Paying for elections, Reform UK illegal confession in High Court

Fromt the day the Clacton-on-Sea by-election was announced on 7 July 2026, the British public were given a series of promises about Reform UK intending to pay for the election.

When looking at the comments:

• It wasn't just a single, off-the-cuff comment on social media
• The comments were repeated by all the key leadership figures in the party/cult
• The comments were repeated throughout the whole campaign, right up to voting day
• Now, even in a legal procedure, they admit offering money to the Acting Returning Officer
• Through their enthusiasm, which we can see in the videos, we can see they are incredibly sincere about this offer of money.
• The offer was made publicly, through every media channel willing to speak to them, knowing they would reach as many people as possible and the offer were be recorded online, like a signature on paper.
• There is a big burst of publicity about this offer in the week when Nigel announced the by-election. This offer was made well before the close of nominations, which only occurred on 17 July 2026.

Related points:

• Representation of the People Act 1983, s29(1) "No consideration shall be given by or to a returning officer for the making out, receipt, delivery or return of the writ for a parliamentary election or, subject to the following provisions of this section, otherwise in connection with its execution.". In other words, Nigel Farage's admission that he offered to give money to the CEO of Tendring District Council appears to be a conspiracy to violate Representation of the People Act 1983, s29(1).
• Under British penal law, it is not necessary for an offender to follow through on the conspiracy for it to be a crime. The intent alone constitutes the crime of conspiracy.
• When watching the entire cast of the Nigel Farage freak show all taking their turn to make promises about violating s29(1), we need to ask if their collusion in this matter and their apparent desparation to follow through on this hairbrained scheme violates the more serious crime of conspiracy.
• After the election, Mr Pocock sent a Freedom of Information request to Tendring District Council asking for records of the proposation Mr Farage made to the CEO. So far, those records have never been given to Mr Pocock.
• Representation of the People Act 1983, Schedule 1, 17(1) "If the statement of persons nominated shows more than one person standing nominated, a poll shall be taken in accordance with Part III of these rules.". In other words, if no other candidates nominate, there is no election. Therefore, the payment of the £500 election deposit by at least one rival candidate is an unavoidable expense for the promised election to take place. On these grounds, Reform UK has promised there would be an election, all the big parties refused to participate in an election and therefore, Reform UK actually needed to have some Nobodies or there would not have been an election at all.

The point about the criminal code on conspiracy should not be underestimated. If Mr Farage was the only person who mused about such payments then it would not be a conspiracy because conspiracy is a multi-person crime. The fact the Reform UK leadership team are all singing from the same hymn book demonstrates multiple people are telling us they are unified with the intention to make some kind of payment contrary to RPA 1983 s29(1).

We need to drill down on this. There is a lawsuit in progress already but we are prohibited from talking about it.

On 7 July 2026, Nigel Farage used his social control media account to post the following message:

https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/2074499712376303784

 

Nigel Farage:

I have spoken to the CEO of Tendring District Council. Reform has offered to cover the cost of the by-election.

I will be writing to Rachel Reeves later today with the same message.

Given that we asked for this by-election in the first place, it's only right that we pay for it.

Nigel never gave us a record of his discussion with the CEO of Tendring District Council. He never published the letter sent to Rachel Reeves, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time Nigel made this offer to pay.

Count Binface had the impression payments to other candidates were in scope and he replied:

Count Binface:

Nige, if you want to cover my travel costs from Sigma IX, you can pop five million quid here: ko-fi.com/countbinface

Reform UK has never disputed the requests from Count Binface and I.

On 7 July 2026, Suella Braverman, who served twice as Home Secretary, sacked both times, repeated the promise in a GB News interview:

https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/2074537503717986310

Compare the GB News journalism to the other interviews. Notice how GB News doesn't appear to question the promise at all, they simply allow these far right politicians to deliver their monologues and immediately post them on social control media.

I think its been made clear now from Reform that the costs of running a by-election would be borne by the party itself. I think that again reflects the integrity with which this is being done. This is not about wasting taxpayer's money. It does take money, it does cost money to run these by-elections, the local authorities, the polling stations, the tellers, there's a lot of manpower that goes into making these things run smoothly. It does cost money and Reform has said "right, this is not about wasting taxpayer's money, we'll pay for it"

On 7 July 2026, the party's deputy leader Richard Tice was on Sky News, the Cathy Newman Show, where he repeated the promise to pay for the by-election:

01:25 Richard Tice

and by the way, we've offered to meet the cost of it.

All of a sudden, they're whinging about the cost of it and then all of a sudden, 'we say to people oh you can't do that, no no

Host: do you think it is democratic to pay for a by-election that you're taking part in

Tice: They complain if it's costing money so we say don't worry about that, we'll cover that and then they complain again. I mean, these are like, these are like squabbling children in a playground, it's like unbelievable and the hypocrasy of these people, triggering an un-necessary by-election, the name's Burnham, Andy Burnham, Makerfield, does that ring a bell?

Host: well you criticise that and now you're saying ...

Tice: you can't have it both ways

Host: well you're having it both ways

Tice: we are, we're consistent with it. We said, if you want a by-election in Makerfield, have a by-election. We stood for it and we lost, fine but the point is here that they're basically being sussed and they don't like it. That's the reality of what's going on here and its the good people of Clacton who should have the democratic decision. These people don't seem to like democracy.

Later on 7 July 2026, at 5pm, LBC publishes a video of their interview with Laila Cunningham

https://www.lbc.co.uk/videos/2JsSevw69PT/

Laila Cunningham is qualified as a lawyer. Therefore, within the organisation Reform UK, we would expect her to be a role model of compliance with the law. She is the party's candidate for Mayor of London. As a lawyer and as a candidate for such a significant role, we would expect her to be more familiar with electoral law than her non-lawyer colleagues.

Laila Cunningham, being a lawyer, is also an employee of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Therefore, having experience with criminal law, we would expect her to be conscious of the finer points of the law on topics like bribery and conspiracy. One point to keep in mind is that under British criminal law, a conspiracy doesn't have to be carried out to be a crime. Simply planning a conspiracy is a crime in the UK.

Host: why is this necessary, this by-election

Laila: well because listen voters can weigh all the information available to them and make their own judgment thats he's taking the question back to the voters instead of leaving it to Westminster and that's what democratic accountability looks like

Host: and the question is what?

Laila: the question is: do you trust Nigel to be your MP and as a result do you trust Nigel to be your ... Prime Minister. He's putting his record before the electorate he's not hiding from scrutiny he's letting the voters decide (interrupted) in a democracy its the voters ... decide

Host: but they answered that question the last time he stood before the ... election and they voted him in. So why do we need another go around on that question?

Laila: well but because you see there's a pile on, there's an Establishment pile on, Nigel is clear and I believe Nigel and I think the people will believe Nigel he he has done absolutely nothing wrong but there's been a pile-on from the press, from the Establishment that somehow he has done something wrong and its ruining his reputation and frankly its up to the people of Clacton if they want to re-elect him as MP.

Host: if he's done something, if he's not done anything wrong why does he feel that a question needs re-answering people in Clacton why can he not let this process that is (Laila interrupting) undertaken at the moment by the Standards Commissioner why answer the questions that he says he's got nothing to answer for.

Laila: well I mean the parliamentary standards investigation is gonna keep going it will follow its own process. This by-election is a separate democratic decision for the people of Clacton. The voters can weigh all the information available to them and make their own judgment.

Host: when will the writ be moved to have this by-election begin?

Laila: we'd like it moved ASAP. We've put it in today. I believe its up to the Chancellor to approve it and we're hoping as soon as possible. We're ready.

Host: so L. Anderson your chief whip has already moved the writ which begins the process by which a date is set for this by-election. I ask that because of course the standards commissioner is doing its investigation anyway and there is the potential here that we have a ridiculous set of circumstances Nigel Farage himself triggers a by-election, the standards commission reports back, the result in that by-election is declared one way or the other and another by-election happens because a recall petition goes from the standards commission we do it all again ?

Laila: well I mean it depends the standards commissioner will be investigating something separate and that is a separate election and this campaign is about putting the decision back where it belongs. Right now you have the Establishment and the press who are trying to effectively reverse a democratic vote. They are trying to stop Reform in its tracks and this campaign is about...

Host: Why do you think they are trying to reverse a democratic vote?

Laila: well they're trying to sully Nigel's reputation. He has done absolutely nothing wrong but if you read all the press you'd feel he has. Umm

Host: he's

Laila: they're even saying "how dare he own five homes" as if its a crime for an MP to be successful and own homes we think that in a democracy voters are the final court of appeal. Its as simple as that.

Host: I think the question they're asking is where the money came from to buy those five homes are they?

Laila: no they're not they're asking why Nigel didn't declare sleeping at a friend's house. I mean its its ...

Host: why has the money that he received when he was politically active as the chairman of Reform but not elected, why was that not declared? That's the question need an answer

Laila: well because he wasn't an MP and because he didn't need to declare it

Host: but he was politically active at the time?

Laila: well I mean being being the chairman of a political party is like an honorary role. He was not politically active.

Host: as the chairman of a political party?

Laila: yeah he was a social I mean he was a social media influencer and he was a GB News presenter ....

Host: while also the leader the chief executive of a political party

Laila: but he was not politically active you know you can have there are loads of people that are staffed at Reform. I wouldn't call them all politically active.

Host: even though they work for a political party?

Laila: yeah because ...

Host: you're not an MP, you're not elected, you're working as a candidate, you're politically active, would you agree?

Laila: of course I am because I'm actually standing as a candidate

Host: so you would declare any money that went to you, you would declare that money in advance of potentially being elected?

Laila: if it was in my role of being mayoral candidate yes of course I would. (host: interruption) Hang on we have people working here in the back office who work for a political party but there is no way anyone would deem them to be politically active you know. They're doing accounts, its just there's a separation ...

Host: they're not knocking on doors, they're not handing out leaflets they're not giving speeches

Laila: they're not putting their name out there and asking people to vote for them ...

Host: but Nigel Farage as leader of that organisation before he was an MP was doing that. He was asking all of those things. He was saying "vote Reform"

Laila: no he was a social media influencer he was a GB News reporter ..

Host: he was not publicly agitating for people to vote for Reform whilst the chairman of that organisation?

Laila: (guilty pause) I haven't seen all his social media posts, I don't, Nigel's convinced and he's sought legal advice he has done nothing wrong.

Host: but you would agree if he had been advocating for Reform in that role he would be being politically active in the way in which you are absolutely right the person who's the accountant would not

Laila: I don't know I'm not sure I don't know that exact term politically active and it seems to be quite subjective depending on who you're talking to um but Nigel was not politically active he was a social media influencer and he was a GB News presenter

05:27: Host: how is this by-election going to be funded by Reform as the party has suggested?

Laila: (guilty pause) through our funds

Host: do you know how much it might cost?

Laila: I think, I think its somewhere around a quarter of a million

Host: and that, you are offering, Reform is offering to pay that money? Do we know if that's legal? I mean the Electoral Commission presumably would have a say on that

Laila: (speaking more like a defendant than a CPS lawyer now) I don't know if its legal. But, you know, I mean I'm sure the Electoral Commission will have on it but we are, you know, Nigel's willing to put his money where his mouth is and we'll pay for it

Host: um the issue of his security came up during his speech. We know he is, unfortunately, a victim of various forms of attack, he talked about an incident at a pub, we know the very well documented ones that've happened and that's aweful, however they happen,

Laila: aweful

Host: absolutely um irresponsible completely ludicrous shouldn't happen. Plenty of people in public life unfortunately are targetted in that way so as you . Priti Patel, for example, former Home Secretary, received numerous threats, attacks, accepted parliamentary protection and as a result um and as a result had to hand over her diary and her whereabouts in order to gain that protection. Why did Farage turn protection down? Parliamentary protection down? Or was it taken away?

Laila: I believe it was taken away.

Host: by parliament?

Laila: yes

Host: do we know why?

Laila: it was reduced by seventy percent right after Charlie Kirk was murdered

Host: do we know why it was reduced by seventy percent?

Laila: I don't know why. I'm not privy to that information.

Host: would it help to know why?

Laila: I mean it would help to know why. I mean Nigel we all know that Nigel's constantly attacked. I don't think people quite realise how aweful it is to constantly know that there are people out there that want you dead. Literally murdered. They'll post about it online. It must, its an aweful existence.

Host: do you think Nigel Farage, standing in an election in Clacton would beat um a representative of Andy Burnham's Labour Party?

Laila: one hundred percent. Of course he would, because the people of Clacton um have rejected a Labour government and they'll reject Andy Burnham's candidate. What's the difference between an Andy Burnham candidate or a Kier Starmer candidate?

Host: what would you say to Restore, to Rupert Lowe, who did some damage to Reform's vote share in the Makerfield by-election by taking votes off you. Um what would you say to him, is he gears up to put forward a plan for the by-election in Clacton

Laila: I think Rupert Lowe got about two thousand or three thousand votes. Pretty minor. Listen, we're not worried about any party, we're not worried about if Nigel's gonna win, it's just by how big is he gonna win.

On 8 July 2026, the party's deputy leader Richard Tice chipped in with complaints about the government refusing the money:

 

Richard Tice:

Unreal

They whinge at cost of by election
So we offer to pay
They still whinge

Proof: Britain is Broken

Mr Ethical:

Your fucked, admit it

On 8 July 2026, Zia Yusuf, one of the co-founders/owners of the new Reform UK structure has appeared on a Good Morning Britain interview. The host alleges the by-election itself is an abuse of process.

Host: absolute nonsense to say its the people versus the Establishment. This looks like he has called a totally expensive un-necessary by-election in order to avoid the investigation. Why not just let the investigation get underway. And if he's done nothing wrong, then he's able to say I've done nothing wrong. It make's zero sense what you're doing.

Yusuf: Oh, I disagree with that. So firstly just to address the point around cost Reform has publicly offered to pay for the full cost of the by-election.

Host: you can't buy an election. (Yusuf talking over her)

Host: You cannot buy...

Yusuf: Well you can, you can fund ... (host talking over Yusuf)

Yusuf: Well, we have look look I'm just addressing I'm just addressing that first point that you made ... which is that Reform's offered that ... publicly to cover the cost the cost of that election

Host: (talking at same time) you know for a fact that can't be accepted

Male host: Elections, Mr Yusuf, elections have to be paid by the taxpayer.

Yusuf: (talking at same time) to cover the cost of that election

Male host: We have never had a country in which individuals or political parties ... (Yusuf interrupting) ... pay for elections

Yusuf: let me be crystal clear.

Male host: (speaking at same time) that would be a ... for ...

Yusuf: What Reform's offer is is to pay an excess of tax voluntarily in order to cover that cost. We don't mean literally we're paying...

Male host: that doesn't happen in democracies like Britain's. It may happen in some parts of the world...

Yusuf: (interrupting) ...

Male host: ... where people pay for their own elections

Yusuf: we have what we have done just to address the point on cost and that's all I'm doing is that we have publicly made an offer to pay excess in order to (um) cover the cost.

Male host: which has to be turned down.

Under UK law, political parties don't actually pay tax on their donations, membership fees and fundraising events. They are also exempt from VAT registration. (HMRC VBNB60800 - Clubs and associations: political parties)

If it was about tax, why did Nigel Farage discuss it personally with the CEO of Tendring District Council? Zia Yusuf is the only member of the freak show who is talking about political parties paying a tax on by-elections.

Maybe Yusuf is talking about extending the carbon taxes to politicians who emit too much hot air.

On 8 July 2026, Nigel Farage appeared in a lengthier interview with Daniel Rees from the Clacton Gazette:

https://www.facebook.com/cf.gazette/videos/it-wont-cost-the-taxpayers-a-pennyso-who-exactly-is-covering-the-cost-of-the-cla/1034551629027152/

"It won't cost the taxpayers a penny."

So, who exactly is covering the cost of the Clacton by-election, after Nigel Farage officially quit as MP on Wednesday?

Speaking to the Clacton Gazette, the Reform UK leader has reassured residents 👇

Many people feel the local Clacton Gazette is a puppet for Farage. The reporting in the Gazette reads more like propaganda than journalism.

Farage: it's not expensive. It won't cost the taxpayers a penny because we volunteered as a party to cover the entire cost of the by-election.

Journalist: is that allowed?

Farage: they can't stop us. They can't stop us because you know it is Tendring District Council run the by-election. They then get reimbursed from central Government. I've been in touch. I've emailed the Chancellor to say we'll cover the cost of it. And if she refuses there are other ways we can

The Facebook discussion continues:

Katherine Lyon, quoting Kyle Green: this whole problem started with people getting to get round the laws by finding creative ways of moving money, or laundering as it’s sometimes known. Fancy thinking the solutions is more dodgy payments

The social media post refers to an article published 8 July: https://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/26262560.nigel-farage-gives-first-interview-clacton-resignation/:

The Gazette quotes Mr Farage:

When asked whether people will take the by-election seriously when Mr Farage’s only confirmed opponent is Count Binface, he said: “Well, I think that’s wrong – I think the Monster Raving Loonies will stand as well, and I’m told this morning that Laurence Fox the actor has announced he’s standing.

“There will be candidates.”

On 13 August 2026, Nigel Farage appears outside the polling station repeating the offer to pay for the by-election.

Farage: many more voters than we knew existed
and we met plenty of people against but they actually delighted that we've been round to see them and take part in proper democratic activity. The major criticism is the cost. We have offered to pay for the cost of this by-election in full and I hope the government accepts our offer.

In the witness statement signed by Tom Waterhouse, the rogue Reform UK party/company admits offering money directly to the CEO of Tendring District Council. In fact, the same person simultaneously holds the role of Acting Returning Officer. Therefore, this was an offer to the Acting Returning Officer. It is an extreme example of election fraud:

 

That is a signed confession:

 

Read more about the various judgments in the history of Reform UK Party Limited.