Source: The Conversation – UK
There have been more claims about Reform UK and its finances. In fact, it has become so complicated that it’s easy to forget party leader Nigel Farage has a byelection battle on his hands.
A £5 million undeclared gift from billionaire Christopher Harborne was the catalyst for Farage’s resignation as MP for Clacton – which sparked the byelection. Many observers thought his resignation was a bid to pre-empt a ruling from the parliamentary standards commissioner.
Farage has denied this, but has now suggested to journalists that he should perhaps have “filled in a piece of paper” in connection with the money.
Read more:
Five questions over Nigel Farage’s £5 million donation
Separate to this, police are reportedly investigating £500,000 given to the party by the mother of convicted fraudster and long-time Farage associate George Cottrell in the lead-up to the 2024 election. They are also said to be investigating £500,000 in donations from Britain Means Business – a company owned by Reform MP Richard Tice – made following a £1 million payment to the company from Fiona Cottrell.
It has now been reported that Cottrell made transfers totalling more than US$2 million (£1.49 million) to his mother just days before she donated to both Reform and Britain Means Business.
The police investigations relate to a potential breach of electoral law – the offence of attempting to evade the restrictions on donations under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The specific sections of the act concern permissibility, or who is allowed to give money to political parties. Fiona Cottrell, Tice and Britain Means Business are “permissible donors”. But according to reports, it is unclear if Montenegro-based Cottrell is eligible to donate to a UK political party.
The only time that someone has been convicted of similar offences since the act was passed was in the case of Gary Platt and Conservative MP David Mackintosh. Platt had attempted to hide the provenance of £10,000 donated to Mackintosh’s constituency association, and was given a suspended seven-week jail term. Four other men were also convicted, but Mackintosh was not.
So previously, when police have investigated donations under these sections of the act, it has related to perceived attempts to hide the provenance of a donation. One reason that someone might do this is if the money came from an impermissible donor – but someone needn’t necessarily be an impermissible donor to have committed an offence.
Also folded into the parliamentary investigations are “in-kind” benefits received from Cottrell ranging from security and housing, through to staffing (and advice) for Farage’s social media campaigns.
These were given before Farage became an MP, but within the one-year “declarable period” (like the Harborne gift). Farage has said that these benefits were “totally undeclarable” because he was an influencer as opposed to being in frontline politics.
But in May 2024 Farage described himself as Reform’s “honorary president”. So this casts doubt on the claim. And why these benefits were not registered, when £9,253.60 from Cottrell for travel, security and accommodation to attend a conference in Belgium within the same period, was.
The crux of the Cottrell case is the question of “use”. If, as has been reported, some of these in-kind benefits went towards social media messaging that promoted Reform, it feels like quite tough sledding to claim they had little to do with party politics.
Lawyers for George Cottrell have said he “categorically disputes” the allegations about financial help for Farage. Fiona Cottrell is understood not to have commented on the claims.
What it means for Reform
An important thing to note is that the legal onus rests almost entirely on the donor. The party in receipt of the donation simply needs to show that it has conducted a permissibility check on them.
In the case of Reform, some of its biggest donors (like Tice) are effectively woven into the party apparatus. This makes it much harder for the party to be seen to be one step removed from the money.
The question of the £5 million from Harborne remains one for the commissioner. That work is now paused pending the outcome of the byelection. But if Farage wins in Clacton, the commissioner will be making a judgment on three main things: the motive of the giver, what the gift was used for, and whether Farage had any doubt as to whether the money should have been registered.
Of these three, much less attention has been paid to the judgment on Farage’s doubts about the need to register it. But the MPs’ code of conduct is clear: “if there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
This may yet become one of the hinge points. While it is hard to prove whether someone had doubt about something, Farage’s own statements suggest he did. Talking to the Triggernometry podcast, Farage said he had asked a “top international lawyer”, who advised him not to declare it. This could be seen to indicate at least some doubt.
Another question is why Farage asked a lawyer in the first place. There are parliamentary authorities whose job it is to know whether something is declarable.
These stories remain dangerous for Reform. Headlines about a Bitcoin tycoon giving £5 million to Reform while its policy looks kindly on cryptocurrency cut through with the public. Just before the Makerfield byelection, polling showed that when voters saw messaging about the £5 million and this was linked to Reform’s policies on cryptocurrency its vote share dipped by 4%.
Farage might think that failures to fill in bits of paper are trivial. But he must get this right because his personal ratings do him no favours. In the latest YouGov polling he nets out with 65% of people having an unfavourable opinion of him, compared to 25% having a favourable opinion.
Politicians are rarely popular, but this -40 for Farage compares badly with Andy Burnham’s -4 (and is quite close to Keir Starmer’s -45). For the new prime minister, this will almost certainly come down, but Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch is also ahead of Farage on -15.
So, while Farage might win over the voters of Clacton, this is not a good measure of the country. To address the Burnham bounce, Farage needs to meet British voters where they are when it comes to standards in public life. Even if that means filling out pieces of paper now and again.
Sam Power receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. On 1 August 2026, he will start his term as an Independent Member of the Ethics and Integrity Commission
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/31/why-the-questions-about-reform-uk-and-its-wealthy-donors-wont-go-away/