The Reform Thread

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Sky deny they have so one word against other at this stage.

Given he’s even had a bad tempered interview round with Nick Ferrari who he’s normally friendly with, let alone all of the other outlets, even GB News who employ him tucking in, he is on a sticky wicket. 

I suspect the announcement is a temporary break due to unspecified illness/family issue. I very much doubt its resignation unless he thinks the Parliamentary standards enquiry is beyond salvage from his position. 

I could be wrong but it seems that the argument from sky is that sending reporters to where she lives does not constitute contacting her which is a stretch.

Edited 9 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Gloucester Saint]

Nick Robinson’s take 

 

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I could be wrong but it seems that the argument from sky is that sending reporters to wear she lives does not constitute contacting her which is a stretch.

It’s not behaviour I like from the press and I’ve opposed it but they’ve been doing it for decades to politicians of all stripes, celebrities, royals. I can’t recall a party leader reacting like that. If I’m his front bench, I’m thinking ‘how will he handle a general election campaign if we were in contention?’.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It’s not behaviour I like from the press and I’ve opposed it but they’ve been doing it for decades to politicians of all stripes, celebrities, royals. I can’t recall a party leader reacting like that. If I’m his front bench, I’m thinking ‘how will he handle a general election campaign if we were in contention?’.

They have and it shouldn't happen to any politician, particularly those who at an increased risk of being assaulted. 

[CSA96]

58 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Nick Robinson’s take 

 

Ding ding ding, we have a winner: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn0v9l9x0g8t

[Gloucester Saint]

12 minutes ago, CSA96 said:

Ding ding ding, we have a winner: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn0v9l9x0g8t

Not surprised, Nick Robinson knows his stuff. It might head off the Standards enquiry to an extent assuming he wins (he will) but the stench won’t go away nationally and his reputation for being tetchy will encourage the press elements not in his pocket to go further.  

For a supposedly politically shrewd operator, the most attacked and at risk politician line is indefensible when you’ve had the Amess, Cox and Andrew Pennington murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Jones,_Baron_Jones_of_Cheltenham

Edited 8 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I only caught the last part of his speech.

Is the idea that:-

The investigation is into donations over 12 months old.
As an MP, you should be declaring donations within a 12 month period, prior to becoming one.
If reelected, he then gets out of the investigation?

On one of his other points, the press have no justification going near his family. He's right to be incensed about it, as they are now at heightened risk. As he has been. 

 

Edit: Just seen the been link, suggesting things would resume as they have been.  That leaves him resetting it all in the public realm. "This is what I did it for. The rules say I should be suspended, but we all know what's really behind that, which is why I asked you to vote for me, as a signal to those parties." 

Edited 8 hours ago by Holmes_and_Watson

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I'm sure Farage's ego would outweigh anything else, but seeing the way the last few prime ministers have been torn apart along with the recent increased scrutiny on his own personal life, I wouldn't be surprised if he looks at things and thinks they're not worth it.

[Gloucester Saint]

6 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I only caught the last part of his speech.

Is the idea that:-

The investigation is into donations over 12 months old.
As an MP, you should be declaring donations within a 12 month period, prior to becoming one.
If reelected, he then gets out of the investigation?

On one of his other points, the press have no justification going near his family. He's right to be incensed about it, as they are now at heightened risk. As he has been. 

If he’d said that the Russian attacks on Starmer’s house were unacceptable and cited the Amess, Cox and Pennington murders he might have had more of a point. It doesn’t justify however accepting a £5m bung, association with and funding from a money launderer in any way. There is a risk to all MPs and ministers, it’s not unique to him. He’s about as clean as Portsmouth FC during the 2000s and early 2010s.

The Leveson enquiry should have led to much better regulation of press behaviour - but the government at the time didn’t want the Mail, Sun and Telegraph having their claws clipped slightly to be within the law of the land. Self-regulation never works. The amount of interference into court cases the tabloids have is awful and contempt of court isn’t used often enough. Rose West trial could have derailed in 1995 because of the bungs they were plying vulnerable witness with large sums. This not being tackled led them to think paying police officers was fine and dandy = Coulson and hack-gate. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Just now, Gloucester Saint said:

If he’d said that the Russian attacks on Starmer’s house were unacceptable and cited the Amess, Cox and Pennington murders he might have had more of a point. It doesn’t justify however accepting a £5m bung, association with and funding from a money launderer in any way. There is a risk to all MPs and ministers, it’s not unique to him. 

I did hear him mention Starmer. He also said a couple of days after the death of Kirk, he got most of his security funding removed.

It's not unique to him. However, if risk assessing them all, he'd be higher than many. A blanket model may not apply.

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I did hear him mention Starmer. He also said a couple of days after the death of Kirk, he got most of his security funding removed.

It's not unique to him. However, if risk assessing them all, he'd be higher than many. A blanket model may not apply.

I broadly agree but he also knows he has a highly volatile support base with more convictions than you could write on the Thames Flood Barrier. Referring to cold rage is bound to stir them up into violence against those two police officers who weren’t even there on the night of the Nowak murder and they don’t have a £5m bung to buy protection (or Ferraris) from his and Tommy Robinson’s thugs. 

So he might reflect on his own language use in relation to security matters.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I did hear him mention Starmer. He also said a couple of days after the death of Kirk, he got most of his security funding removed.

It's not unique to him. However, if risk assessing them all, he'd be higher than many. A blanket model may not apply.

Edit on your edit: While getting my tea, the next two headlines on the radio were that Le Pen's decision was upheld. It was, but disingenuous for the Beeb to suggest that was all that happened; and Harry losing his court case into hacking. Which everyone knows was rife, no matter how much Brooks and Coulden burn in the basement car park. So, a glimpse into our media landscape.

[revolution saint]

Let's wheel Martin Bell out again for one last time and have him stand as an anti-corruption candidate.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I broadly agree but he also knows he has a highly volatile support base with more convictions than you could write on the Thames Flood Barrier. Referring to cold rage is bound to stir them up into violence against those two police officers who weren’t even there on the night of the Nowak murder and they don’t have a £5m bung to buy protection (or Ferraris) from his and Tommy Robinson’s thugs. 

So he might reflect on his own language use in relation to security matters.

Didn't some media outlets misquote him by implying he'd said "white rage"? Just a "sorry Nigel". 

Add to that showing his daughter's house.

My personal benchmark, regardless of what I think of him or his views, was the Beeb airing someone joking about an acid attack against him. When that was pointed out to them, they did as little as possible in redress. That was a shocker to listen to at the time (Jo Brand).
 

[Gloucester Saint]

Polanski calls him a grifter. Farage is, but it takes one to know one eh Zack?

Lowe making clear noises that Restore will stand, that’s an issue Reform didn’t have to consider last time.

Still think Farage wins but reduced majority. 

[edprice1984]

If re-elected, the previous investigation resumes and if he were found guilty would lead to censure, a suspension and potentially another by-election.

When David Davis did something similar all the major parties didn't bother, calling it a vain stunt. Difficult for them to do something similar here.

What you need is a Martin Bell style candidate standing as an Independent. They would need to be sincere and serious, so unfortunately it would rule out Count Binface (although that would be incredible!) and someone that would be seen as a genuine alternative. Even running Farage close would be incredibly damaging for him and Reform. Particularly if the whole thing had to be run again due to the Standards committee confirming his alleged mis-deeds.

[Gloucester Saint]

@edprice1984 it’ll be interesting to see who Rupert puts up as a candidate. He will be very keen to unseat Farage even if it means a Tory MP in Clacton again. Musk doesn’t like Farage much either to put it politely and will throw cash at Lowe to beat him. 

Farage will win but by a reduced majority of 4-5k as I reckon Rupert will retain their deposit by drawing off the football casual/raise the flag element of Farage’s support. It’ll drag Farage further to the right during the campaign, pleasing Zia but making Bob Jenryck unhappy.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[edprice1984]

He thinks he can frame this as Farage vs the Establishment - but what this now does is give free reign to every paper, every opposition party etc the opportunity to find more and more dodgy dealings and skeletons in his closet. The major parties should stand down and let him fight against Lowe for the reasons you gave. 

The chance to make him look thin skinned, irritable, easy to anger will have an impact. Combine that with even a modicum of effective governing over the next few weeks and the contrasts will be stark. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

20 minutes ago, edprice1984 said:

He thinks he can frame this as Farage vs the Establishment - but what this now does is give free reign to every paper, every opposition party etc the opportunity to find more and more dodgy dealings and skeletons in his closet. The major parties should stand down and let him fight against Lowe for the reasons you gave. 

The chance to make him look thin skinned, irritable, easy to anger will have an impact. Combine that with even a modicum of effective governing over the next few weeks and the contrasts will be stark. 

His statement today would indicate he's aware of the pile on to come, and has pre emptied it by giving his view of why it's really happening.

He directly addressed the increasing reports of his temper at the questioning he's been getting too. Again, pre emptying what's to come.

As you say, setting out the him v establishment boundaries nice and early.

You mentioned David Davis. IIRC he ended up with a lot of low key funding, grassroots support after taking his stand. I recall reading about it after one of his late night speeches on Salmond. Perhaps Farage is hoping to tap into that. There was certainly a "Yes, I took the money. Here's exactly why, and why it will continue to be attacked" part of his speech, again setting out the contest. On the front foot.

 

[AlexLaw76]

38 minutes ago, edprice1984 said:

He thinks he can frame this as Farage vs the Establishment - but what this now does is give free reign to every paper, every opposition party etc the opportunity to find more and more dodgy dealings and skeletons in his closet. The major parties should stand down and let him fight against Lowe for the reasons you gave. 

The chance to make him look thin skinned, irritable, easy to anger will have an impact. Combine that with even a modicum of effective governing over the next few weeks and the contrasts will be stark. 

🤪

[AlexLaw76]

Sky news are now admitting they have approached the daughter of Farage at her house without invitation, but she would not engage....

Adam Boulton claims they are absolutely entitled and it is perfectly legitimate to do this as it is in the public's interest.

Edited 6 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[Gloucester Saint]

Lowe not standing, Labour giving strong hints they won’t be and Badenoch wouldn’t commit. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s discussions going on in the background.

Underpinning rationale which Lowe was the most direct about is that Farage may well have to fight another by-election in the autumn  so save the firepower until then and deny him any genuine mandate. He’d be re-elected on a much lower turnout with no meaningful opponents.

Someone had it right earlier - need a latter day Martin Bell anti-sleaze independent candidate and all of the other parties. I’d vote for Binface but I bet the miserable gits in Clacton wouldn’t. Martin Lewis could beat him as an Independent - that would kick arse.

Cant see Lewis wanting to do it though. 

[Gloucester Saint]

22 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Sky news are now admitting they have approached the daughter of Farage at her house without invitation, but she would not engage....

Adam Boulton claims they are absolutely entitled and it is perfectly legitimate to do this as it is in the public's interest.

It’s wrong. Farage is corrupt as Portsmouth FC’s owners were in the 00s/early 10s/SNP Murrell and should never be anywhere near public office, but Sky should carry on skewering him for hiding and refusing to answer for the bungs and money laundering, not his kids. Unless there’s evidence they’ve aided and abetted him then it’s not their fault. Farage has contributed to it but journalists have to do better. The Times piece was well researched at the weekend, that’s how you finish him off. 

[AlexLaw76]

35 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It’s wrong. 

Sky have shifted from denying it (I believe) to saying it is perfectly legitimate and in the public's interest.

A video is doing the rounds of a car driving onto the property and looks like taking pictures, which is believed to be journos working for (or with) Sky.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

55 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It’s wrong. Farage is corrupt as Portsmouth FC’s owners were in the 00s/early 10s/SNP Murrell and should never be anywhere near public office, but Sky should carry on skewering him for hiding and refusing to answer for the bungs and money laundering, not his kids. Unless there’s evidence they’ve aided and abetted him then it’s not their fault. Farage has contributed to it but journalists have to do better. The Times piece was well researched at the weekend, that’s how you finish him off. 

The radio earlier said that Sky had denied it. That was before Farage called them out on it again, in his statement.

So now we have a guy worried about the security of himself and his family, and pointing out that there's a campaign against him now proving that Sky did indeed increase the risk to his family, lied about it, and are now saying they were entitled to do it. Which they were not.

Lots of perfectly valid avenues to challenge him. This not only undermines that, but shows him to be right (as far as this topic goes). Well done hacks.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

The radio earlier said that Sky had denied it. That was before Farage called them out on it again, in his statement.

So now we have a guy worried about the security of himself and his family, and pointing out that there's a campaign against him now proving that Sky did indeed increase the risk to his family, lied about it, and are now saying they were entitled to do it. Which they were not.

Lots of perfectly valid avenues to challenge him. This not only undermines that, but shows him to be right (as far as this topic goes). Well done hacks.

Let’s disentangle the issues:

- Was Sky out of order? Based on what seems to be emerging, I would say yes. Was he justified in biting back? Yes, probably so.

- Is there any more of a threat to him than any other UK politician? The evidence says not. Starmer is far more under threat domestically and globally as already proven. Kemi Badenoch is a leader of the opposition and black, potentially stopping Farage. Besides, if you’re going to murder an MP, history shows a fanatic won’t go high profile, they’ll go for kindly figures like David Amess or Jo Cox with low security, based on one Wikipedia detail they didn’t like. 

 

[Gloucester Saint]

Only Greens standing as opposition unless Labour, Tories, LDs and Restore change their minds. Waste of time and money https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ly51kzdz3o

He’s going to struggle to claim Polanski the boob man as the establishment! Chances are there’s another by-election in the autumn anyway.

Edited 3 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[The Kraken]

Polanski needs to butt out completely and turn it into a complete farce. 

Five garage Farage v Count Binface.

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Polanski needs to butt out completely and turn it into a complete farce. 

Five garage Farage v Count Binface.

Polanski is being a tit.

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Polanski is being a tit.

What size?

[ecuk268]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

What size?

Depends if they've had his hypnosis treatment.

[Sheaf Saint]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Daf8HMKAWDa/?l=1