“Whatever you put your attention on becomes energised. Whatever you take your attention away from dwindles” – Deepak Chopra
Does Reform UK ever stop whinging and lying? Today we have Robert Jenrick doing the media round. The message is the same but strangely the “facts” have now changed.
Yesterday Zia Yusuf of Reform UK stated the state was “providing no protection whatsoever” (Independent: 13/07/26) for Nigel Farage.
It has since been reported that Nigel Farage had turned down state protection as he thought it “inadequate”. The security package he was offered was the same as that given to Kemi Badenoch and high-profile Cabinet ministers. Like Trump (his self-declared best friend) he is so full of his own self-importance he thought he deserved better, so he refused the offer.
He has a perfect right to decline or accept the states security package but to have his people then claim he had been “provided no protection whatsoever” is playing foot loose with the truth. Technically no security was provided, but only because he had rejected it when offered.
This sort of tactic, - half-truths and lies – is straight out of the Trump playbook and Robert Jenrick has continued where Yusuf left off. Speaking on the BBC Today programme he argued that Nigel Farage’s security arrangement had been downgraded, that the government had shown a “dereliction of duty” and that Farage’s security was only being taken seriously because of Ann Widdecombe’s murder.
Jenrick repeatedly said ministers “chose” not to give Farage the security he needed. Putting to one side the fact Farage was offered security but declined it, this statement by Jenrick is incorrect on other counts. RAVEC, an independent committee of MI5, police and Home Office officials, set security levels for MP’s. Ministers cannot order close protection, remove it, or “downgrade” it. Jenrick suggested the Home Secretary could of arranged a RAVEC meeting “a year ago” if she had so wanted. Untrue: Ministers can only request a review, not dictate timing.
Jenrick was later forced to admit that Farage had turned down the standard security package of a close protection officer, and a secure car with a trained driver. A package cannot be “downgraded” if the MP refuses it and the experienced parliamentarian Jenrick knows this.
Jenrick suggested that Farage was only having his security reassessed because of the murder of Ann Widdecombe. Again this is factually incorrect. Security reviews are triggered by threat intelligence, not by political events. RAVEC assessments are ongoing and independent of politicians, not reactive to a single event.
Jenrick also claimed that Reform UK MP’s face higher threats than other MP’s because they “raise issues others shy away from”. This is utter nonsense, and there is no evidence to suggest that Reform MP’s face any greater threats than others.
In summery, Jenrick deliberately over-stated ministerial power regarding security decisions. He lied about a “downgrade” that did not happen. Seeking to use Widdecombe’s death to Reform's political advantage , he linked security actions to her murder without evidence. Again, he asserted higher levels of threat to Reform MP’s without any backup data. Finally, he deliberately misrepresented how and when RAVEC meeting can be arranged.
Like all Reform UK spokesmen and women Jenrick talked over the interviewer during the programme, pressing home his misleading claims despite their inaccuracy being pointed out. This is the age-old tactic of shouting lies loud enough in the knowledge some of them will stick.
The disputes over Farage’s “security concerns have another purpose: they have the potential to divert attention away from the Clacton by-election, which itself was an attempt to deflect attention away from Farage’s undeclared £5 million donation from abroad. It shifts media focus, reframes political narratives, and introduces a procedural controversy that may overshadow the investigation into Farage's financial affairs.
