Farage rejects claims he helped trigger riots with video publicising false claims about Southport attacker – UK politics live

Reform UK leader replied “when parliament allows me” when asked when he would start meeting constituents in person in his local office. He told a caller:

Do I have an office in Clacton? Yes. Am I allowing the public to flow through the door with their knives in their pockets? No, no I’m not.

When asked to explain, Farage said that David Amess, a less controversial MP, had been stabbed in his office while holding a constituency surgery.

Farage did not explicitly say that he had been told not to hold in-person surgeries. But he implied that was what he had been told by the speaker’s office and the security team working with the Commons speaker.

Asked if he had been told not to hold those surgeries, Farage replied: “I would have thought that would make sense, wouldn’t you?”

But sources have said Farage was not told to avoid in-person surgeries, because to have said that would have been an interference with his duties as an MP, PA Media reports. PA says:

There is no record of this advice having been given to the MP by either the speaker’s office or parliament’s security team and neither have any recollection of such a conversation, PA understands.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said:

As a constituency MP in Chorley, I hold regular surgeries myself with constituents – and whenever a member asks for my advice on this matter, I always say that if you are going to hold constituency surgeries, make sure you take advice from the parliamentary security department – and do so safely.

A House of Commons spokesperson said:

The ability for MPs to perform their parliamentary duties safely, both on and off the estate, is fundamental to our democracy.

The Parliamentary Security Department (PSD), working closely with the police, offer all MPs a range of security measures for those with offices or surgeries in their constituencies – helping to ensure a safe working environment.

We do not comment on individual MPs’ security arrangements or advice because we would not wish to compromise the safety of MPs, parliamentary staff or members of the public, but these are kept under continuous review.

Farage did say he was holding some meetings on Zoom.

Reform UK was set up as a company controlled by shareholders, and as the majority shareholder Farage had full control.

In his video, released ahead of the opening of the Reform UK conference tomorrow, Farage said that he structured the party like this for two reasons.

Number one, so that I could make very fast decisions, and you know, after 30 years in politics, hopefully I do roughly know what I’m doing.

But secondly, and most importantly, the real reason was to prevent a small, nascent political party being taken over by malign actors. And that was my really big fear.

But Farage said Reform UK now has 80,000 members and “thousands, literally thousands” of people wanting to stand for the party as candidates in local elections”.

Farage said, as a result, he was going to honour a promise he previously made to “democratise” the party.

I no longer need to control this party. I’m going to let go.

We will change the structure of the party from one limited by shares to a company limited by guarantee, and that means it’s the members of Reform that will own this party …

There will be a board put in place with elected representation to make sure the party is being managed properly and to make sure we don’t suffer from entryism.

He said these changes would be subject to agreement from the Electoral Commission, but he said he did not expect there to be a problem. And he ended saying: “I’m giving up control, I’m giving it to the members”.

In an interview with the Sun, Zia Yusuf, the Reform UK chair, he said the new constitution would give members “a say, not only at a local level, where they’ll be able to select candidates, select a chair, select a treasurer, secretary, campaign manager, but also at a national level”. This would include being able to vote out the leader, he said.

Yusuf did not give details of how this might happen, but it has been reported that the constitution will say a no confidence vote can take place if 50% of members write to the chair requesting one.

It is also being proposed that 50% of MPs could trigger a no confidence vote – but only from the point where the party has 100 MPs. Currently it has five.

Farage set up the Brexit party, which turned into Reform UK, as a private company partly because, as Ukip leader, he got frustrated dealing with its internal politics, and a national executive committee that had some power to block his ideas.

Even in a more democratic Reform UK, Farage is likely to remain as the person with firm, overall control. The proposed thresholds for a leadership challenge are much higher than in other parties, and Reform UK is largely seen as the Farage party, because no one else is anything like as popular with its members.

Keir Starmer accepting a large number of freebies when he was opposition leader. Brand thinks they are making a mistake.

Labour line on gifts/donations to the Prime Minister this morning appears to be that voters don’t care about this stuff and are only concerned about govt delivery.

But lesson from partygate is that just isn’t true. These matters alter the image of a govt, sometimes irreversibly.

This is a reminder of the massive polling dip for the Tories that followed partygate. It’s just not the case to say voters don’t care about this stuff, though I understand why Labour ministers might be reaching for that line.

Luke Tryl from More in Common, which released polling earlier today suggesting most voters do not approve of Starmer (or any other MP) accepting clothes or tickets as gifts (see 2.03pm) has posted these on social media saying he agrees with Brand.

Can honestly say having heard the anger from the public about these sorts of issues in focus group after focus group this line is wishful thinking. It’s also surprising given Starmer really seemed to get it isn’t just about policy, it’s about restoring faith in politics.

The sense of one rule or that politicians are in it for the perks is toxic not just to one party but faith in politics itself. It’s what is driving people to the extremes and is why mainstream parties are struggling to get above 30%.

It’s why Starmer’s language on integrity, the politics of service and respect were so powerful, I think it would be a mistake to think that side of the ledger doesn’t matter – not least as in many ways it’s inseparable from people’s perceptions of delivery.

It’s much harder to persuade people to take tough decisions or to back sacrifices in the greater good if they feel our political class are somehow exempt from that: it’s why partygate or gamblegate were so toxic.

I’d also add a further point “The Tories did worse” may or may not be fair, but it doesn’t matter in terms of how people weigh up this Government, and it certainly doesn’t matter politically when people have the option of anti establishment parties such as Reform & Greens.

Voters are overwhelmingly opposed to MPs accepting clothes or tickets to sporting events as gifts, according to polling by More in Common, a group that campaigns for a less divisive politics. This is from its director, Luke Tryl.

Just 7% of the public think it is acceptable to take donations for senior ministers clothing and only 8% think donations of hospitality to politicians are acceptable. In fact the public are sceptical about political donations per se, even for campaign materials.

A reader asks:

Can you please obtain clarity from a Labour spokesperson, or even an expert in the English language or linguistics, as to the meaning of ‘lean into hope’? Baffling!

Good question. It is inspired by the headline on Jessica Elgot’s excellent scene-setter for the Labour conference, headlined: “Labour will lean into hope at first conference in power for 15 years”.

“Lean into” is a bit of political lingo that has become increasingly common at Westminster in the last few years. It is not a Labour or Tory term; everyone is using it. It means “convey a strong sense of (without being specific)”, and that’s a useful piece of Westminster terminology because a lot of political discourse involves positioning, hinting at X, Y or Z, but without making firm promises or commitments etc. An older generation would have talked about “showing a bit of ankle”, which meant much the same thing, but nowdays the political class prefers its cliches non-gendered.

If Labour are saying Keir Starmer will “lean into hope” at Labour conference, that means, as Jess explains, he is going to sound more upbeat than he was in his ‘things can only get worse’ Rose Garden speech, but without doing the full Barack Obama circa 2008 act.

In other words, the conference slogan might just as well be ‘Things can only get a bit better’.

Or it will be a hope-adjacent speech by Starmer, to use another bit of newish politico-speak.

here. He says our pro-leadership slate candidates, three left candidates and two candidates outside the two largest slates were elected. He goes on:

Labour to Win [which organises the pro-leadership slate] said on social media its candidates had won a “decisive victory” and an “emphatic win for Labour’s mainstream”. It said it was the first time in two decades that self-described party moderates had won more CLP representative seats than the left.

The group also said 50 candidates it backed for places on Labour’s national policy forum, the party’s official process for drawing up its platform in the lead-up to the next election, had won election, calling it “our best-ever results since it started being elected by OMOV”.

a video he posted online that led to him being widely accused of provoking the summer riots.

In the video released shortly after three young girls were killed by an attacker with a knife in Southport, Farage suggested “the truth is being withheld from us” and said there were reports the killer was known to security services.

He was widely criticised for publicising false information, and a subsequent poll in August said 51% of people viewed him as being to some extent responsible for the racist rioting that erupted in the wake of the Southport attacks.

Farage later admitted that one of the “reports” he was quoting came from Andrew Tate, a misogynist influencer facing criminal charges including human trafficking and rape.

But today, in a phone-in with LBC, Farage strongly defended his original video. Asked about the polling saying he was seen as to blame for the riots, Farage said that he was perceived like that because of “lies and incitement coming from Labour and Conservative politicians, and broadcasters”.

He went on:

I asked a very simple question: can we please be told the truth? That was all. Can we please be told the truth?

When it was put to him that his video message included the claim that some reports were saying the Southport killer was known to the security services, Farage said he was only saying that to ask if it were true. He went on:

What I thought vindicated me wholly was Jonathan Hall, KC, who is the tsar for terrorism and rioting, backed up by Lord Carlile, Liberal Democrat peer – both said that the public, the government and police, need to level with the public.

Farage was referring to Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorist legislation telling a conference in September that the information “vacuum” after the Southport attack may have been a factor contributing to the riots. As the Times reports, Hall said:

One of the problems and the consequences of the Southport attack was that there was an information gap, a vacuum, which was filled with false speculation.

I personally think that more information could have been put out safely without comprising potential criminal proceedings.

As the Times reports, Carlile, a previous independent review of terrorist legislation, made the same point. He said:

I think we should get out more information if we possibly can. We have learned from these events that when somebody is arrested, and there was a potential issue like this arising, the police probably need to tell the media who has been arrested and what their background is.

news release, the Department for Business and Trade said:

The government will consult on tough new laws which will hold larger firms to account and get cash flowing back into businesses – helping deliver our mission to grow the economy.

In addition, new legislation being brought in the coming weeks will require all large businesses to include payment reporting in their annual reports – putting the onus on them to provide clarity in their annual reports about how they treat small firms. This will mean company boards and international investors will be able to see how firms are operating.

Enforcement will also be stepped up on the existing late payment performance reporting regulations which require large companies to report their payment performance twice yearly on GOV.UK.

Reform UK conference, which opens in Birmingham tomorrow.

Asked on LBC why he supported Trump so much, Farage replied:

Because I think the world is a safer place with Trump, I think his instincts on the big stuff are right, I do not believe for a moment that Kabul would now be controlled by the Taliban again [if Trump had remained president].

I don’t believe for a moment that the Ukraine war would even have happened. And I think that peace through strength is a very important thing.

The presenter, Nick Ferrari, asked Farage if he believed Trump when he said, in his debate with Kamala Harris, that immigrants in Ohio were eating pet dogs and cats.

Trump is notorious for lying and saying things that are not true, but even by his standards this claim was seen as extreme. As Rachel Leingang explains for the Guardian here, there is no evidence for this allegation, which has been widely repeated by Republicans. It is a rumour that has spread on social media.

But Farage said he thought Trump would turn out to be right. He told Ferrari:

Whenever [Trump] says something like this that sounds absolutely crackers, in the end, there always proves to be some truth in it.

When Ferrari pressed him again, Farage said:

I’ll have a tenner with you that within the next month or so, we find some evidence of it. What the scale of it is, I have no idea …I think Trump generally, when he says these things, is proved to be right.

Even JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, has suggested there is an element of fabrication in the claims he and Trump has been spreading. In an interview with CNN at the weekend Vance said the claims were based on “first-hand accounts”. But he went on:

The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes. If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.

an interview with the Daily Mail. He told the paper:

After the October 7 Hamas massacre, the previous British government was clear in its support. Unfortunately, the current government is sending mixed messages.

They say that Israel has the right to defend itself, but they undermine our ability to exercise that right both by reversing Britain’s position on the absurd allegations made by the ICC [International Criminal Court] prosecutor against Israel and by blocking weapons sales to Israel as we fight against the genocidal terrorist organisation that carried out the October 7 massacre.

And, on the suspension of arms sales, he said:

The new UK government suspended 30 arms licences to Israel, days after Hamas executed six Israeli hostages, sending a horrible message to Hamas.

These misguided decisions will not change Israel’s determination to defeat Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organisation that savagely murdered 1,200 people on October 7, including 14 British citizens, and took 255 people, including five British hostages.

Asked how he reacted to Netanyahu saying Labour was sending a “horrible message to Hamas”, Reynolds said:

I would respectfully reject very much that position and say the decision we took was fair, was proportionate, was consistent with international law, and, fundamentally what we need, what everyone needs in the Middle East is a ceasefire in that conflict.

That is in Israel’s interest. I think it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure we get there.

But we will always comply with international law as a government. I think you’d expect that of the UK government, but I was cognisant of the risk in the north, in Lebanon, from Hezbollah, and made sure the restrictions we put in place reflected that situation.

As business secretary, Reynolds took the final decision to suspend the arms licences, but he was acting on advice from the Foreign Office.

a blog about how and why he and colleagues ending up breaking the story about Sue Gray’s salary. He says he was first told the information by a government insider on Sunday – “I had not gone looking for this information, it found me” – and that over the next two days they were able to verify and corroborate what he had been told. On why it matters, he says:

This story, at its crux, is not about [Gray’s] salary per se.

It is about the levels of upset and anger – fair or otherwise – about her and her role at the top of government.

That is what motivated the person who tipped me off – at considerable professional risk – to tell me what I am now telling you.

And I know from other conversations I have had – and members of our BBC team have had – that this person is far from alone.

And that tells you something about the fractious relationships among some at the top of government, less than three months after Labour won the election.

the Guardian reported that “Starmer has declared more free tickets and gifts than other major party leaders in recent times, with his total now topping £100,000”. Sky News has also produced its own version of this story, with figures showing how Starmer compares with other MPs who have accepted many gifts.

Referring to Starmer accepting tickets for events like football matches and concerts, Reynolds said that politicians doing jobs that involved working long hours needed some relaxation. Speaking on Times Radio, he said:

There’s always going to be the case where people in public life are invited to certain events. I can tell you having been a secretary of state for two months, pretty much every working hour of it is spent working. And if people get the chance for a little bit of relaxation as part of that, again, I’ve no problem or objection to that.

When the presenter, Aasmah Mir, put it to Reynolds that he seemed to be saying these freebies were “a perk of the job”, Reynolds argued politicians accepted tickets to events like this so they could “engage” with people.

It’s not a perk of the job, it’s part of the job. People want to engage with decision makers. They want to ask you to be aware of what they are doing. Again, I think we have the right rules on transparency in relation to that. But this is about the job that we do and the need to be engaged with the sectors that we cover.

And he made the same argument on Sky News, where he was asked specifically about Starmer accepting tickets for a Taylor Swift concert. Reynolds said:

I think these are major cultural, sporting events. I think it’s important people in public life have some connection to that, that they are aware of that. Of course, going to see Taylor Swift – I’ve never seen her myself, but I hear it’s a very significant and lovely experience to do so.

But, again, as long as those things are declared openly, transparently, in accordance with the rules, there’s no objection on my part to that.

the story that Sue Gray, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, is paid £170,000 a year, which is about £3,000 a year more than the PM himself. It is not a typical BBC story (more on that later), and it would be a classic prosecution exhibit for anyone arguing that political journalists are too obsessed with insider processology. There is also a strong argument that ministers and officials at the very top of politics are paid relatively little anyway if you take into account the skill set required, the hours worked, and what they might earn in the private sector.

Yes, as Chris Mason, the BBC’s political editor has argued in a blog about the story, this is more than just a slice of Whitehall trivia. That is because the story suggests serious feuding is happening within the Labour adviser machine in government. A story like this would not have ended up on the BBC without someone quite important briefing viciously against Gray, and the revelation has angered other special advisers who claim that Gray is to blame for them being offered measly salaries, at least compared to what their Tory predecessors were on, or what they were earning when they were paid by the Labour party.

So what, you might think. A few dozen special advisers most people have never heard of want to be paid more. Don’t we all? That might end up as being the appropriate response to the story. But if this row means No 10 can’t function properly because the PM’s most senior political adviser is too divisive, it will matter.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has been doing a media round this morning, and, in an interview with Kay Burley on Sky News, he rejected her suggestion that Gray’s decision to accept more pay than the PM demonstrated her “stunning arrogance”. When this was put to him, Reynolds replied:

Clearly this an important job.

There’s a process that sets these paybands. It will reflect previous experience … It is a long-established way of establishing within certain pay bands renumeration relating to the job that you do. That’s what have been followed in this case.

The original BBC story included a quote from a source saying it was put to Gray that she might want to accept a small cut so she earned less than the PM, and that she declined. Government sources are saying that is “categorically untrue”.

Reynolds also suggested Starmer himself did not decide Gray’s pay. He said:

I think it’s important people understand that the pay bands for any official, any adviser, are not set by politicians. There’s an official process that does that. I don’t, for instance, get to set the pay for my own advisers who work directly for me. So, there’s a process, we don’t have political input into that.

The decision to increase the top salary available to special advisers in No 10, compared to what it was before the election, was taken by a committee of officials. But, according to the BBC story, Starmer signed off its decision.

When it was put to Reynolds that this was hypocritical given the fact that Starmer criticised Dominic Cummings getting a big pay rise when he was Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, Reynolds ignored this point and just replied:

There’s a process that sets these things. It is widely recognised. It’s long-standing. It hasn’t changed and that is how pay bands are set for any adviser.

There will be more on this as the morning goes on – not least because there is not much else in the diary. In fact, the main news is likely to come late afternoon. Starmer is doing a marathon series of interviews with regional TV editors (26 of them, according to Politico), but their contents are embargoed until 5pm.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line (BTL) or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. I’m still using X and I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I’m also trying Bluesky (@andrewsparrowgdn) and Threads (@andrewsparrowtheguardian).

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos (no error is too small to correct). And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.

Source: theguardian.com