Court case alleging Reform’s Mayor of Lincoln was ineligible to stand dropped – but she still doesn’t live in Lincolnshire

Unfortunately Lincolnshire looks like it’s stuck with Mayor Andrea Jenkyns for now.

She was in the process of being taken to court on the basis that she should never have been allowed to run for mayor in the first place. That’s because you can’t just stand for mayor for any random bit of the country that takes your fancy. You need to fulfil some criteria that makes you are connected to the place in question. Typically this would mean you live there, although there are also alternatives.

Per the BBC:

Guidance by the Electoral Commission, external states that in order to be allowed to stand, candidates need to live or work in the area, own or rent land or property there, or be on the electoral roll.

Now, not even Mayor Jenkyns herself seems to be arguing that she does actually live in Lincolnshire at present. Apparently she still lives in Yorkshire – and nor did she have a work connection to the area at the time.

How did she do it then? However, just a month or so before the election she did manage get her name added to the electoral roll at a Lincolnshire address.

Dame Andrea was added to the North Kesteven electoral roll at an address in Bassingham, near Lincoln, this month. Inclusion on the roll is based on where someone lives and can include second homes.

It seems that in order to get around the “you should live in the area that you are running for mayor in” she used her privilege to rent a second home (or perhaps room in a house?) which let her get onto the electoral register.

It’s a tip that could have come straight out of the handbook of her boss, Nigel Farage, who once pretended to have bought a house in the area that he is supposed to be representing as MP.

Another candidate in the area, Councillor Overton, was still appealing Andrea Jenkyns’ eligibility to the local High Court – but recently dropped the appeal on the basis of there being more important issues to focus on.

Nonetheless, Overton continues to believe in the justice of her claim saying:

The principle of our elected representatives being committed to our local area is vital. That is why it is set in law that candidates live or work in the area they hope to represent. Just renting a room does not suffice.

Local candidacy is important for democracy. If we have candidates parachuted in for political expediency, to whom will they be listening, their political boss or local residents?

So the mayor survives to continue sacking non-existent staff, denying basic climate reality on behalf of her party’s wealthy fossil fuel paymasters, damaging the local economy and jobs market and potentially increasing the risk of flooding in an already extremely flood prone area for another day.

Recent Reform MP James McMurdock resigns from the party after being referred to the fraud authority

Recent Reform MP James McMurdock seemingly hasn’t managed to clear up those pesky accusations of conducting illegal business activity previously levied against him.

Despite his protestations as to his innocence – “all my business dealings had always been conducted fully within the law and in compliance with all regulations” – his apparent abuse of prior governmental largesse during the Covid pandemic turns out to have been serious enough to need referring to the Public Sector Fraud Authority by the Covid corruption commissioner.

He has stood down from Reform for now – but somehow is permitted to keep doing his job as a member of parliament.

Farage’s future cabinet to feature the exact sort of unelected bureaucrats that he railed against in the past

Part of Farage’s tired old populist schtick is the constant rant about unelected bureaucrats running roughshod over our lives. Most often this has been done in the context of the European politics, where such a sentiment would be, at best, of dubious accuracy.

Nonetheless, never one to let facts get in the way of winding people up into any frenzy that plays to his advantage, one of his arguments for why the immense failure that is Brexit would actually have been good was exactly that.

Leaving would mean that we would be taking back control. That those we elect as MPs would be the ones who make and decide our laws, rather than a bunch of unelected old men in Brussels who most people cannot name and who we cannot vote for or remove.

He had particularly strong words to say against European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker at one point:

So an unelected, retiring bureaucrat says: No extension, take this new treaty or just leave. He is overriding the Benn Act. The EU shows itself to be a thuggocracy – power without accountability

Of course now that he feels like he’s close to the ability to appoint people to the very powerful British cabinet positions that are traditionally held by directly elected MPs, the eternal hypocrite has changed his mind.

“Power without accountability” moves from being a bogeyman to being an aspiration.

He recently told an LBC interviewer that:

…we’re stuck in this mindset that the cabinet must all be politicians in the House of Commons. Why? It’s nonsense.

Instead, unsurprisingly as sycophantic to the current US administration as ever, he thinks we should look towards America for guidance, where he regards the entirely unelected Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as doing a good job.

Naturally he came out with the tired and inaccurate old trope that:

I really do think that you’ve got to think a little bit more about running the public finances as if you’re running a business.

Quite literally it would seem. The Independent reports Farage as having told the FT that the biggest jobs in a Farage government would be going to “top business leaders”.

Per their bulletin:

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is attempting to attract business leaders by promising them ministerial positions if the party wins the next general election.

Corruption concerns aside, it’s hard to imagine that these wouldn’t include some perfect examples of the “unelected old men who most people cannot name and we cannot vote for or remove” that he apparently recoiled from in the past.

As Luke Robert Black commented via Twitter:

A man who spent years campaigning against the democratic deficit of the EU and the Commission, now advocating for exactly the very same system of unaccountable leaders and bureaucrats – who you can’t remove at the ballot box

Does this man believe in anything?

Dave Lawrence adds:

The desperately politically inept just trying to follow the orange blob from the US – we elect our MPs and our Cabinet for the very purpose that they are then accountable to the people

Some fantasy US dream run by money men and dubious think tanks is not how we do business

And even our mild-mannered Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, raised an objection to the idea, calling Farage a “wolf in Wall Street clothing” who “has no idea what he’s talking about”.

Yet another Reform councillor makes the ludicrous claim that climate change is a deliberate hoax

Uh oh, yet another Reform official reveals themself to be an ignorant climate change denier.

This time it’s Bert Bingham, the cabinet member for transport and environment at Nottinghamshire County Council. Yes, he’s responsible for the environment. He also denies the science on it. The science almost every scientific expert holds as true.

At a public meeting, Bingham claimed that:

I’ve never seen such nonsense as the anthropogenic global warming hoax…

In his paranoid worldview it is of course a deliberate manipulation:

The statistics are manipulated. I’ve followed it over decades, there’s lots of science out there…

The environment isn’t the only subject that he feels like the experts are cunningly manipulating the evidence for. He didn’t elaborate, but it sounds like his opinions on Covid might potentially be somewhat less than evidence based.

Bingham on climate science:

…at the moment it seems to be as in a lot of matters with Covid, if you follow the money, you find the science or the pseudoscience.”

Follow the money, sure. The trail will lead you to the fact that between 2019 and 2024, 92% of donations to Reform came from wealthy “oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers”.

Hope Not Hate’s grade card for Nigel Farage’s first year: Failed everything except pleasing his rich donors.

Hope Not Hate has produced a grade card for the first year of Nigel Farage’s career as an MP.

It doesn’t make for pretty reading. Unless you’re one of his millionaire donors of course.

The full article is well worth a read. But in summary:

Turning up to speak in Parliament: F

Despite his love of appearances in the media, he doesn’t bother to turn up to say much when it comes doing to his actual job. He’s spoken less than any other leader of a political party in Parliament.

Farage has spoken just 45 times. That compares, for instance, to 226 for Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, 97 for Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, and 152 and 86 respectively for Green Party co-leaders Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay.

Turning up to vote in parliament: E

Speaking aside, he can’t even be bothered to pop in to do another integral part of his job – participating in Parliamentary votes.

He has mustered the energy to vote in parliament on 91 occasions. That’s fewer than Ed Davey (111), Carla Denyer (205), Adrian Ramsay (178) – even Kemi Badenoch (92) managed to best him by one vote.

He’s even skipped some of the votes on subjects he pretends to care about, such as on the winter fuel allowance or the smoking ban.

What is he doing instead? A brief summary includes:

  • Repeatedly jetting off to America in effort to hang out with Donald Trump and his supporters.
  • Going to Europe on holiday whilst Parliament is sitting – and in fact debating the UK-EU summit he’d previously claim to have extremely strong opinions on – rather than waiting just a few days for the Parliamentary recess.
  • Working in one of his many other jobs, which, after all, bring him in a lot more income than being an MP would.

Teamwork: F

He struggles to get on with his colleagues.

Since his election, deputy leader Ben Habib quit, citing “fundamental differences” with Farage.

Reform MP Rupert Lowe was suspended over bullying allegations a couple of days after he called Reform “a protest party led by the Messiah”.

Reform chair Zia Yusuf quit (for a bit) saying the job wasn’t “a good use of my time”. His replacement, David Bull, previously suggested Farage was an idiot, dangerous and prejudiced.

Constituency work: F

He’s also too lazy and/or not good at another absolutely critical part of the job of an MP – working on behalf of his constituents.

He announced that, unlike basically every other MP, he wasn’t going hold face-to-face surgeries with the people he’s supposed to represent, claiming that the House of Commons Speaker’s Office told him not to for security reasons. Which turned out to be a lie.

Transparently declaring his interests: F

The rules require MPs to register:

…any financial interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament

in the House of Commons Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Farage has omitted at least a couple of entries that he really should have declared.

  • His ownership of a commercial fishing boat.
  • At least two “investment properties” has owns, neither of course being in this constituency.

Adopting positions his donors will like: A

Finally he gets a good grade! Yes, Farage might not be fulfilling his obligations to represent his everyday constituents in the slightest – but he’s doing very well at representing the interests of his extraordinarily rich millionaire and billionaire pals – especially if they see fit to funnel money in the direction of him and his party.

Perhaps most notably this came in the form of the Britannia Card proposal, which, as we previously saw, will allow foreign millionaires to live in Britain without paying a significant chunk of the taxation they would under current rules; robbing the public purse to ensure the rich get richer.

It’s not mentioned in the Hope Not Hate article – but we’ve also previously seen how his tax policy proposals for those of us born in Britain is also extremely regressive, handing out a far greater value of tax cuts to the people who are already very wealthy than to the people who may actually need some help.

Reform’s astonishing conclusion after months of embarrassments and scandals is that they are too diligent at vetting their candidates

Recently we’ve seen:

  • Over 10 local Reform councillors have to resign or be suspended after less than a couple of months into their job for various reasons.
  • Councillor Daniel Taylor being charged with several crimes, including threatening to kill his wife.
  • Councillor Amanda Clare arrested for assault and criminal damage.
  • MP James McMurdock suspended under suspicion of undergoing illegal business activity, having already been exposed for underplaying the level of violence he criminally perpetuated on a former girlfriend.
  • MP Sarah Pochin accused of lying.
  • Various councillors skipping or cancelling important meetings.
  • Various instances of breaking electoral laws
  • And of course much, much more.

Something about all these events has made the Reform UK party worry they’re pre-vetting its candidates too stringently; that the calibre of folk they let in is just too high.

That they’re all too good at what they do, too professional, too effective.

That they desperately need people with lower standards.

Absolutely remarkable.

Per The Guardian:

Reform UK has told its members it is introducing a less stringent “common sense” vetting system for would-be candidates after complaints the previous checks were too strict, despite a recent series of controversies linked to the party.

It’s even more bizarre than it sounds. Reform is actively encouraging candidates who have previously been rejected based on whatever clearly less-than-stellar background checks the vetting process involved to apply again.

This new system would be seen as “a blank slate”, said the message to members, seen by the Guardian, adding: “If you have previously failed vetting, you are strongly encouraged to reapply under the new standards.”

Reform’s opponents of course give this the ridicule it deserves.

From Labour:

Nigel Farage has consistently bragged about how brilliant he thinks his party’s vetting is.

Yet reams of Reform councillors and MPs have faced disturbing allegations. The Reform rap sheet reads jail time for assaulting a woman, alleged financial misconduct, and flirting with the far right.

It’s disturbing that Farage is seemingly looking to further water down Reform’s standards. The public rightly expects the highest standards in public office. It appears Reform just aren’t up to the job.

And the Lib Dems:

They have clear issues with candidate vetting at all levels, so the idea that their standards could be watered down further is shocking and very concerning. Inviting failed candidates to try again under lax rules suggests that they are either struggling to recruit candidates, or something more sinister.”

MP James McMurdock suspended from Reform whilst facing accusations of illegal business activity

Yesterday we saw a Reform councillor being accused of a crime. This time it’s one of Reform’s five Members of Parliament who is facing accusations of criminal activity.

James McMurdock, MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock, has “suspended himself” from his party due to an investigation by the Sunday Times ending up in accusations of illegal business activity.

Most of the allegations relate to the Bounce Back loans that the government was previously offering at favourable rates to support businesses who were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic – if your business met the necessary criteria to qualify.

McMurdock took advantage of the scheme, borrowing tens of thousands of pounds for companies that seem to barely have even existed, let alone met the criteria for receiving such a loan.

He borrowed funds through two companies he owned. One was JAM Financial Limited, which had no employees and negligible assets until the pandemic. In 2020 it took out a loan of £50,000, the maximum sum available under the loans scheme available for medium-sized businesses during the pandemic. For a firm to have received such a loan, it would have needed to report turnover of at least £200,000.

The other was Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited, which was dormant until January 31, 2020. Over the following year it borrowed £20,000, which would have required a turnover of £80,000 under the Bounce Back scheme.

So, had his companies reported the necessary turnover that would have made them eligible for these loans? No.

In fact:

Neither company filed accounts or annual corporate filings after the loans — a violation of the Companies Act.

A company that violates the act in that way would normally be forced to shut down.

As a result of the failure to submit the information required, both companies were due to be struck off the register, meaning they would have ceased to exist and any remaining assets would have been seized by the Crown.

But for whatever reason, following an objection from a third party, this apparently hasn’t yet happened.

Neither company had any employees or much in the way of assets at all pre-Covid according to the Guardian.

McMurdock himself doesn’t seem keen to fill in the blatant gaps, nor acknowledge the hypocrisy in taking possibly illegal advantage of this sort of scheme whilst being in a party that constantly bangs on about government over-spending and waste.

When asked by the Sunday Times:

He repeatedly refused to say why he took out the loans but the disclosures will be awkward for Reform which has prioritised slashing the size of the state and reducing waste in government.

Will DOGE be paying him a visit I wonder?

McMurdock also broke the parliamentary rules a in totally separate way: by concealing his personal interests in these ventures.

…McMurdock appears to have breached parliamentary rules by failing to list his directorship of Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited on his register of interests.

Parliamentary rules state MPs must register “significant, formal unpaid roles such as an unpaid directorship, a directorship of a company not currently trading, or a trusteeship”.

Regular readers might recall McMurdock featuring here before, being accused of trying to mislead the public about the severity of his violence that led to his prior criminal conviction for assaulting his girlfriend.

Suspended Reform councillor Daniel Taylor is charged with threatening to kill his wife

We now know why Reform councillor Daniel Taylor was one of the many Reform councillors that lasted no more than a few weeks in their job before having to be removed or suspended from the party for one reason or another.

He turned up in court yesterday, being charged with several crimes. including one of threatening to kill his wife.

These included making threats to kill his wife on June 1, and a separate charge of sending an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message to her on the same day.

It was also alleged between January 1, 2014, and June 1, 2025, he repeatedly or continuously engaged in behaviour which was controlling or coercive.

He’s pleading not guilty to it all – having previously described himself as a “devoted family man”.

Reform councillor bans transgender related books from being featured in the section of the library that they would never have been featured in

Fresh off the back of sacking non-existent DEI staff and banning non-existent low traffic neighbourhoods, Reform is back again banning things that don’t exist in the first place.

This time it’s books.

Reform councillor Paul Webb shared on X that he’d been:

…. recently contacted by a concerned member of the public who found trans-ideological material and books in the children’s section of one of our libraries.

He apparently went on to fact-check it. And found that yes, it was true. He didn’t like it – so used the power of his position to get the book removed.

I’ve looked into this and this was the case. I’ve today issued instructions for them all to be removed from the children’s section of any of our libraries.

Why would it have been so dangerous to leave it in place? Well, by his telling, you’d think it was a book full of hatred and brainwashing.

They do not belong in the children’s section of our libraries. Our children do not need to be told they were born in the wrong body. So from today this will stop.

So what was the book in question? Luckily the Reform leader of Kent Council, Linden Kemkaran, shared the offending photographic proof in a cringe tweet claiming “🔥Another victory for 🔥”.

So we know:

"The Autistic Trans Guide to Life" on a bookshelf

It was “The Autistic Trans Guide to Life“

The book describes itself as an:

…essential survival guide gives autistic trans and/or non-binary adults all the tools and strategies they need to live as their very best self.

Firstly, that sounds rather more like book that provides important life advice to folk who already know themselves to be both trans and autistic – promoting “pride, strength and authenticity” – rather than somehow trying to brainwash non-trans folk into believing that they were born in the wrong body.

Also, “gives autistic trans and/or non-binary adults“. Adults. The book is aimed at adults.

Kent libraries know this. Ed Jennings from Kent Current actually did some research and found that every copy of that book was listed in the library catalogue as being in an adult non-fiction section.

Library listings for "The Autistic Trans Guide to Life"

So why was displayed it in the children’s section of the library in the first place?

The inevitable answer of course is that the book was almost certainly never in the children’s section of any of Kent’s libraries in the first place. That claim was a lie.

Per The Guardian:

Paul Webb said he ensured books and material were pulled from children’s section of Kent libraries, but it emerges they were never there.

…

Kent council said it could confirm that no books aimed at adults about transgender issues had been held in the children’s sections of Kent libraries.

Jennings continued his valiant research efforts by watching virtual tours of Kent’s libraries online and found that the photo that Kemkaran shared was in fact not of the children’s section of their library, but rather a a themed Pride Month display.

Which is actually reinforced by Kemkaran’s more zoomed-out photo of the supposedly offending article:

The Pride themed display shelf of a library

Per Jennings:

So it is unclear precisely what Cllr Webb and his ‘instruction’ is supposed to have achieved. If he wants to claim a quick win by banning a book from a section it wasn’t in in the first place, that’s presumably up to him. But it is depressing that the leadership of a county council can make claims like this, even if there is no reality in them, which suggests an element of just trying to rile up the base rather than achieve anything meaningful.

I have no idea of a member of the public wrote to Paul Webb or not, but someone somewhere seems to have been lying – once again showing Reform councillors to be either incompetent, deceitful, or both.