Nigel Farage is facing significant heat at the moment over a £5m ‘gift’ he failed to declare. Farage faces two separate investigations on the matter, and he’s also facing question about whether he used the money to purchase a £1.4m house in Surrey.

On the topic of the house, the BBC have been trying to get Farage on to discuss the matter. This was how Reform responded:

Victoria Derbyshire, "We asked for an interview with Nigel Farage tonight and we got a thumbs down emoji from his team"

"Over the last couple of weeks we've asked for an interview with Nigel Farage or anyone from Reform UK's front bench ten times"

Advertisement

Jake Berry, who used to be a… pic.twitter.com/l594M6EQ1Q

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) May 19, 2026

Farage rattled and rolled

Jake Berry is a former Tory MP who also served as the party’s chairman. In July 2025, he defected to Reform, stating:

I’ve always believed that change comes with challenging the old order. In shaking up the system when it isn’t working

Oh yeah – we’re sure he’s always thought that – that’s why he joined the Tories – the longest running political party in the UK.

In the clip at the top, Berry said:

Well, the question is how did Nigel Farage pay for his house? We know because he told us he did an interview with Harry Cole and he said that he received money from Irem as a celebrity, which is actually part of a wider business career… Including representing companies that sell things like gold, including doing appearances in celebrity things. He got that money, he used it to buy his house, The explanation does add up.

I’ll tell you what doesn’t add up is this inference that money received 35 days earlier enabled him to buy the house. Anyone who’s ever bought a house recently know it takes about six months. And Nigel’s been really clear about this. He said he’d passed proof of funding, he’d agreed to buy this house a long time before this gift was received. And I accept his explanation.

For clarity’s sake, the £1.4m Surrey house is different to the Clacton house. The latter house also attracted controversy when people accused Farage of using his partner’s name on the deeds to avoid paying £44k in stamp duty.

The accusation Berry alluded to is that Farage actually paid for the house with an undeclared ‘gift’ of £5m he received from foreign-based crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne. Notably, this wasn’t the only thing Farage did after receiving the gift:

Here are the facts as laid down by Derbyshire:
1) Farage says he won’t run
2) crypto billionaire pays him £5mill
3) Farage U-turns and runs
4) Farage hides the donation
5) Farage announces if he wins the election he will slash capital gains tax for crypto firms

Same old same old https://t.co/ViEIFZkf3A

— Alonso Gurmendi (@Alonso_GD) May 6, 2026

Advertisement

Back to the interview, Derbyshire said:

The explanation that he bought that house from the fee from I’m a Celeb when the money was paid into his media business company, and was still in the account, according to the FT, after the house purchase was made.

In other words, it seems to literally be impossible that Farage could have paid for the house as Reform is claiming:

Another whopper from Farage. His Celebrity money was paid into his Thorn in the Side account (his tax dodging vehicle) and never left it to buy a house. https://t.co/rY3yZXY01s pic.twitter.com/MOaCTYKMrI

— Mr Ethical (@nw_nicholas) May 16, 2026

On the back foot

In the interview, Berry got quite flustered and attempted to change the subject:

"He told us… he received money from I'm A Celebrity."

Sir Jake Berry, Reform UK, defends his party leader and argues that the continued focus on his finances is just "the mainstream media desperate to keep this story going against Nigel Farage". #Newsnight pic.twitter.com/4bquGSUITI

Advertisement

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) May 19, 2026

Berry also got the name of Reform’s candidate in the Makerfield by-election wrong:

Jake Berry: “What I think is extraordinary about this by-election, is you have ‘Robert Jenkins’, a brilliant candidate for Reform…”

Victoria Derbyshire: “That’s not his name by the way”

Jake Berry: “Sorry?”

Victoria Derbyshire: “It’s Robert Kenyon”#newsnight pic.twitter.com/3ZIdwbXvLw

— David (@Zero_4) May 19, 2026

Advertisement

It seems clear why Farage doesn’t want to respond to these questions; it’s because he doesn’t have good answers.

Sooner or later, however, he will have to account for himself.

Featured image via Getty Images (Ryan Jenkinson) 

By Willem Moore

Source link

One of the UK’s biggest disabled people’s organisations has slammed a trade union for supporting disability benefit reforms and conflating Department for Work and Pension (DWP) disability benefits with benefits that assist work.

TUC makes DWP PIP about work

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) called for ‘genuine reform’ of the DWP benefit Personal Independence Payment (PIP), as they say it enables many disabled workers to enter jobs. However, as Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) points out, PIP isn’t an out-of-work benefit and has nothing to do with employment.

Ahead of the TUC disabled members conference, the union submitted its response to the Timms review of PIP. In the submission, the TUC says that PIP is ‘crucial’ for disabled people to start and stay in work. However, the body warns that it’s not working as intended.

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said:

The government has a vital opportunity to support more Disabled people into work through the Timms Review. Right now, Disabled people are bearing the brunt of unemployment, low pay and insecure work – all while navigating a social security system that is not fit for purpose.

Only a genuine reform of PIP will ensure that Disabled people who can work, receive the support they need to move into and stay in work. But this must come alongside wider action too, like ensuring Disabled workers get the reasonable adjustments they need, stronger rights at work and reform of the Access to Work scheme.

Disabled people’s organisation DPAC are ‘disappointed’ that Nowak focused on work when talking about PIP and not on how it’s a vital benefit for so many.

They said in a statement:

PIP is paid to people who work and who don’t work. It is not paid on the basis of work – it is paid on the basis of daily living and mobility/ getting around. Work does not come into the assessment, nor should it. It may help people to access work, but that is not the primary purpose of it.

The TUC statement suggests that PIP reform and the Timms review is justified and should involve consideration of work. It is now being reported in the media as ‘PIP rules should be changed to get disabled people into work.’

Advertisement

TUC is focusing too much on work

For what it’s worth, it seems like the TUC’s heart is in the right place. They consulted with many disabled members, and as a union body, employment is probably a priority for their disabled members.

And to some extent, disability employment does need to be improved.

As the TUC statement said:

TUC analysis found that the unemployment rate for Disabled people is 8.8% – it’s highest since before the pandemic – compared to 4.3% for non-disabled people. The situation is even worse for young Disabled workers – with an unemployment rate of 24.2%, compared to 12.2% for those who are not Disabled.

The stats for young people are especially worrying. However, the DWP’s solution isn’t to support young people but instead to force them into dead-end work. And the department is throwing under 24’s on PIP under the bus before the Timms review is even complete, with the extension of the assessment period not applying to young people.

The TUC has said that PIP can only help some disabled people into work alongside Access to Work, which the department is also cutting. However, the union body falls into the trap of putting the onus on employers for workplace adjustments, something the DWP has also been pushing.

The TUC said:

Disabled workers who took part in a TUC self-reporting survey (for its submission to the Timms Review) reported using PIP payments to cover for the cost of reasonable adjustments – many workers believed these costs should be covered by their employer or other support systems.

The TUC is calling on employers to do their part and implement reasonable adjustments to help keeping Disabled employees in work.

Whilst this might be possible for bigger companies, for smaller employers, it means they’re just less likely to employ a disabled person. It also wrongly lets the DWP off the hook, as this is literally what Access to Work is for.

TUC needs to focus on what’s important

Worryingly, the TUC said Timms Review is a ‘step in the right direction’, which isn’t exactly the words I’d use for an already determined farce of a review that pretends to be co-produced by disabled people, but each to their own.

That being said, the TUC is also urging the DWP to:

• Reform the assessment process, moving away from a one-off, snapshot assessment to start capturing fluctuation, fatigue and recovery time – and making the process more accessible and less burdensome.

• Improve assessor expertise and decision-making, ensuring that assessors have relevant medical knowledge and/or training, and that medical evidence is given appropriate weight in decision-making.

• Improve first decision accuracy and reduce reliance on appeals – as at present too many people are only awarded PIP when they challenge a refusal at tribunal.

• Ensure PIP payment levels reflect the true additional costs of disability  and the extra costs associated with working – such as travel, energy and support.

• Reduce unnecessary reassessment, limiting repeat reassessments where conditions are unlikely to improve.

It’s clear the TUC is focusing on work, because that’s important to their members, but by doing so it’s feeding into the DWP’s rhetoric that disabled people are only worthy of support if they contribute to the economy. It means many disabled people are left feeling betrayed once again.

It’s well past high time that we stopped putting employment on this pedestal. Disabled people should be supported to thrive whether or not they work. And however well meaning the TUC’s statement was, all it’s done here is put disabled people who can’t work at the bottom of the heap again.

Featured image via Getty/Alishia Abodunde

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

Source link

Hayden Panettiere, the star of Nashville, Heroes and the Scream movie franchise, has claimed that a “well-respected” Oscar-winning actor once exposed himself to her at a party.

In an excerpt of her new memoir This Is Me: A Reckoning published by People magazine, Hayden wrote about how when she was 19, she went to an event with a friend.

Making small talk with a group of men made her uncomfortable, she wrote, so she decided to call it a night.

That’s when an “Oscar-winning actor and director” came up to her as she was putting on her coat and pointed down to what he claimed was gum on his pants.

Advertisement

“I looked down and recoiled,” Hayden recalled. “This well-respected, award-winning actor’s testicles were hanging out from his unzipped fly.”

Hayden said the stunt “hadn’t hurt me and I was sure it was a drunken joke, but I’d never seen a grown man do something like that”.

“I was shocked,” she noted.

Hayden also wrote about a sketchy friend who took her to a cabin on a luxury yacht where “a famous thirtysomething British singer-songwriter was lying in a bed” per Entertainment Weekly.

The now-36-year-old claimed: “He was shirtless and propped up on a few pillows with his arms positioned behind his head. From the waist down, he was covered by bedsheets, and I could see the outline of his body underneath.”

Advertisement

She claimed her friend then pulled the sheet away and told her: “I want you to get in bed with him. He has a huge dick.”

“The shock was so great it didn’t even occur to me to say no,” Hayden wrote.

However, she said, she didn’t let things go any further and made arrangements to leave the yacht.

As for the identities of these famous men, the I Love You, Beth Cooper actor wasn’t about to name certain names in her book.

Advertisement

“Things happened a long time ago, but it was to protect me and my company from being sued by some very pissed-off famous people,” she explained to The Hollywood Reporter.

Help and support:

• Rape Crisis services for women and girls who have been raped or have experienced sexual violence – 0808 802 9999
• Survivors UK offers support for men and boys – 0203 598 3898

Source link

Source link

Robert Kenyon, Reform UK’s candidate in the Makerfield by-election, has had his X account suspended. Shortly afterward, likely reasons why started to surface, particularly his links to a British fascist and his sharing of extremist right-wing content.

Ironically, Kenyon kicked off his campaign by praising his party for supposedly weeding out racists. He also moaned that Reform doesn’t allow him to speak his mind about the Russia-Ukraine war. There was a hint, though, that he disagreed with boss Nigel Farage’s opinion that Russia was provoked into it. The one thing on which Farage has not been wrong — stopped clocks and all that.

Makerfield candidate denies far right exists

Among the found items in Kenyon’s social media history is denialism that the far right even exists. A denial that he made as the far right was engaged in the 2024 race riots.

And as race rioters filled streets, Kenyon claimed that white people are being “assaulted en masse” by Muslims.

Evidenced links to fascists

Kenyon’s links to fascism are disturbing, if unsurprising in an Islamophobic Reform candidate and they’re not being exposed for the first time. Kenyon stood, coming second, in the seat in the 2024 general election.

At that campaign, Searchlight Magazine pointed out his social media links to the leader of the British fascist movement.

MAKERFIELD: I suspect Robert Kenyon won’t last long as Reform candidate. When Kenyon stood here in 2024, the anti-fascist group Searchlight tweeted he was Facebook friend of Gary Raikes, leader of New British Union, reincarnation of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists https://t.co/6sEsa52izQ

— @Tomorrow’sMPs (@tomorrowsmps) May 19, 2026

And even more recently, Kenyon shared — and contributed to — posts by extremist right-wing Islamophobe and ‘anti-feminist’ Carl Benjamin, who calls himself ‘Sargon of Akkad’. Not just Benjamin, but also white supremacist Peter Imanuelsen, and convicted race-hate instigator Wayne O’Rourke.

But as one commenter pointed out, on far right Elon Musk’s X, that’s not likely to lead to a suspension. It raises the question of what must have been bad enough for his Kenyon’s account to be paused.

.@novaramedia say he had his account suspended by the owner of this platform
I’ve reported egregious racism on here and always been told it doesn’t violate the rules.
Hard to believe these posts were what precipitated a suspension when far worse have been deemed ok.

— Lucy (@lucyfyson) May 19, 2026

As awful as these racist posts are, Lucy is right that they don’t seem enough to be the reason X suspended the account. The suspension hides what else might be there.

But the bigger question, at least as far as the by-election is concerned is this: will enough people in Makerfield care enough to vote against Robert Kenyon again? Or will such presumed and actual views attract enough people in what has become a Reform heartland in a nation plagued by emboldened racists to get him into parliament?

Featured image via X/ reformparty 

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Makerfield is the constituency on everyone’s mind. The by-election, set for 18 June, is a fork in the road moment for the Labour government, as it gives the prince over the water – the proclaimed ‘King of the North’ Andy Burnham – a chance to cross over and take the crown. But Reform UK too have it firmly set in their sights, and as one Tory put it to me: “If you could design a model seat for Reform, this is it.”

Yet there is another by-election on the very same day: Aberdeen South, where voters will replace Stephen Flynn, who has swapped Westminster for Holyrood as an SNP MSP. Here the Tories stand a chance at electoral victory after a strong showing during the recent Scottish Parliament elections – and the message from the Conservative Party will be simple: ‘Vote Reform, get the SNP.’

The twin by-elections have unleashed a fresh discourse: should there be some sort of electoral pact with Reform? The option has been floated by two Conservatives – one current MP, one former MP – as a way of consolidating the right and holding back Burnham, whom they regard as disastrous for the economy.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Tory business secretary, suggested to The Telegraph that the parties “work together” as it is a “golden opportunity for the right to unite” and give Labour “a nasty surpise”.

The longest-serving MP, father of the House Sir Edward Leigh, similarly proposed that the Tories not field a candidate in Makerfield, but in return for Reform not standing in Aberdeen South.

“If doing some kind of deal means we can win Aberdeenshire and save the Union, it’s worth doing. If in any by-election there are two Right-wing parties fighting each other … there will be Left-wing victory,” he said.

As one Conservative MP on the right of the party told me of the Tories and Reform UK: “Aren’t we all conservatives?”

In terms of numbers, if what you want is an elected representative of the right, then yes it could make sense. Combine Reform’s votes with the Tories in Makerfield at the last general election and you’re just over a thousand votes short of Labour (they got 18,202 to a combined 17,182 of Reform and the Tories), and that is before the Labour government blew up. At the Holyrood elections, where Stephen Flynn stood, he just about scraped through with the SNP on 11,788, the Tories on 10,544, and Reform on 6,113. Again, combine the two and there you would have a unionist representative.

But is that really the answer? It is one thing for members of the public to choose to vote tactically – they can look at the previous results in Makerfield and decide that if they once voted Tory they will vote Reform to secure a win on the right – but it is quite another to impose a reduced choice on them.

And, according to our latest ConservativeHome members survey, it doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that would go down well with Conservative Party members, the majority of whom said that at the local elections they voted for the party they usually support – not tactically. Our survey had 56.7 per cent of respondents supporting that, and only 6.44 per cent saying they voted tactically to either stop another party winning or support the option who stood a better chance. They clearly want the option of their party.

As one shadow cabinet minister told me: “We are a national party and everyone should have the option and ability to vote for a Conservative candidate.”

Both Kemi Badenoch and Conservative Party members can then be reassured that they appear to be on the same page. She has ruled out any deals with Nigel Farage, branding such arrangements as “stitch up nonsense” by political parties “that are too lazy to just get on and select people and win on their own account”.

She added: “We will be standing a candidate at this election. Everybody should compete and the people of the constituency should make their choice about who it is they want to represent them.” Under a month to go until that choice is made.

The post Our Survey: Could Conservatives bring themselves to vote tactically or back a pact? appeared first on Conservative Home.

Source link