Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
I am not saying that he has nothing to hide. I think Farage would argue that the current scrutiny of Reform is well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties.
No, it isn't.
The level of scrutiny relates to behaviour.
When the Conservative Party recently received an ineligible donation - from a bank in the UK, but one that was incorporated in Germany and didn't have a UK Ltd - they returned the money immediately, after informing the Electoral Commission and doing the required anti-money laundering checks on the money.
If they had received 5 million and not declared it, then they would be getting banner headlines.
Reform did not receive 5 million and fail to declare it. Afaicr, Farage received 5 million before he re-entered the political fray, and failed to declare it retrospectively. Let us try to be accurate.
I remember very little (no) scrutiny when Sunak acted to enrich Moderna, a company he was absolutely aware his own investment portfolio had significant shares in. The big parties know how to play the game and keep things within the letter of the rules, but somehow, palms end up being thoroughly greased, and the taxpayer keeps picking up the tab. I don't know whether Reform will be better, but I certainly don't think they'll be worse.
Was it within 1 year of him becoming an MP?
If it was he needed to have declared it and Farage didn't.
That's literally all that matters - everything is you trying to justify something for reasons I haven't got a clue about except you seem to love really strange american right wing views.
Actually I am not trying to justify it, and you and Stuart are wasting your time arguing on that score. He may have fallen outside the rules, and you may have a point, but "If they [the conservative party] had received 5 million and not declared it" is still not a remotely valid comparison.
I think asking where this significant amount of money came from is valid and not as you claim is "well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties."
The Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens, Labour, the SNP, even Martin Bell, all of them have had major scandals over donations. Maxwell. Brown. Ecclestone. Hinduja. Deripaska. Hervie.
And they faced multiple media storms, EC investigations, even police inquiries over some of them.
Some even kept the money (Brown and the Lib Dems).
But none of them were personal donations to party leaders. That's not really been a thing since the time of Lloyd George.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not thepolitician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
Put simply the difference between Farage and Starmer is Farage is a traitor and Starmer is not.
The authorities have to progress in measured ways, so they don't put it so starkly.
Put simply, you're wrong.
Starmer tried to give away sovereign territory housing a key USA base, to a state firmly allied with China, and commit the UK to pay tens of billions to hire it back. He also made assurances that he would give the go ahead to a Chinese super-embassy that could have been used to tap into vital national communications, house prisoners, and house quasi military forces in the heart of London.
Those are just a starter for ten, I could happily continue, but had he achieved either or both, he would have been by orders of magnitude a more successful traitor to the British State than any in history.
Calm down dear. Are you talking about the Liz Truss Chagos plan?
Crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne was granted a lengthy pause in a legal battle because of severe illness, a period in which he gave £12mn to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, court documents show
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
I am not saying that he has nothing to hide. I think Farage would argue that the current scrutiny of Reform is well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties.
No, it isn't.
The level of scrutiny relates to behaviour.
When the Conservative Party recently received an ineligible donation - from a bank in the UK, but one that was incorporated in Germany and didn't have a UK Ltd - they returned the money immediately, after informing the Electoral Commission and doing the required anti-money laundering checks on the money.
If they had received 5 million and not declared it, then they would be getting banner headlines.
Reform did not receive 5 million and fail to declare it. Afaicr, Farage received 5 million before he re-entered the political fray, and failed to declare it retrospectively. Let us try to be accurate.
I remember very little (no) scrutiny when Sunak acted to enrich Moderna, a company he was absolutely aware his own investment portfolio had significant shares in. The big parties know how to play the game and keep things within the letter of the rules, but somehow, palms end up being thoroughly greased, and the taxpayer keeps picking up the tab. I don't know whether Reform will be better, but I certainly don't think they'll be worse.
Was it within 1 year of him becoming an MP?
If it was he needed to have declared it and Farage didn't.
That's literally all that matters - everything is you trying to justify something for reasons I haven't got a clue about except you seem to love really strange american right wing views.
Actually I am not trying to justify it, and you and Stuart are wasting your time arguing on that score. He may have fallen outside the rules, and you may have a point, but "If they [the conservative party] had received 5 million and not declared it" is still not a remotely valid comparison.
I think asking where this significant amount of money came from is valid and not as you claim is "well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties."
The Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens, Labour, the SNP, even Martin Bell, all of them have had major scandals over donations. Maxwell. Brown. Ecclestone. Hinduja. Deripaska. Hervie.
And they faced multiple media storms, EC investigations, even police inquiries over some of them.
Some even kept the money (Brown and the Lib Dems).
But none of them were personal donations to party leaders. That's not really been a thing since the time of Lloyd George.
Can I sell you a peerage? Low mileage, one careful owner…
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
I am not saying that he has nothing to hide. I think Farage would argue that the current scrutiny of Reform is well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties.
No, it isn't.
The level of scrutiny relates to behaviour.
When the Conservative Party recently received an ineligible donation - from a bank in the UK, but one that was incorporated in Germany and didn't have a UK Ltd - they returned the money immediately, after informing the Electoral Commission and doing the required anti-money laundering checks on the money.
If they had received 5 million and not declared it, then they would be getting banner headlines.
Reform did not receive 5 million and fail to declare it. Afaicr, Farage received 5 million before he re-entered the political fray, and failed to declare it retrospectively. Let us try to be accurate.
I remember very little (no) scrutiny when Sunak acted to enrich Moderna, a company he was absolutely aware his own investment portfolio had significant shares in. The big parties know how to play the game and keep things within the letter of the rules, but somehow, palms end up being thoroughly greased, and the taxpayer keeps picking up the tab. I don't know whether Reform will be better, but I certainly don't think they'll be worse.
Was it within 1 year of him becoming an MP?
If it was he needed to have declared it and Farage didn't.
That's literally all that matters - everything is you trying to justify something for reasons I haven't got a clue about except you seem to love really strange american right wing views.
Actually I am not trying to justify it, and you and Stuart are wasting your time arguing on that score. He may have fallen outside the rules, and you may have a point, but "If they [the conservative party] had received 5 million and not declared it" is still not a remotely valid comparison.
I think asking where this significant amount of money came from is valid and not as you claim is "well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties."
The Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens, Labour, the SNP, even Martin Bell, all of them have had major scandals over donations. Maxwell. Brown. Ecclestone. Hinduja. Deripaska. Hervie.
And they faced multiple media storms, EC investigations, even police inquiries over some of them.
Some even kept the money (Brown and the Lib Dems).
But none of them were personal donations to party leaders. That's not really been a thing since the time of Lloyd George.
Can I sell you a peerage? Low mileage, one careful owner…
The parallels I am remembering are Mandelson and Blunkett. Who took personal donations and then were caught doing favours or not recusing themselves from decisions involving the donors.
It should be noted that for Blunkett it was career ending, and for Mandelson it was - twice - a resigning matter.
Compared to the sums here the money involved was trivial, although to be fair they were ministers and not the leaders of minor opposition parties.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
Increasing his vote is meaningless when the only other candidate is a bin though.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
So you test on whether Farage does well is that gets more than 21,225 votes - I don't think he will.
They're rowing home They're rowing home They're rowing Norway's rowing home ...
Don't be unsporting; they weee fairly gracious in defeat.
And anyway it's sail for transatlantic travel.
Norway may be sailing home but the big winner of this World Cup is Erling Haaland who is said to have gained 20 million new Instagram followers across the US and China, presumably (his agent hopes) with massive sponsorship and advertising deals to follow à la David Beckham.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
I'm trying to decipher this.
You seem to be saying that if a politician calls a byelection and wins handsomely against -say- a man wearing a bin on his head, then it means that any previous crimes he may have committed should be forgiven.
Do I have that right?
I have not said or implied that anything 'should' happen. I merely suggest how events 'may' pan out.
It is not really Farage's fault that he is facing a joke candidate. The desire of some of those who back Count Binface to want him to unmask, or commit to being Clacton's loyal MP for two years, I think tells its own story.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
I'm trying to decipher this.
You seem to be saying that if a politician calls a byelection and wins handsomely against -say- a man wearing a bin on his head, then it means that any previous crimes he may have committed should be forgiven.
Do I have that right?
I have not said or implied that anything 'should' happen. I merely suggest how events 'may' pan out.
It is not really Farage's fault that he is facing a joke candidate. The desire of some of those who back Count Binface to want him to unmask, or commit to being Clacton's loyal MP for two years, I think tells its own story.
It is Farage's fault because he didn't think through how the other parties were going to handle it.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
I am not saying that he has nothing to hide. I think Farage would argue that the current scrutiny of Reform is well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties.
No, it isn't.
The level of scrutiny relates to behaviour.
When the Conservative Party recently received an ineligible donation - from a bank in the UK, but one that was incorporated in Germany and didn't have a UK Ltd - they returned the money immediately, after informing the Electoral Commission and doing the required anti-money laundering checks on the money.
If they had received 5 million and not declared it, then they would be getting banner headlines.
Reform did not receive 5 million and fail to declare it. Afaicr, Farage received 5 million before he re-entered the political fray, and failed to declare it retrospectively. Let us try to be accurate.
I remember very little (no) scrutiny when Sunak acted to enrich Moderna, a company he was absolutely aware his own investment portfolio had significant shares in. The big parties know how to play the game and keep things within the letter of the rules, but somehow, palms end up being thoroughly greased, and the taxpayer keeps picking up the tab. I don't know whether Reform will be better, but I certainly don't think they'll be worse.
Was it within 1 year of him becoming an MP?
If it was he needed to have declared it and Farage didn't.
That's literally all that matters - everything is you trying to justify something for reasons I haven't got a clue about except you seem to love really strange american right wing views.
Actually I am not trying to justify it, and you and Stuart are wasting your time arguing on that score. He may have fallen outside the rules, and you may have a point, but "If they [the conservative party] had received 5 million and not declared it" is still not a remotely valid comparison.
I think asking where this significant amount of money came from is valid and not as you claim is "well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties."
The Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens, Labour, the SNP, even Martin Bell, all of them have had major scandals over donations. Maxwell. Brown. Ecclestone. Hinduja. Deripaska. Hervie.
And they faced multiple media storms, EC investigations, even police inquiries over some of them.
Some even kept the money (Brown and the Lib Dems).
But none of them were personal donations to party leaders. That's not really been a thing since the time of Lloyd George.
Technically didn't Brown's donation really belong to Martin Edwards?
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
I am not saying that he has nothing to hide. I think Farage would argue that the current scrutiny of Reform is well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties.
No, it isn't.
The level of scrutiny relates to behaviour.
When the Conservative Party recently received an ineligible donation - from a bank in the UK, but one that was incorporated in Germany and didn't have a UK Ltd - they returned the money immediately, after informing the Electoral Commission and doing the required anti-money laundering checks on the money.
If they had received 5 million and not declared it, then they would be getting banner headlines.
Reform did not receive 5 million and fail to declare it. Afaicr, Farage received 5 million before he re-entered the political fray, and failed to declare it retrospectively. Let us try to be accurate.
I remember very little (no) scrutiny when Sunak acted to enrich Moderna, a company he was absolutely aware his own investment portfolio had significant shares in. The big parties know how to play the game and keep things within the letter of the rules, but somehow, palms end up being thoroughly greased, and the taxpayer keeps picking up the tab. I don't know whether Reform will be better, but I certainly don't think they'll be worse.
Was it within 1 year of him becoming an MP?
If it was he needed to have declared it and Farage didn't.
That's literally all that matters - everything is you trying to justify something for reasons I haven't got a clue about except you seem to love really strange american right wing views.
Actually I am not trying to justify it, and you and Stuart are wasting your time arguing on that score. He may have fallen outside the rules, and you may have a point, but "If they [the conservative party] had received 5 million and not declared it" is still not a remotely valid comparison.
I think asking where this significant amount of money came from is valid and not as you claim is "well beyond the scrutiny applied to other parties."
The Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens, Labour, the SNP, even Martin Bell, all of them have had major scandals over donations. Maxwell. Brown. Ecclestone. Hinduja. Deripaska. Hervie.
And they faced multiple media storms, EC investigations, even police inquiries over some of them.
Some even kept the money (Brown and the Lib Dems).
But none of them were personal donations to party leaders. That's not really been a thing since the time of Lloyd George.
Can I sell you a peerage? Low mileage, one careful owner…
The parallels I am remembering are Mandelson and Blunkett. Who took personal donations and then were caught doing favours or not recusing themselves from decisions involving the donors.
It should be noted that for Blunkett it was career ending, and for Mandelson it was - twice - a resigning matter.
Compared to the sums here the money involved was trivial, although to be fair they were ministers and not the leaders of minor opposition parties.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
Increasing his vote is meaningless when the only other candidate is a bin though.
The entire thing has been rendered farcical.
I don't think that's true.
Trying to be objective, I think if Farage can motivate more of Clacton to come out and vote for him this time than in a GE, when there is no real doubt that he will win and while he is mired in scandal, this will count as a (limited) success.
I still don't think it will achieve his wider objective, though.
They're rowing home They're rowing home They're rowing Norway's rowing home ...
Don't be unsporting; they weee fairly gracious in defeat.
And anyway it's sail for transatlantic travel.
Norway may be sailing home but the big winner of this World Cup is Erling Haaland who is said to have gained 20 million new Instagram followers across the US and China, presumably (his agent hopes) with massive sponsorship and advertising deals to follow à la David Beckham.
He seems a very decent guy, and deserves it. It’s sad for him that his shove of our defender led to their goal being disqualified and therefore to Norway’s exit. He’s from Bryne south of Stavanger, which coincidentally was my first stop on my first Norwegian road trip a few years back.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
So you test on whether Farage does well is that gets more than 21,225 votes - I don't think he will.
I think it's unlikely too. That would be truly decisive. Other results of various shades would be less so but probably workable with. Reform are going to have to pull out the stops, and Farage, who was due to be on holiday right now, is going to have to put a hell of a shift in.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not thepolitician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
Put simply the difference between Farage and Starmer is Farage is a traitor and Starmer is not.
The authorities have to progress in measured ways, so they don't put it so starkly.
Put simply, you're wrong.
Starmer tried to give away sovereign territory housing a key USA base, to a state firmly allied with China, and commit the UK to pay tens of billions to hire it back. He also made assurances that he would give the go ahead to a Chinese super-embassy that could have been used to tap into vital national communications, house prisoners, and house quasi military forces in the heart of London.
Those are just a starter for ten, I could happily continue, but had he achieved either or both, he would have been by orders of magnitude a more successful traitor to the British State than any in history.
Calm down dear. Are you talking about the Liz Truss Chagos plan?
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not thepolitician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
Put simply the difference between Farage and Starmer is Farage is a traitor and Starmer is not.
The authorities have to progress in measured ways, so they don't put it so starkly.
Put simply, you're wrong.
Starmer tried to give away sovereign territory housing a key USA base, to a state firmly allied with China, and commit the UK to pay tens of billions to hire it back. He also made assurances that he would give the go ahead to a Chinese super-embassy that could have been used to tap into vital national communications, house prisoners, and house quasi military forces in the heart of London.
Those are just a starter for ten, I could happily continue, but had he achieved either or both, he would have been by orders of magnitude a more successful traitor to the British State than any in history.
Calm down dear. Are you talking about the Liz Truss Chagos plan?
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
Increasing his vote is meaningless when the only other candidate is a bin though.
The entire thing has been rendered farcical.
If Farage increases his number of votes from his GE 2024 total then that would be meaningful. It would be damn impressive in my view.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not thepolitician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
Put simply the difference between Farage and Starmer is Farage is a traitor and Starmer is not.
The authorities have to progress in measured ways, so they don't put it so starkly.
Put simply, you're wrong.
Starmer tried to give away sovereign territory housing a key USA base, to a state firmly allied with China, and commit the UK to pay tens of billions to hire it back. He also made assurances that he would give the go ahead to a Chinese super-embassy that could have been used to tap into vital national communications, house prisoners, and house quasi military forces in the heart of London.
Those are just a starter for ten, I could happily continue, but had he achieved either or both, he would have been by orders of magnitude a more successful traitor to the British State than any in history.
Calm down dear. Are you talking about the Liz Truss Chagos plan?
If you read the actual story, you'll see that James Cleverly under Rishi Sunak opened negotiations. Funnily enough you choose not to mention those politicians.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
Increasing his vote is meaningless when the only other candidate is a bin though.
The entire thing has been rendered farcical.
I don't think that's true.
Trying to be objective, I think if Farage can motivate more of Clacton to come out and vote for him this time than in a GE, when there is no real doubt that he will win and while he is mired in scandal, this will count as a (limited) success.
I still don't think it will achieve his wider objective, though.
It won't stop him from facing questions and an inquiry into various financial happenings, and I don't think it would prevent a suspension from the Commons they would kick off a recall petition. But it would make it very likely that he'd survive the recall process.
They're rowing home They're rowing home They're rowing Norway's rowing home ...
Don't be unsporting; they weee fairly gracious in defeat.
And anyway it's sail for transatlantic travel.
Norway may be sailing home but the big winner of this World Cup is Erling Haaland who is said to have gained 20 million new Instagram followers across the US and China, presumably (his agent hopes) with massive sponsorship and advertising deals to follow à la David Beckham.
He seems a very decent guy, and deserves it. It’s sad for him that his shove of our defender led to their goal being disqualified and therefore to Norway’s exit. He’s from Bryne south of Stavanger, which coincidentally was my first stop on my first Norwegian road trip a few years back.
Gianni Infantino has said FIFA will examine expanding the World Cup by a further 16 nations to a 64-team tournament ahead of its next edition in 2030. The 2030 tournament will be spread across six nations and three continents: Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay are scheduled to host one match apiece at the start of the competition, with the remaining games split between Morocco, Portugal and Spain.
Might as well not bother with qualifiers. Just has a small qualifer tournament for weakest nations and the rest automatically get invited, bit like the cricket.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
Increasing his vote is meaningless when the only other candidate is a bin though.
The entire thing has been rendered farcical.
I don't think that's true.
Trying to be objective, I think if Farage can motivate more of Clacton to come out and vote for him this time than in a GE, when there is no real doubt that he will win and while he is mired in scandal, this will count as a (limited) success.
I still don't think it will achieve his wider objective, though.
It won't stop him from facing questions and an inquiry into various financial happenings, and I don't think it would prevent a suspension from the Commons they would kick off a recall petition. But it would make it very likely that he'd survive the recall process.
I think he would have anyway. Some will turn against him in that situation, but whilst it has not yet been proven odds are most of his supporters are genuine when saying they are not concerned about it even if it were true.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
Gianni Infantino has said FIFA will examine expanding the World Cup by a further 16 nations to a 64-team tournament ahead of its next edition in 2030. The 2030 tournament will be spread across six nations and three continents: Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay are scheduled to host one match apiece at the start of the competition, with the remaining games split between Morocco, Portugal and Spain.
Might as well not bother with qualifiers. Just has a small qualifer tournament for weakest nations and the rest automatically get invited, bit like the cricket.
It will create a lot more jeopardy in the first league stage though as only the top 2 teams from 4 will get through..
Gianni Infantino has said FIFA will examine expanding the World Cup by a further 16 nations to a 64-team tournament ahead of its next edition in 2030. The 2030 tournament will be spread across six nations and three continents: Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay are scheduled to host one match apiece at the start of the competition, with the remaining games split between Morocco, Portugal and Spain.
Might as well not bother with qualifiers. Just has a small qualifer tournament for weakest nations and the rest automatically get invited, bit like the cricket.
It will create a lot more jeopardy in the first league stage though as only the top 2 teams from 4 will get through..
That would be far more exciting. The years WC where you are quite likely to still get through even though you came 3rd in a group of 4 is bullshit. Bloody woke nonsense, prizes for all* ;-)
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Nope - an international court made a decision. Which could be met in a number of different ways.
Stir Keith was bound by the precept that he must obey his Betters.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
Culture war - it's the anti-imperialist solution to gift an island, not to its original inhabitants, but their neighbours.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
True, but she didn't. Liz Truss met the Mauritian President in New York when she was PM. We do not know what was discussed. James Cleverly officially opened negotiations after Sunak took over.
Gianni Infantino has said FIFA will examine expanding the World Cup by a further 16 nations to a 64-team tournament ahead of its next edition in 2030. The 2030 tournament will be spread across six nations and three continents: Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay are scheduled to host one match apiece at the start of the competition, with the remaining games split between Morocco, Portugal and Spain.
Might as well not bother with qualifiers. Just has a small qualifer tournament for weakest nations and the rest automatically get invited, bit like the cricket.
Look, they've got to find a way to get Italy into the tournament.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
A lawyer would understand the difference between advisory and binding judgments.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
It may come as a surprise to some people but acting according to the law is a thing for both practical and moral reasons.
The Chagos complication for the UK is that Trump has no time for the law and so doing what the US wants, which is ultimately what all UK governments aim to do, becomes very hazy.
Also Chagos is an American base, not a UK one beyond the tiniest fig leaf, and one they will never give up in any circumstances. What the UK wants is nearly irrelevant.
The claim of 40% down on last year, well we had terrible start to the year with 3 months of solid rain. Also the number is not that far off all over years over the past 5 years (up to this point in the year) and then depending on weather, 2022 ended up with even larger number than 2025, but following trend of 2023 or 2024, still be 30-35k.
Gianni Infantino has said FIFA will examine expanding the World Cup by a further 16 nations to a 64-team tournament ahead of its next edition in 2030. The 2030 tournament will be spread across six nations and three continents: Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay are scheduled to host one match apiece at the start of the competition, with the remaining games split between Morocco, Portugal and Spain.
Might as well not bother with qualifiers. Just has a small qualifer tournament for weakest nations and the rest automatically get invited, bit like the cricket.
If its going to be more than 32, then 64 is the next best number, better than 48.
It should be a binary scale number, 64 is one just like 32.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
It may come as a surprise to some people but acting according to the law is a thing for both practical and moral reasons.
The Chagos complication for the UK is that Trump has no time for the law and so doing what the US wants, which is ultimately what all UK governments aim to do, becomes very hazy.
Also Chagos is an American base, not a UK one beyond the tiniest fig leaf, and one they will never give up in any circumstances. What the UK wants is nearly irrelevant.
There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
He lost his son in Gaza. Now he’s coming for Netanyahu Former top general leads Israeli prime minister in polls for first time as October election nears
The claim of 40% down on last year, well we had terrible start to the year with 3 months of solid rain. Also the number is not that far off all over years over the past 5 years (up to this point in the year) and then depending on weather, 2022 ended up with even larger number than 2025, but following trend of 2023 or 2024, still be 30-35k.
The claim of 40% down on last year, well we had terrible start to the year with 3 months of solid rain. Also the number is not that far off all over years over the past 5 years (up to this point in the year) and then depending on weather, 2022 ended up with even larger number than 2025, but following trend of 2023 or 2024, still be 30-35k.
It's been in the news a lot less it seems to me.
Well it has really been ticking up over the past 1-2 months (as you would expect with the better weather), but in addition to things like world cup (and all the other sport), the media have had Starmer / Burnham drama, along with Farage locked on in their sights which is sucking up a lot of air time.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
I'm trying to decipher this.
You seem to be saying that if a politician calls a byelection and wins handsomely against -say- a man wearing a bin on his head, then it means that any previous crimes he may have committed should be forgiven.
Do I have that right?
I have not said or implied that anything 'should' happen. I merely suggest how events 'may' pan out.
It is not really Farage's fault that he is facing a joke candidate. The desire of some of those who back Count Binface to want him to unmask, or commit to being Clacton's loyal MP for two years, I think tells its own story.
I can also suggest how events may pan out. I think Farage will win the by-election, return to the Commons, the Parliamentary investigation will resume and say he was wrong not to declare a £5 million donation (and possibly other donations), he will be suspended from Parliament for more than a fortnight, there will be a recall petition that passes, and a second by-election. I don’t think the Parliamentary committee will be bothered by the first by-election.
What happens in the second by-election, I don’t know.
I meant the government mentioning it. 12 a week might be why.....that's not even the 50 a week that was supposed to be the starter trial amount for the first month or two, which most people said well that's not even worth it.
My guess is given its tiny numbers it probably people who are extremely long hanging fruit, probably those volunteering to go back to France because they preferred it there and anybody who "lawyers up" they don't even try.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
It may come as a surprise to some people but acting according to the law is a thing for both practical and moral reasons.
The Chagos complication for the UK is that Trump has no time for the law and so doing what the US wants, which is ultimately what all UK governments aim to do, becomes very hazy.
Also Chagos is an American base, not a UK one beyond the tiniest fig leaf, and one they will never give up in any circumstances. What the UK wants is nearly irrelevant.
There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.
I thought we were fed up with a PM just doing things because of the law and we wanted some proactive decision making? There is no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this, but it might be a good idea to do it.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
It may come as a surprise to some people but acting according to the law is a thing for both practical and moral reasons.
The Chagos complication for the UK is that Trump has no time for the law and so doing what the US wants, which is ultimately what all UK governments aim to do, becomes very hazy.
Also Chagos is an American base, not a UK one beyond the tiniest fig leaf, and one they will never give up in any circumstances. What the UK wants is nearly irrelevant.
There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.
I thought we were fed up with a PM just doing things because of the law and we wanted some proactive decision making? There is no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this, but it might be a good idea to do it.
The claim of 40% down on last year, well we had terrible start to the year with 3 months of solid rain. Also the number is not that far off all over years over the past 5 years (up to this point in the year) and then depending on weather, 2022 ended up with even larger number than 2025, but following trend of 2023 or 2024, still be 30-35k.
It's been in the news a lot less it seems to me.
Well it has really been ticking up over the past 1-2 months (as you would expect with the better weather), but in addition to things like world cup (and all the other sport), the media have had Starmer / Burnham drama, along with Farage locked on in their sights which is sucking up a lot of air time.
Year To Date, and despite perfect boating weather these last couple of months, arrivals are at their lowest since 2021.
I am sure that there isn't a single factor. Fewer arrivals into the Schengen area is part, interdictions by the Bulgarian Police siezing boats, better policing in the Pas de Calais forcing boat launches further away, the "one in one out scheme" and a generally more hostile approach by our government are surely all part of it.
Some way to go, but it is churlish to deny that the governments efforts are working to at least some degree.
Would we be entirely surprised if the ultimate source of some or all of these donations turns out to be Russian?
Latest on Reform sleaze:
* British security services believe Russia and other bad actors have been attempting to penetrate Reform and UKIP for over a decade * They believe Nathan Gill was not the only Russian Reform target * Montenegro is of particular concern to UK agencies
I think 'the establishment' have gone off a bit soon on this one. They always seem to do this - pile in so it all gets lost in what appears to be a tidal wave of witch hunt. Farage has chosen the battleground (Clacton) and the other parties have chosen (by default) Binface to go up against him - a very weak choice given that he is a made up character and cannot be an MP.
If Farage wins a powerful byelection victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary commitee to send him back to face another one. I can see why those who are against Reform want to do this now to finish him off, but these additional allegations, especially the intelligence services weighing in (we have already had the police), are somewhat feeding the narrative. It also serves Farage to have it all out now, because if it's all out now, not only can he claim the voters of Clacton knew it all and still want him as their MP, it also means there's nothing left for any fresh interventions between now and the next election. It feels a bit like Napoleon sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo.
Good morning
'If Farage wins a powerful by election victory, that makes it very hard for a parliamentary committee to send him back to face another one'
This is an election to try to stop a legitimate investigation into Farage and his funding, and it most certainly will not stop the standards investigation reconvening if he wins, no matter the size of the result and nor should it
Why does Farage expect to be held to lesser standards than other mps, and if he has nothing to hide why on earth start this charade ?
It should be made crystal clear by the relevant authorities that the investigation will recommence, and indeed be extended in light of more recent disclosures, if and when Farage becomes a member of Parliament again.
I am sure it will, however, I suspect that it will not remove Farage as an MP, if his victory in Clacton is a decisive one (and to answer the question above, I don't really know what the numbers behind that would look like). Farage has raised the stakes. He's not the only politician to do this - Starmer did it (I think over a lockdown issue?) when he said he would resign if the police acted in a particular way, and they stopped short, it seemed because they didn't want to be the cause of such a big political upset.
I think if you don't come up with an objective yardstick before an event you are vulnerable to being manipulated by spin, or to accusations that you are spinning yourself, so I think it is worth doing. What do you think of my attempt?
Yes. I think increasing his vote would definitely do it. He will need it to look very decisive - narrative changingly so.
Increasing his vote is meaningless when the only other candidate is a bin though.
The entire thing has been rendered farcical.
I don't think that's true.
Trying to be objective, I think if Farage can motivate more of Clacton to come out and vote for him this time than in a GE, when there is no real doubt that he will win and while he is mired in scandal, this will count as a (limited) success.
I still don't think it will achieve his wider objective, though.
It won't stop him from facing questions and an inquiry into various financial happenings, and I don't think it would prevent a suspension from the Commons they would kick off a recall petition. But it would make it very likely that he'd survive the recall process.
I think he would have anyway. Some will turn against him in that situation, but whilst it has not yet been proven odds are most of his supporters are genuine when saying they are not concerned about it even if it were true.
Farage called the by-election because of the accusations against him. It’s going to be difficult for him to duck answering questions about those accusation over the next few weeks, given they are the entire point of the election. I don’t see Farage coming up with any better answers than he’s previously tried on these issues.
Comments
And they faced multiple media storms, EC investigations, even police inquiries over some of them.
Some even kept the money (Brown and the Lib Dems).
But none of them were personal donations to party leaders. That's not really been a thing since the time of Lloyd George.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder/episodes/one/one_archbishop.shtml
It should be noted that for Blunkett it was career ending, and for Mandelson it was - twice - a resigning matter.
Compared to the sums here the money involved was trivial, although to be fair they were ministers and not the leaders of minor opposition parties.
The entire thing has been rendered farcical.
It is not really Farage's fault that he is facing a joke candidate. The desire of some of those who back Count Binface to want him to unmask, or commit to being Clacton's loyal MP for two years, I think tells its own story.
Trying to be objective, I think if Farage can motivate more of Clacton to come out and vote for him this time than in a GE, when there is no real doubt that he will win and while he is mired in scandal, this will count as a (limited) success.
I still don't think it will achieve his wider objective, though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63498137
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/jul/12/brendon-mccullum-sacked-england-test-coach-ecb?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c8028vm2g9ro
If they try to get any coach other than Richard Dawson, they’re idiots.
Knowing Key, he’ll probably try and get Dale Benkenstein.
"Police 'open-minded' about motive behind Ann Widdecombe murder - after man arrested in Yorkshire"
https://news.sky.com/story/ann-widdecombe-death-live-murder-investigation-police-12593360
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/2076261775494840499?s=20
Might as well not bother with qualifiers. Just has a small qualifer tournament for weakest nations and the rest automatically get invited, bit like the cricket.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
* and more money for FIFA.
Stir Keith was bound by the precept that he must obey his Betters.
When there's no power. No water. No food.
The Chagos complication for the UK is that Trump has no time for the law and so doing what the US wants, which is ultimately what all UK governments aim to do, becomes very hazy.
Also Chagos is an American base, not a UK one beyond the tiniest fig leaf, and one they will never give up in any circumstances. What the UK wants is nearly irrelevant.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9gmjx998xo
The claim of 40% down on last year, well we had terrible start to the year with 3 months of solid rain. Also the number is not that far off all over years over the past 5 years (up to this point in the year) and then depending on weather, 2022 ended up with even larger number than 2025, but following trend of 2023 or 2024, still be 30-35k.
It should be a binary scale number, 64 is one just like 32.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
He lost his son in Gaza. Now he’s coming for Netanyahu
Former top general leads Israeli prime minister in polls for first time as October election nears
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/12/gadi-eisenkot-lost-son-in-gaza-now-coming-for-netanyahu/
What happens in the second by-election, I don’t know.
My guess is given its tiny numbers it probably people who are extremely long hanging fruit, probably those volunteering to go back to France because they preferred it there and anybody who "lawyers up" they don't even try.
https://migranttracker.uk/
I am sure that there isn't a single factor. Fewer arrivals into the Schengen area is part, interdictions by the Bulgarian Police siezing boats, better policing in the Pas de Calais forcing boat launches further away, the "one in one out scheme" and a generally more hostile approach by our government are surely all part of it.
Some way to go, but it is churlish to deny that the governments efforts are working to at least some degree.