Here is how several prominent figures in the AI debate have responded.

Tech bosses

Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has also acknowledged that advanced AI carries “serious risks.”

In a blog post, he said the concerns range from humans losing control over AI systems to the misuse of the technology for cyberattacks or bioterrorism, as well as severe economic upheaval. Amodei said progress in AI model capabilities must be slowed.

This morning Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, also weighed in on the debate, conceding there are two ways AI ‘could go very badly and that we must avoid’.

‘First, we could lose control of the future to AI,’ he wrote on X. ‘This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people.

‘To ensure that, we need ways to ensure that alignment and safety techniques stay ahead of progress in model capabilities.

‘Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power. If an extraordinarily powerful AI is used by one person or company to impress their worldview onto everyone else, the results could be extremely dystopian.’

Elon Musk, owner of xAI, has also backed the warnings, adding he has ‘been sounding the alarm on AI for a long time’.

Scientists

According to experts, a list of AI ‘worst-case scenarios’ ranges from creating political chaos with misinformation to irrevocably changing the planet’s environment.

Scientists also suggest that AI’s fatal blow could come from the technology’s capacity to build and harness weapons of mass destruction.

Professor Mark Lee, an artificial intelligence expert from the University of Birmingham, told the Daily Mail that once we create AI more intelligent than ourselves, we might struggle to ensure its goals remain ‘aligned’ with our own.

‘The issue is that while the big AI companies are all rushing to develop AIs which are as smart or even smarter than humans, we don’t have reliable means to control their behaviour,’ he explained.

‘AI exists as software, so any system which is connected via the internet could be vulnerable.

RELATED: Delaying Deportation of Criminal Migrants Raises Taxpayer Costs

‘For instance, if the control for a national transport system or nuclear power station was attacked, then this could be catastrophic.’

Ben Eisenpress, Director of Operations at the Future of Life Institute, previously told the Daily Mail that integrating AI into nuclear command and control systems could lead to a ‘flash war’. Experts have also repeatedly warned that AI tools make it significantly easier to develop deadly bioweapons.

Developers

Geoffrey Hinton, a Canadian researcher often referred to as the ‘Godfather of AI’ – has similarly warned that super-intelligent systems could ‘lead to human extinction’.

‘We would be very foolish to develop superintelligence now, when there is no scientific consensus it can be developed safely and controllably,’ Dr Hinton said.

‘Losing control over AI smarter than ourselves could be catastrophic and could even lead to human extinction.’

In his resignation post on X, researcher Jacob Coxon wrote: ‘Do not underestimate the power of this technology.

‘These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.

‘We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing.

‘The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt.’

Politicians

Despite the concerns, US President Donald Trump has downplayed the risks posed by AI.

‘You have a lot of very negative forces that are bringing it up that shouldn’t be bringing it up and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen,’ he said during a visit to Ireland.

‘We’re leading China on AI… and, frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI, wins.’

Meanwhile, MPs and peers have urged Andy Burnham to back a ban on the creation of artificial intelligence and lead an international movement to stop the technology.

According to ControlAI, more than 135 cross-party UK parliamentarians already support the campaign.

‘Nobel Prize winners, AI scientists, and CEOs of leading AI companies have stated that mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority,’ ControlAI explains in the campaign statement.

‘Specialised AIs – such as those advancing science and medicine – boost growth, innovation, and public services. Superintelligent AI systems would compromise national and global security. The UK can secure the benefits and mitigate the risks of AI by delivering on its promise to introduce binding regulation on the most powerful AI systems.’

Critics

Calls to slow the AI race may not be entirely altruistic, some critics say, questioning whether there could also be commercial motives behind the push for restraint.

After pouring billions into developing ever-more powerful AI systems, companies could benefit from slowing down rivals and making it harder for new competitors to catch up.

‘Stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic,’ David Sacks, Trump’s former AI tsar and a frequent critic, wrote on X.