Urgent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics
It was announced by the government on 16 December, that they would undertake an urgent review into what is described as “foreign financial interference in UK politics”. The independent review has been launched in response to the deeply concerning case of former MEP and Welsh Reform leader Nathan Gill, who was sentenced in November to ten-and-a-half years in prison having admitted taking bribes for pro-Russia interviews and speeches.
It was said that Nathan Gill is “thought to have received up to £40,000 to help pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine”.
The government also announced that the former Permanent Secretary Philip Rycroft would assess finance and bribery rules and how to limit the risk of foreign interference, building on new rules set out in Elections Strategy to guard against foreign political interference.
Nigel Farage and the foreign donor
The review was announced on the very same day that it was revealed that Nigel Farage’s record-beating election war chest is being heavily supported by Christopher Harborne, a donor whose fortune is mixed up with a major video platform hosting Russian state broadcasters who support Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. These broadcasters also support a major influencing operation launched by Russian intelligence.
It was also revealed that “Christopher Harborne – the Thailand-based billionaire who has given Reform UK £9 million in cash, making him Britain’s single largest political donor – is already known as a cryptocurrency investor and long-time Farage backer. He is also a major shareholder in the stablecoin company Tether and the British defence firm QinetiQ, which supplies the Ministry of Defence and allied militaries”.
Until now there has been no meaningful scrutiny of how the stake that Harborne has in Tether is linked to his profits to Rumble. This was said to be a “free speech” video platform that would not agree to ban Russian state media after the invasion of Ukraine, and has since “hosted a Kremlin-backed influence operation exposed by the US Department of Justice”.
Byline Times has also revealed that it has looked at market disclosures, company filings, and previous reporting to demonstrate how the investment chain running from Tether into Rumble. It is noted that “the picture that emerges is of a donor whose financial interests straddle Britain’s defence interests and a platform projecting Russian state propaganda”.
Farage ‘admires Putin’
This new Russian link between Farage and the regime in Russia comes after it was noted last year during the general election campaign that Nigel Farage had admitted that he “admired” Vladimir Putin “as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia”.
It was also said that when Farage had spoken on a BBC Panorama special programme, shown on 21 June last year, BBC One at 7pm, he claimed that the country spent “too much time hyperventilating about” the climate crisis when questioned about his claim that the King had been “dabbling in eco-loony politics”. Following the recent COP30 climate change conference in Belem, Brazil it has been argued that Putin’s Russia is part of an axis of obstruction attempting to black meaningful work on limiting global warming.
It was reported during the General Election campaign that Nigel Farage’s links with Russia had come under further scrutiny following a Kremlin propaganda chief being found to have sent supportive tweets to the Reform leader, and rallying for others to get behind the party.
It was noted that “Maria Zakharova, the director of the information and press at Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow, has sent gushing messages praising Farage, who last week was lambasted for suggesting Russia was “provoked” by the EU and Nato into invading Ukraine”.
It was also argued that Farage must have met the Russian ambassador in the mid-2010’s, despite his protestations to the contrary. It was noted that Farage had regularly appeared on Russia Today (RT), the state-controlled TV service, RT (Russia Today), “which apparently paid him for his services” and “boosted every speech he made as an MEP in the European Parliament”. RT was also said to have offered Farage his own TV show following the EU Referendum.
Not just Farage
Meanwhile it was also noted during the General Election campaign last summer that while Nigel Farage had caused controversy by defending Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine, including saying, “I think the West historically, up until a few years ago, provoked Putin, stupidly. I felt the ever, ever eastward expansion of Nato and the European Union was giving Putin a reason to go to war”, he was by no means the only person within Reform UK to hold such views.
Farage framed the conflict in Ukraine as a consequence of NATO’s expansion and Western provocation and in so doing defended Putin’s war.
Then several other Reform members were said to have publicly shared similar views, arguing that Russia’s actions are a response to perceived threats from NATO and the West had precipitated Russia’s actions.
It was pointed out by Jim Pickard that a number of candidates had also defended Putin in his war in Ukraine. These included Angela Carter-Begbie, who was standing for Reform in Queen’s Park and Maida Vale and who had said that “Putin wants peace – it’s the West that don’t” and that “Ukraine was horrible to the Russians first”, while John Clark, standing in Bangor Aberconwy was aid to have claimed that Putin is “sane and reasonable”.
Farage accused of parroting Russian talking points
Then at the end of a press conference on 12 December Farage gave an answer to a question, which led to him being accused of parroting Russian talking points. Although in other answers Farage had been careful to distance himself from Putin and his war, he still took aim at Ukraine President Zelensky saying: “Who knows how long he’s going to last, you know, because we’ve always known that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world…”
The upcoming review
Accusations such as these above have long swirled around our politics, going back to at least the Brexit EU Referendum in 2016. While it is understood that the review will not go as far back as the referendum, now seen as a closed matter, it is still to be hoped that the truth of the many accusations of foreign interference in our politics are proved one way or another.
Then we can start to clean up our politics and really ‘take back control’.
