A full timeline of Nigel Farage’s grift and corruption
1. 2001–2014: Rent-free office scandal
Farage used office space rent-free, failed to declare the benefit properly, and was fined by the Electoral Commission.
2. 2015–2016:
Whilst serving as an MEP, Farage’s EFDD group spent around €1.8 million of EU taxpayer funds improperly on his “Say No to EU” Brexit campaign activity, including paying for rallies in the UK, venue hire, banners etc
3. 2016–2019: Farage’s Brexit movement was heavily funded by Arron Banks. Questions over the source of funding were referred by the Electoral Commission to the National Crime Agency.
4. 2017–2018:
The European Parliament docked Farage’s MEP salary to recover around €40,000 after concluding parliamentary funds had been improperly claimed for staff costs.
5. 2018:
A European political party closely linked to UKIP and Farage’s parliamentary group was ordered to repay €1.1 million after investigators found EU grants had been improperly used for national political campaigning, including campaigns in the UK directly supporting UKIP.
6. 2019:
Channel 4 News and The Guardian reported that Banks gave Farage benefits worth around £450,000, including accommodation, transport and overseas travel.
7. 2019:
The Electoral Commission warned the Brexit Party’s online donation system was at “high and ongoing risk” of accepting impermissible donations and required stronger controls.
8. 2019:
Crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne donated around £6.4 million to the Brexit Party, beginning a financial relationship that continues today.
9. 2021 onwards:
Farage earns £400,000 a year from GB News whilst serving as the leader of a UK political party.
10. 2023:
Farage received around £1.5 million for appearing on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here.
11. 2023:
Reform UK received £200,000 from First Corporate Consultants Ltd, linked to businessman Terence Mordaunt who lobbies against Climate Change policy and campaigned for Brexit.
12. 2024:
The Good Law Project alleged Farage failed to declare assistance from a US public relations firm during a US trip funded by Christopher Harborne.
13. 2024–2026:
Farage received a £5 million gift from Christopher Harborne around 1 month before entering Parliament. In 2026, Parliament’s standards watchdog opened an investigation into whether it should have been declared.
14. 2024–2026:
Since becoming MP for Clacton, Farage has declared more than £2 million in outside earnings from media, speaking engagements, commercial partnerships, including activity closely linked to lobbying for policies that benefit his private funders.
15. 2025:
A complaint alleged undeclared election spending during Farage’s 2024 campaign. Essex Police took no action because the statutory time limit had expired.
16. 2025–2026:
Farage failed to declare 17 separate payments, worth around £380,000, within the required parliamentary deadlines. The Standards Commissioner found the breaches were inadvertent.
17. 2026:
Farage declared £270,000 from Direct Bullion for promotional work while sitting in Parliament, equivalent to around £22,500 per hour.
18. 2026:
The Sunday Times alleged convicted former aide George Cottrell provided undeclared support including security, accommodation, staffing and media assistance.
A true public servant and man of the people.
Dear @Keir_Starmer. You've often been wrongly accused of U turns in the last couple of years. This time could you please make a definite U turn? Stand for PM. The pretender is an absolute cretin.
Regards
A very concerned country
With Darren Jones now confirming that he will not be entering any leadership contest, I find myself, and I suspect many others, reflecting deeply upon our future within the Labour Party.
I did not join the Labour Party to witness a mandate, won through immense effort and entrusted to Sir Keir Starmer by the British electorate, quietly transferred to another individual through pressure, intrigue, and political calculation. Nor did I join in order to endorse a process which appears, at least to many ordinary members, to be drifting perilously close to a political coup rather than a democratic exercise.
Let me be perfectly clear. I do not wish to see Andy Burnham become Leader of the Labour Party, and I certainly do not wish to see him become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
That is not born of personal animosity. It is a matter of principle. Leadership should be earned, not assumed. Mandates should be won, not inherited. Legitimacy should flow upwards from the membership and the electorate, not downwards from a collection of parliamentarians, advisers, commentators, and newspaper columnists who appear increasingly determined to decide the outcome before the contest has even begun.
What troubles me most is the growing sense that some believe the membership should simply acquiesce and accept whatever arrangement is placed before them. Such an attitude betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Labour Party is. It does not belong to the Parliamentary Labour Party. It does not belong to newspaper editors. It does not belong to political factions. It belongs to its members.
Those members pay for the party. They campaign for it in all weathers. They knock on doors, deliver leaflets, defend its values, and devote countless hours of their lives to its success. They are not an inconvenience to be managed. They are the very foundation upon which the party stands.
If Andy Burnham genuinely believes he is the right person to lead Labour, then he should place that proposition before the membership and allow them to render their verdict. Let there be a contest conducted openly, honestly, and democratically. Let the 350,000 members exercise the rights afforded to them by the party's constitution. Let us discover whether the enthusiasm proclaimed by certain sections of the media and elements within Westminster truly extends beyond those circles and into the wider Labour movement.
For my part, I remain unconvinced. More importantly, I remain profoundly uneasy at the manner in which this entire affair is unfolding. The Labour Party has always prided itself on being a democratic movement. If that principle is to mean anything at all, then the members must be permitted to determine their own future free from coercion, manipulation, or prearranged outcomes.
Anything less would not merely diminish the authority of a future leader. It would represent a profound disservice to the very people upon whom the Labour Party ultimately depends.
@johnmcdonnellMP@pete_sinclair Let’s get real…Labour about to prove it is
Not ready for serious Governance. Having the attention span of a Gnat and switching leadership from a very capable one who won a vast majority because of “ personality” is risible.
@jessphillips, so many of us feel this way. Starmer is only unpopular on the doorstep because the media are telling them to be. Address our biased media, not our reliable PM.
Dear @UKLabour
If you think a nation who have put up with a production line of appalling disastrous tory pms for 14 years, are suddenly going to jettison Starmer- a steadfast reliable performer,- to make way for an opportunist, you are sadly(and stupidly) mistaken.
Grow up.
@MugglestoneIan@RebeccaCNReid A punctuation error is an absolutely fair observation when someone is discussing education and calling others idiots. The autocorrect is also likely to perpetuate previous mistakes, so it wouldn't have been an autocorrect if she could use apostrophes properly in the first place.
@TheMotivorMB@disnenchanted@DPJHodges Just serving a few weekends a year is very different from a regular, he shouldn't be claiming to be ex forces. Also, there's no reason to give up the TA if you are committed.
@RobKenyonReform Self admitted sexist without the balls to apologise thinks he can represent women
Lovely to see you exposed for what you are by an audience containing many women
@implausibleblog@garygilligan 'Nothing but respect for women' and 2 weeks ago claimed women murdered defenceless babies so they could shag around.....which is it, or is he just a liar....hmmm