Reform UK’s national conference has been rocked by allegations that senior members of the party plotted to circumvent rules on political donations. The reports centre on two payments – one real and one suggested, but both important. The two Reform staff members at the centre of the investigation have been suspended.
The apparent plans were captured in a sting, filmed in London and Clacton by undercover journalists from Verbatim Investigations and broadcast by Channel 4 News. The first allegation from the film is that James Orr, who was Reform’s head of policy until his suspension, arranged for an impermissible donor to pay for £32,500 of polling, which later made headlines in national newspapers, from the company JL Partners.
The question surrounding the payment is whether it is allowed under electoral law, and whether it should have been reported to the Electoral Commission.
The law is clear that if you pay for research on behalf of a party (this is known as sponsorship), that payment counts as a donation and ought to be recorded as such. So, there is a question about why this donation does not appear in the Electoral Commission database.
However, a more pertinent issue is one of permissibility – basically, who is legally allowed to give money in UK politics. A person or company from the US, say, is categorically not a permissible source. If a UK party receives a donation from an impermissible source, it must be returned.
This will be a matter for the Electoral Commission to decide on. However, it is an offence under electoral law to attempt to evade permissibility restrictions on donations, or “participate in an arrangement or withhold information” about them.
Reform UK has been reported to the police and the party has launched an internal probe. But it has denied wrongdoing and says it was the target of a hoax.
Farage on film
Even more damaging for party leader Nigel Farage (because he was filmed discussing it) may be the promise of £500,000 from a – fictional – American businessman. This donation appeared to be offered to be funnelled through the businessman’s British-born son. Farage can be heard on the film thanking the undercover reporters, who are posing as the father and son.
There was also footage of Farage’s then-aide Dan Jukes (now suspended), who appears to be discussing previous examples of this kind of arrangement. In the film, a series of bleeps can be heard – possibly as Jukes is naming names.
There is a third question, which concerns the effect the polling had – its “bang for buck”, as Farage put it.
In electoral terms, £32,500 is a piddling sum, less than 0.05% of the total spent by all political parties at the 2024 UK general election. But it may still have had a significant impact.
These polls were covered on the front pages of national newspapers, showing just how far a little bit of money can go. They were stories that added to the wider narrative of a surge in Reform’s popularity.
There is nothing new about this. Once, having too much time on my hands, I dug around the Electoral Commission political finance database trying to work out how much the infamous Brexit bus had cost, and found it was about £90,000.
I imagine this is one of the main things the UK public remembers about that campaign. The point is a well-placed message, playing into pre-existing narratives, can be priceless.
But there is also a wider point, which I have made to parliamentary committees. In an increasingly fragmented political environment, money matters far more than it once did – and goes much further.
In the UK’s traditional two-party system, there was a smaller persuadable electorate, and therefore money had diminishing returns. But now the margins are thinner, and elections can be won on 30% or less of the vote. Not only does every penny count, but every penny goes further.
If, with polling evidence, you can play into the narrative that Reform is now the party to beat on the right, for example, that can act as rocket fuel – not just for Reform’s true believers, but wavering Tories.
Read more: Why the questions about Reform UK and its wealthy donors won’t go away
Polling matters, because it changes minds and influences the political strategies that decide elections. James Johnson, founding director of JL Partners, is seen on the undercover film discussing the company’s “informal rule bending”. These polls would not have been front-page news if the Reform connection had been known.
JL Partners has serious questions to answer about its operating practices in the wake of these revelations. The company has accepted it breached British Polling Council rules, saying it contacted the body after becoming aware and pledging an internal review of its processes.
This story also reminds us that questions about party funding are not going away. We know that British politics has well and truly entered the era of the mega-donor, and we know that the public don’t like it.
Despite setting up a cross-government taskforce, Labour could have moved faster to apply a universal cap on donations. This story reminds us there is an urgent need to reflect on how to address the access and influence that money has on UK democracy.
Whether to grasp this particular nettle will be one of the key issues that defines this government. The Representation of the People Bill is moving through parliament. But anyone who has seen the undercover footage may feel that the ban on cryptocurrency donations and £100,000 limit on donations from voters based abroad that it proposes won’t be enough to fix things.
If this doesn’t inspire Labour’s new taskforce to be bold in seeking solutions that every party can get behind, what will?
Comments are closed.