Braverman resorted to incorrectly claiming that Sophy Ridge had suggested Farage shouldn’t have security
Reform’s Suella Braverman was accused of “deliberately misinterpreting” a journalist’s questions about an undeclared £5 million donation that Nigel Farage received before becoming an MP.
On Wednesday, the Guardian revealed that Farage received a £5 million donation from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne in 2024, which he did not declare when he became an MP.
Farage said the donation was to pay for his own security team.
Parliamentary rules clearly state that within one month of being elected, new MPs must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election.
Despite this, Braverman told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge that the money Farage accepted from Thailand-based Harborne was “a personal gift for his private purposes”, and that he had received the money before he was an MP or a candidate.
The Guardian investigation noted that had initially ruled out standing in the 2024 general election. Just weeks after receiving the donation, he changed his mind and decided to stand.
Ridge challenged her explanation, stating: “You say it was a personal donation for private reasons. How many times has one of your friends given you £5 million? I mean it’s not like shouting a few rounds at the pub, is it?”.
“Well the private purposes were very serious purposes, namely his security,” Braverman said, adding that “for several years preceding his election as an MP, Nigel Farage has carried a high personal risk”.
Braverman brought up the example of Farage having a milkshake thrown over him in 2019. Farage had security guards with him at the time.
Ridge said she fully recognised the personal risk Farage is under and why he would need security.
“The issue here isn’t about whether it’s appropriate for Nigel Farage to have security, which I think many would agree with. The issue is he got £5 million from somebody, and did not declare it,” Ridge said.
Braverman responded claiming Ridge was “blurring the lines” and “missing the point”, and repeated that Farage needed security before he became an MP.
Ridge said she was “absolutely aware” that Farage needed security, but that he should have declared the donation.
Later on in the interview, Braverman said that “the attack being made” is “very distasteful”, and then asked Ridge: “Are you suggesting Nigel Farage should be going around without security? Are you suggesting he should be killed?”.
Ridge interrupted Braverman to set her straight, stating: “I have to come in there again, I’m really sorry, because you are deliberately misinterpreting what I’ve said. I’ve said throughout the interview that I absolutely understand the reason Nigel Farage needs security, and I agree with him.”
“I’m talking about declaring a financial benefit,” Ridge said.
Braverman said she had made her point multiple times about Farage needing security and that Ridge didn’t “seem to be following it”, despite the journalist having acknowledged this repeatedly.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.