The first law of holes
states that when you’re in one, you should stop digging. Like most laws, rules,
regulations and probably gravity itself, it’s one that Farage seems to think
somehow doesn’t apply to him. The more answers he gives about that dodgy
donation of £5 million, the more difficult questions arise. He claims that he
didn’t use any part of the £5 million to buy the £1.4 million house that he
bought in 2024, and that he actually purchased that out
of his £1.5 million fee for appearing on I’m a Celebrity. It didn’t
take a lot of financial forensics for journalists to demonstrate that that wasn’t
exactly true – that money remained in the account into which it was paid.
I
almost hesitate to say this, but that might be a little unfair. Someone who
suddenly finds himself £1.5 million richer can afford to spend £1.5 million
more than he would otherwise have been able to spend: it doesn’t have to be the
exact same pounds and pennies or come from the same account. That concept is one
with which most of us will probably be familiar, albeit on a much smaller
scale. A windfall of £50 might do nicely for a meal out, we might think, even
if that £50 is initially used to pay a bill and the meal out comes a month or
so later.
The
problem for Farage in using that explanation is that what is true for £1.5
million is also true for £5 million, and adds to the need for him to explain that
other little windfall. Whether it was for his security (as he originally
claimed) or a reward for campaigning for Brexit, as he is now claiming, matters little (apparently,
being paid handsomely for delivering a result which might benefit a donor only
counts as proper corruption if the quid pro quo was spelled out in advance – a rather
curious, not to say large, loophole). The bottom line is that a politician paid
£5 million by someone (who just might benefit by rather more than that if said
politician reaches a position of power) gives that politician an extra £5
million of spending power. Whether Farage did or did not spend it on security
(and the change of rationale rather suggests that he cannot demonstrate that he
did) is irrelevant to that basic fact – he had an extra £5 million to spend,
unconditionally according to him, on whatever he wanted. And, on the basis of
his latest attempt to ‘explain’ the basis of the gift, it was directly related
to his political activity over a lengthy period. I find it hard to believe that
even the UK could really dream up a set of rules which means that rewarding a
politician for taking a particular political position is somehow a non-declarable
gift, but I guess the investigation
will tell us the answer to that.
In the meantime, if
he didn’t own the company, surely someone would be trying to relieve him of his
spade.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment