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 2 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 51 minutes 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 47 minutes 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 41 minutes 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 4 minutes ago by Gloucester Saint