Forum Topic

Reform's problems with money

There are increasingly serious concerns over Reform's (to put it politely) dodgy financial dealings recently, what with parliamentary and police investigations and multiple media reports, not helped by panicky, conflicting responses from them. As a result, it looks as though a revised version of Farage's tea towel ad is appropriate.....

Richard Carter ● 56d32 Comments

well worth watching last nights channel 4 docco, only 30 mins of your time - you can watch at the link belowhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXut3s90rUI

Michael Brigo ● 56d

Yes, the behaviour of Reform officials was reprehensible. But is accepting illegal donations to the party worse than accepting personal freebies, which is what several members of Keir Starmer's cabinet did?

Steven Rose ● 56d

Yes, of course, in terms of intent to deceive and in sheer scale. Also in terms of where the money is coming from and what the donors might expect in return for the substantial sums involved.

Jonathan Callaway ● 56d

Starmer et al's gifts were fully declared in accordance with Parliamentary rules; that's how people knew about them!I'm not going to comment on matters that might result in prosecutions other than to say if the discussions shown in last night's Channel 4 documentary went on for an extended period (as mentioned in the news) I'm amazed that those involved undertook no due diligence to independently verify the background of those offering the donations before introducing them to Mr Farage The incompetence (and stupidity?) astounds me!

Michael Ixer ● 56d

There are differences between the donations to Reform and the gifts to Labour ministers:1) the Reform officials were subject to entrapment while the Labour ministers were not2) the Reform officials only talked about donations while Labour ministers actually accepted gifts 3) the two Reform officials were asked to step down whereas the Labour ministers continued in office.

Steven Rose ● 56d

No, Labour's actions followed protocol and were fully declared; there'sabsolutelyno suggestion anything illegal took place. The Reform officials were discussing actions that if they'd proceeded would have been a criminal offence.  Yes, it was entrapment; apparently legal in the UK M. Farage is still under investigation for his undeclared £5M "gift" for security,  or was it a "thank you" for Brexit - seems unsure ...

Michael Ixer ● 56d

The behaviour of the Labour ministers was legal but unseemly and hypocritical given their criticism of Boris Johnson over gifts. The behaviour of the Reform officials was also legal since it is not a crime to talk but it was certainly reprehensible. The idea that Farage received money as a reward for Brexit is rather fanciful, Michael. In the first place it was not Nigel Farage who brought about Brexit but the British people in a free vote. Secondly it is more likely that the money was given to Farage for what he might do in the future than what he did in the past.

Steven Rose ● 56d

Mr Rose. Fanciful? I was only quoting Mr Farage's own words:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c072prlxlddoI suppose some do consider Farage a fantasist ... anyway, we'll let the Parliamentary authorities decide about the £5M "gift"?There are suggestions that just proposing and planning to illegally accept a foreign donation by obfuscating its source may be an offence (a conspiracy?) - so it seems to have been referred to the police. I guess it's up to them and to investigate and decide in conjunction with the DPP?

Michael Ixer ● 56d

Farage’s excuses for accepting backhanders from dodgy donors are getting more and more bizarre, and his latest attempts from the affair at the oyster/Guinness/champagne fest exposed by Channel 4 are just comical. Yesterday he claimed that although he was there, "I wasn't listening." But today he told the Sunday Times that instead, "I was misled." But if he wasn't listening, how could he have been misled? Whatever next, and how will his groupies here try to justify it?
 https://www.thetimes.com/article/4c66cc7c-bdbd-46fd-b9ed-0d484a7a0bd3?shareToken=20867cfcadf731dcea28afa5bf39ec2d

Richard Carter ● 54d

Richard, do try and behave yourself. As far as I am aware, there is only one regular Reform supporter on the Forum, namely Sue, and it is both rude and inaccurate to call her a groupie.

Steven Rose ● 54d

Just a bit pompous, eh? I've seen worse terms bandied about here with little criticism, "antisemite" for example - though to be fair to you, you once said clearly that it was not true in my case.But getting back to the point of this thread, I see the I newspaper has a story today (I can only read the headline as there's a paywall) that Farage's rivals are circling: could there even be a coup to oust him?

Richard Carter ● 53d

PS: I hope you're not offended at being (obliquely) referred to as a groupie, Sue *and the only one here?). If so, I apologise.

Richard Carter ● 53d

The left’s fixation on Nigel Farage is a symptom of its ideological vacuum. Unable to assemble a coherent plan to remedy the country’s problems, progressives (as they like to call themselves) advertise their virtue by attacking hate figures on the right, notably Nigel Farage. Rather than making personal attacks on the leader, it would be more sensible to examine Reform’s policies.

Steven Rose ● 53d

Mr Ixer'The Reform officials were discussing actions that if they'd proceeded would have been a criminal offence.'So you do not believe people have the right to discuss hypothetical actions they MIGHT consider taking ?That's leftie free speech for you.

John Hawkes ● 53d

Mr Carter'I've seen worse terms bandied about here with little criticism, "antisemite" for example'Don't be so prissy and sensitive.Antisemite is an accurate description of someone who continually attacks Israel and its Jewish citizens whilst ignoring the attacks made upon them by Palestinian Islamic terrorists.“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

John Hawkes ● 53d

Mr Hawkes. Yes, I was a little surprised it might have been an offence but there are other examples where intent to proceed isn't necessary. It's an offence to download or view material on how to make a bomb even if you have no intent to make one. I suppose there are parallels: both illicit party donations and terrorism are ways to influence politics by undemocratic means?I think in the case of the Reform donations they may have suggested they'd previously used the method they were suggesting to circumvent the law. (I must get around to viewing the Ch4 programme rather than relying on accounts in the news!) And they do seem to keep company with people with some "interesting" backgrounds amongst actual or potential donors; "Reform given another £4m from crypto billionaire pardoned by Donald Trump, The Independent":https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-farage-crypto-ben-delo-trump-b3044326.html
Anyway, I think I also said it's up to the Police and DPP to determine if an offence might have been committed.

Michael Ixer ● 53d

Steven'The left’s fixation on Nigel Farage is a symptom of its ideological vacuum. Unable to assemble a coherent plan to remedy the country’s problems, progressives (as they like to call themselves) advertise their virtue by attacking hate figures on the right, notably Nigel Farage.'Absolutely true.Diversionary gaslighting tactics.Because in reality all economic indicators show Labour has made a pig's ear of the country's economy.The only solution supported by serious economists, including Burnham's new bezzie Jim Ratcliffe, requires either a drastic reduction in benefits now given even for the most spurious of 'mental health issues' or the raising of taxes.Doubt if even the concerned progressives of West Putney would be happy with the latter option and certainly Labour MPs won't be with the former.And note "Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey on Tuesday highlighted Britain's softening labour market and said rising uncertainty in the global economy had "definitely" hurt economic growth and investment intentions".PS Sorry if you find my typographical structuring offensive Ms Carter.

John Hawkes ● 53d

Mr Ixer'I suppose there are parallels: both illicit party donations and terrorism are ways to influence politics by undemocratic means?'Do you really believe this ?Then I hope anyone wanting to influence your vote only asks for a Bitcoin donation and does not attack you in the street with a knife or bomb you on a bus which is what Islamic terrorists are prone to do.Your attempt to display 'progressive' even handedness impresses no one.

John Hawkes ● 53d

Mr Hawkes,  I said the were "parallels"; I didn't say they were "comparable". Obviously, terrorism is a far more serious offence because of its physically and psychological effects on its random targets.However, financil corruption while appearing not to immediately affect anyone can have a more insidious, longterm subversion of democracy.Not an attempt to be "progressive"; just promoting discussion. Your usual jumping to the wrong conclusion?:-)

Michael Ixer ● 53d

Mr Ixer'I said the were "parallels"; I didn't say they were "comparable".'Not made clear and I am not sure what parallelism means in this context.'Obviously, terrorism is a far more serious offence because of its physically and psychological effects on its random targets.'Like it often kills innocent people ?Google Islamic terrorist incidents in the UK over the last couple of decades.Don't whitewash the actions of barbarians to display a veneer of balanced argument.

John Hawkes ● 53d

It's obvious that the country cannot continue on its path of spending vast sums of borrowed money. Servicing the debt now costs over £100 billion per year, more than is spent on education or defence. One area the Chancellor should look at if he is serious about reducing expenditure is the civil service whose numbers have risen from 418 343 in 2016 to the present level of 557 825. Reducing the civil service to pre-pandemic levels would save at least £1 billion per year and over £3 billion would be saved if the numbers were reduced to pre-Brexit levels.

Steven Rose ● 53d

Mr HawkesIt was Steven who criticised The Sun’s style where every sentence is a new paragraph. I simply quoted it.

Jane Carter ● 53d

Is it that simple? If civil servants are made redundant will they then qualify for benefits? Will their possible smaller incomes mean they spend less thus affecting retail outlet profits both where they live and where they worked?Given many companies are looking (or have already looked) to AI for assisting with or replacing administrative will there need to be a retraining programme for those made redundant?Just promoting discussion ...

Michael Ixer ● 53d

Mr Hawkes. Total nonsense that I was trying to whitewash terrorism.I was just describing different routes to subverting democracy irrespective of their chronic versus acute risk. I used the philosophical concept of two unconnected processes happening at the same time. Perhaps stretching the definition of parallelism but not particularly difficult to understand - particularly for someone who says they worked for IBM and would be familiar with parallel processing concepts in IT systems?

Michael Ixer ● 53d

Mr Ixer'I was just describing different routes to subverting democracy irrespective of their chronic versus acute risk. I used the philosophical concept of two unconnected processes happening at the same time. '1) what is the difference between 'chronic' and 'acute' risk ?2) how would you describe the differing risks of Reform considering Bitcoin trading compared with murder of innocent civilians by Islamists ?3) what philosophical concept are you referring to ?If I were still at IBM and noticed two active processes, one  involved in currency trading and another in planning terrorism I would advise a client to cancel the latter.

John Hawkes ● 53d

Ms Carter'It was Steven who criticised The Sun’s style where every sentence is a new paragraph. I simply quoted it.'Why in particular reference to me ?

John Hawkes ● 53d

Obviously because  you change paragraphs every sentence. However it’s not a crime!

Jane Carter ● 53d

Ms Carter'Obviously because  you change paragraphs every sentence. However it’s not a crime!'Thank goodness you have not reported me.The police these days do seem more concerned with 'speech and thought crime' than burglary for example so I am glad not to fear a knock at the door from the 'Old Bill'.But should anyone be interested, which apart from you I doubt, I structure my posts the way I do because they tend to be long (a failure I accept) and I feel that were anyone to be bothered reading them, then short separated paragraphs/sentences makes them easier to read on a small screen.An aim of presenting content in a way suitable for the medium.What I cannot be accused of however is sending out massive gobbets of web-trawled graphic heavy content as does Mr Carter or childlike cartoons favoured by Mr Brigo. 

John Hawkes ● 53d

Mr Hawkes. I couldn't agree more, faced with an imminent major terrorist theat (a very acute risk), I'd want to do all in my power to remove that risk which would have a high impact potentially causing injuries, death, property destruction if it went ahead. Uncovering a potentially illegal or irregular financial transaction obviously isn't as serious. However, if not dealt with it could have serious implications for a company and its directors, including prison or heavy fines if it involved money laundering; alternatively, long term hidden irregularities might lead to a major liquidity problem or corporate failure.

Michael Ixer ● 52d

Which member was it who claimed parliamentary expenses money to heat his horses stables?

Clifford Cowell ● 52d

An important question is why a majority now oppose the creation of an independent state on the West Bank. The teason is that they fear that after independence it would be an aggressive state dominated by Hamas and bent on the destruction of Israel. Can Israelis be blamed for feeling this way after October 7?

Steven Rose ● 52d

Sorry. Wrong thread.

Steven Rose ● 52d