Dashboard/Nigel Farage/Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg interview at Reform's conference: tax and benefits, the undercover donations sting, investigations and his family
Interview · 6 Sep 2026

Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg interview at Reform's conference: tax and benefits, the undercover donations sting, investigations and his family

Nigel Farage, Leader of Reform UK and MP for Clacton

Video: YouTube: BBC Politics (official channel). Retrieved 9 Oct 2026.

30 BS INDEX 0 100
Some bluff & spinProvisional
190 sentences · 19 checked claims · 32 questions
Claim checkedClaim found, not checkedEmotional passage flagged as deflectingEmotional passage, fits the subject

The words of Nigel Farage. Transcript from the video's captions, fetched on 2026-10-09; not an official record. Captions do not say who is speaking: Polifiles assigned each turn by reading the captions, without checking the audio. BBC Politics' upload of the interview recorded at Reform UK's conference for Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg (about 15 minutes of captions), from the first question to his last answer; the reporter's opening package and the closing thanks are left out. The captions run the two voices together in places, so short fragments are assigned by meaning, not by the '>>' marks (for example "told" before "sending money to UK", "Yeah, that's right.", "in that way." and "I did." are given to Nigel Farage; "Dan Wootton" and "Never happened." are given to Laura Kuenssberg; an unclear "questions" stays inside her question about the £5 million gift). Caption errors such as "Dan Wootton" (the aide is Dan Jukes) and "Kier" are kept as published. Trimmed: starts at "Nigel Farage, thank you for speaking to us this weekend."; ends at "and you know, I'm ready for it.". Questions are shown in grey boxes. Tap a marked sentence to see the label and its sources. Other speakers' full contributions are in the video.

Laura Kuenssberg
Nigel Farage, thank you for speaking to us this weekend. Um, this weekend, you're promising workers who earn £15,000 or less won't pay income tax in future. But that's less generous than the reform of 2024, when the threshold was £20,000. So, why are you less generous now?

Well, I think you'll find the £20,000 uh was an aspiration written for a party that wasn't going to win a single seat in Parliament. And I inherited that, and it was a it was a direction of travel rather than a serious manifesto promise. But, but the idea of lifting thresholds, the idea of actually making work pay, is really important. And I've been banging it up for years and years and years. And there's a real division in Britain between those that work and those that don't.

And actually, a growing resentment for those who do get up at 5:30 in the morning, who feel little better off than the next door neighbor that doesn't.

AnsweredAsked why the £15,000 income tax threshold is less generous than the £20,000 of 2024. Says the £20,000 was an aspiration he inherited, a direction of travel rather than a firm promise.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
And in order to pay for that tax cut, though, are you ready to take benefits from perhaps millions of people, many of whom do work in order to make that tax cut?

Yeah, look, you know, the point is here that that we've extended the welfare system to people from all over the world. And frankly, with what's coming down the track with the Boris wave, I we we we we we literally can't afford it.

DodgedAsked whether he is ready to take benefits from perhaps millions of people, many in work, to pay for the tax cut. Turns to welfare for people from abroad and what is coming 'down the track', without saying whether British claimants would lose out.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
But in order to make those tax cuts on that kind of scale, you are promising savings in welfare of tens and tens of billions of pounds. That's going to affect UK citizens, too. You're not going to get those savings if you just take benefits away from people who've come here in the last few years. So, again, are you ready to take benefits from millions of Brits?

but I'm sorry to say this, but mild anxiety will not qualify as a condition under our government that Robert Jenrick is Chancellor.

Partly answeredAsked again whether he is ready to take benefits from millions of Britons. Says mild anxiety will not qualify as a condition, which implies some will lose benefits, without saying how many.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
And even if that's people who are Reform voters, people in your own constituency, people in other Reform constituencies, and many of the seats that you hope to win, who are on benefits and perhaps in work, like millions of people on benefits are, you're ready to take it away from them.

Let let's be clear. We're not taking all benefits away. You know, we are taking benefits away from foreign nationals, social housing away from foreign nationals, and benefits away from some Brits who we don't think, frankly, should qualify, and that we can't afford. I I and you know something, you know, if you spend your whole time in politics, in opposition or government, saying things to please this group of voters or that group of voters, you finish up being a follower and not a leader.

AnsweredTold this includes Reform voters and people in work, and he is ready to take it from them. Says not all benefits go, but some Britons who should not qualify will lose them, and a leader must accept that.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Now, a big part of this conference, as you know, has been the revelations about two of your senior staff who were involved in conversations over many months in lots of different locations about the possibility of donations to reform or paying for polling. Now, you sat down with your former chief of staff and a supposed American father and son. They spelled out how they were planning to funnel foreign money to your party. What did you think was going on

I asked a question. I asked a question. I asked a question. Is this all above board?

Partly answeredAsked what he thought was going on when the supposed donors set out a plan to route foreign money to the party. Says he asked whether it was all above board, without saying what he understood was happening.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Well, well, actually, I've got exactly what you said here. You said, "It's all above board."

Is it all above board?

AnsweredTold the record shows him saying 'It's all above board'. Disputes this, saying it was a question.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
William, then the man who was there, one of the undercover reporters, said, "It's all above board. I'll be the registered donor, but then dad will send the money to me. And as soon as that's done and all the conversations are had, the money is available." That was openly discussing an American firm

told

Ceremonial, not rated: Cut-off fragment: the reply is one word ('told') and continues under x08, where his answer to the point about an American firm is rated.

Laura Kuenssberg
sending money to UK to the UK.

I was told it was a global family trust.

AnsweredTold the conversation was openly about an American firm sending money to the UK. Says he was told it was a global family trust.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Well, hang on, Kier. I've got what he told you. I run an American family office.

Yeah, that's right.

I was told before the meeting that it was a global business. But the was the family office was based in London. A global family office. In my head at that little minute in time, but look, my job wasn't to do compliance. My job wasn't to do background checks.

My job was to turn up at a lunch, have a glass of wine, and shake someone's hand.

AnsweredTold the donor said in his presence that he runs an American family office. Says he was told before the meeting it was a global family office based in London, and that checks were not his job.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Did you not know that it was illegal for foreign firms to donate to UK political parties?

Of course I know that.

AnsweredAsked whether he did not know foreign firms cannot donate to UK parties. Says of course he knows that.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
But were were you just not then paying attention to what he was

No, because I was told he was giving it to a UK family trust. Or sorry, a family office that was based in the UK.

AnsweredAsked whether he was simply not paying attention. Says no, because he had been told the money came from a family office based in the UK.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
He said in your presence, "I run an American family

I am not a compliance officer. I was in the middle of canvassing in the Clacton by-election. I turn up. I frankly wasn't even listening.

I just asked, "Is it all above board?" I was just there to go come and say hello.

AnsweredPressed that the donor said 'I run an American family office' in his presence. Says he is not a compliance officer, was in the middle of a by-election and was not listening.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
So, you weren't listening when you were discussing donations of thousands and thousands of pounds.

told I was told there was a global family office based in London. So, the money could have come from Singapore. The money could have come from all over the world. You know, income could have come from all over the world into a family office based in London.

I know electoral law. You know, I know donation law better than anybody. Frankly, the two individuals involved here I've never been involved in fundraising before. And they shouldn't have been involved directly in fundraising. And they should have done basic checks.

And nobody nobody should be brought to me unless they've been vetted properly.

Partly answeredTold he was not listening while donations of thousands of pounds were discussed. Restates what he was told and says the two aides should have done basic checks, without addressing why he did not listen.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
You say these two individuals but actually they were both two of your most senior staff. Dan Wootton worked for you for years. He would have normally been in this room. He was always by your side.

I know. I know.

AnsweredTold the two were among his most senior staff and one was always by his side. Accepts this ('I know').Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
And he is recorded saying this happens all the time.

Which which I'm pleased to say isn't true. Because he mentions he mentioned two names and they were redacted out at the Channel 4 news report because it's not true.

AnsweredTold his aide is recorded saying this happens all the time. Says it is not true and that the names he gave were redacted for that reason.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
So, on the record today can you categorically say that foreign money has never been funneled to Reform UK

in that way. That has never happened.

AnsweredAsked to say categorically that foreign money has never been routed to Reform. Says that has never happened in that way.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Never happened. Categorically deny it even though as you've admitted you weren't listening during a conversation like that.

I'm not a compliance officer. I'm a leader. I shake hands and take photographs. All right?

Partly answeredAsked how he can deny it categorically when he admits he was not listening. Says he is a leader, not a compliance officer, without saying how he can be sure.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
So, you're the leader. The buck stops with you.

Well, look, I'll tell you what. I could stop campaigning and work in an office and be a compliance officer. I'm not a compliance officer. But what I do know what I do know is our checks. And by the way, we send donations back all the time.

People send us money. We send money back all the time if it's not compliant. And if any money had come through this route it would have been sent straight back.

Partly answeredTold the buck stops with him as leader. Points to the party's checks and says non-compliant money is sent back, without saying whether he accepts responsibility.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Why do you think that two of your most senior allies thought over a period of many months, this isn't one conversation, it's many conversations, thought it was okay to go around and say things like, "Those little clandestine projects are so valuable. They don't show up anywhere in public. The reality is we could easily get away with it." Why did they think that was okay?

their behavior and that's why

Ceremonial, not rated: Cut-off fragment: the reply ('their behavior and that's why') stops mid-sentence; the same question is put again and rated under x23 and x24.

Laura Kuenssberg
I'm asking why you think they they thought that was okay. These are people you knew well who worked right close to you alongside you.

It wasn't okay. It wasn't okay.

Partly answeredAsked why he thinks the two aides thought this was acceptable. Says it was not acceptable, without saying why they thought it was.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Why did they think it was?

Their comments were injudicious at best and why it's subject to an investigation. And by the way, you know, this looks bad as does the sale of peerages, as does government contracts for donations. We are not the first people to be involved in a row over donations.

DodgedAsked again why they thought it was acceptable. Calls the remarks injudicious and turns to peerages and contracts under other parties, without giving a reason.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
And you are someone who's seeking the highest office in the land.

Yeah.

Ceremonial, not rated: Lead-in: she notes he is seeking the highest office, the reply is 'Yeah.', and her point follows under x26.

Laura Kuenssberg
And it's not the first time that your party has been caught out by questions over our financial dealings that people have looked at very closely and thought, "That just doesn't add up." And currently you're being investigated questions over a 5 million pound gift.

We will be investigated. We will be investigated every week between now and the next election. That is the tactic that is being used against us.

Partly answeredTold it is not the first time the party's finances have raised questions, with an inquiry into a £5 million gift. Says the party will be investigated every week as a tactic, without addressing the record of questions.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
What's your evidence it's a tactic? The police are looking at a half million pound donation given by someone

Laura, if I report you to the police I report you to the police with a serious allegation against you, they will investigate. I can then go and tell a newspaper you're under investigation. We live in a complainant society. We live in a complainant society. It's as simple as that.

And I have no doubt I have no doubt this stuff will be unending.

Partly answeredAsked for his evidence that the investigations are a tactic. Argues that any complaint leads to an investigation and a news story, without giving evidence of a tactic.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
This isn't just about the society that we live in. There seems to be here a pattern of serious questions about how your party handles finances.

will go on. And it will go on. will never end.

DodgedTold there seems to be a pattern of serious questions about the party's finances. Says it will go on and never end, without addressing the pattern.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
It will go on because you can't get a handle on it.

It will never end. It will never end. This has been a deliberate attempt to do this to us. If we get things wrong, right, if we make mistakes, and do things that are wrong, you know, I will hold my hands up and admit that. Uh but frankly, the other things that have been talked about, I don't believe we have any guilt at all.

None whatsoever. Absolutely none.

AnsweredTold it will go on because the party cannot get a handle on it. Rejects this, calls it a deliberate attempt and says the party has no guilt on the other matters.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
In terms of your how much attention you pay to the rules, your suggestion is that you're being unfairly targeted. This is deliberate tactics to go after you.

think the leaking of people's evidence for that Hang on. How did Richard Tice's bank accounts appear in a newspaper? Is that legitimate? Is that fair? Is that reasonable?

It's astonishing. It is astonishing. Uh and that is why there is currently a legal action going on against the National Crime Agency. Look, I know what being targeted is. I was debanked myself a couple of years ago.

You know, I know what happens. There is an ecosystem in this country, an establishment ecosystem in this country that has operated for 100 years very effectively. What they do not want are new kids on the block coming in and changing things.

AnsweredTold his suggestion is that he is being deliberately targeted. Confirms it and gives reasons: Richard Tice's bank details in a newspaper, the case against the National Crime Agency and his own debanking.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Except that, Nigel Farage, so many other party leaders also get investigated. You're suggesting somehow you're treated unfairly. Keir Starmer was investigated over buying a field for his mother's donkeys, and he was hauled over the coals for taking free glasses and suits. Zac Goldsmith got into trouble over not paying his council tax. Boris Johnson was investigated over whether a wealthy donor paid for the expensive wallpaper in the Downing Street flat. You repeatedly tell the public it's unfair, it's only on you.

Well, well, I would

Ceremonial, not rated: Cut-off fragment: the reply stops at 'Well, well, I would' and continues under x32, where it is rated.

Laura Kuenssberg
But you, this is the scrutiny that comes with you seeking prime minister.

think the others have been debanked. I don't think the others have been kicked out with their pension provider. I don't think the others have literally had an attempt to wipe them out of society. Oh, and their families as well. And their families as well.

There is no doubt there is no doubt there is huge political prejudice against reform right across the corporate world and right across the establishment. And that is a simple fact of life. And why? Because we're the disruptors. And that's the way it works.

AnsweredTold other leaders are investigated too and this is the scrutiny that comes with seeking to be Prime Minister. Says others have not been debanked or had their families targeted, and describes prejudice against Reform.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
But where is your evidence that questions about your financial affairs that are being asked again and again and again? Even your own mistake not reporting things properly to the parliamentary authorities on 17 different occasions. Where's your evidence that that's somehow a big stitch-up, a big plot? It sounds like you're just saying "Poor me."

Well, no, no, no, I'm not saying that. I'm going to actually all my colleagues around me all my colleagues around me have have have huge questions that Look, I get the point about scrutiny. I get the point that the more you get to power, the more questions people will ask. I get all of those points. Uh on on the late declaration stuff, well, that was cleared up later.

Um but but it was all declared, you know? Unlike here, where it wasn't declared. I mean, you know, you can you can argue these things all around the houses. But that there is an attempt to sully the name of the party by people constantly making complaints about financial matters. Politics is now a big money game.

It's a big money game. And you know, the treasurer of Reform the treasurer of Reform will go to prison if things are got wrong. He will go to prison. It's as simple as that. So, we know what we're dealing with.

Partly answeredAsked for his evidence of a plot, given his own 17 late declarations. Accepts scrutiny comes with power and says the late declarations were cleared up, but gives no evidence of a plot beyond repeated complaints.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
You often though say in response to questions that you're being singled out, that it's a stitched-up. Last year you said "How dare you?" when somebody asked about your housing arrangements. You you told a journalist it was none of our business

You have no idea, you literally you people have no idea what I've lived with for the last decade, what I live with every day. I was stopped from going on stage yesterday by counter-terrorism. They're worried about a bomb threat. You have no idea how I have to live, what I have to live with, what the cost of that is, the fact the state again and again refused to give me any security support. So, I'm not going to apologize to anybody for being given a sum of money that might just save my life.

And it's as simple as that. And and by the way, and by the way, all public figures have security threats. I've had them for over 10 years, and it's endless. And that reflects, I'm afraid, the nastiness of where politics is well.

Partly answeredTold he often says he is singled out, for example over his housing arrangements. Describes the security threats he lives with and defends the £5 million gift, without addressing the point about how he responds to questions.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
here is not about the security threats, which as you say quite rightly are very real to many people in public life. The point here is how on your path to your dream of becoming Prime Minister, how you handle the scrutiny that comes alongside that. And one of your prominent supporters until recently said you sounded aggrieved.

I did.

you know why? You know why? And I was angry over the summer. I'm not now. I've moved on.

We're having a great conference. I'm enjoying life. I enjoyed the by-election campaign. I've been aggrieved because of the impact and things that have been done to my family, most of which I have not talked about in public, many of which are frankly monstrous, are not scrutiny, and are not in the public domain. And did that upset me hugely over the course of a summer?

I would admit that it did. I would admit that it did. Very, very much. To the point where for the first time, really, in my political career, you know, I haven't got my family's support. They would rather I packed it up and walked away.

So, yeah, it's been difficult.

AnsweredTold a supporter said he sounded aggrieved, and asked how he handles scrutiny. Accepts he was angry over the summer and says it was because of what happened to his family.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
Have you thought about packing it in and walking away? Your family

I haven't. But when when you've got your family begging you to, it's not easy. But I think we're through that now. I believe we're through that bad period. I think the general public do understand that, you know, I have got some unusual circumstances that others don't have to deal with.

Um and yeah, you know, we're back here. It's a big conference. It's an energetic conference. We had a bad start with a few little local difficulties, as we've discussed, but you can see the party's very upbeat.

AnsweredAsked whether he has thought about quitting. Says no, though his family begged him to.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
It has little local difficulties, doesn't it? You've lost two of your most senior people. You can't just laugh it off.

Laughing it off. You lose people in You lose people in life, in business, in politics. It happens for all sorts of reasons.

AnsweredTold he cannot laugh off losing two senior people. Rejects that he is laughing it off and says people are lost for all sorts of reasons.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
If you become Prime Minister it is only going to become more intense, more difficult, more taxing, more full-on. And in our last conversation, you told me that the the the worst part of the job was being responsible for other people's behavior.

Yes.

Yeah.

Ceremonial, not rated: Lead-in: she recalls what he said about the worst part of the job, the replies are 'Yes.' and 'Yeah.', and the question is put under x41.

Laura Kuenssberg
Isn't that going to be a terribly big problem? Because leaders have to take responsibility. And you

You're telling me. I've been leading the political parties for 20 years. I know what it's like. And of course, of course you have to carry the can for what everybody else around you does. I know that.

I get that. I understand that. Look, I came back into this I came back into this 2 years ago. You know, when I sit down rationally and think where we've come in 2 years, what we're building this organization into, I'll be honest, I'm very proud of what I've done. I can live with the rough and tumble of politics more than anybody.

AnsweredAsked whether taking responsibility for others' behaviour will be a big problem as Prime Minister. Says he knows a leader carries the can and has done so for many years.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Laura Kuenssberg
But it makes you angry that you have to deal with that.

No, no, you're wrong. What makes me angry is what happened this year with my family. And I will And I will write about this in the next few weeks, and you'll be shocked. One of the two things that have happened to my close family, and that did make me angry, very, very angry. Very angry indeed.

You know, I have You've known me a long time. I've generally gone about politics in a very upbeat, jolly way. You know? At this conference, I'm having enormous It's doing it. Um, I've got a work rate that very, very few people have.

You know, a high energy work rate. And and I'm looking at I'm I'm looking ahead to the next few months and what I think will be a general election in May of next year and you know, I'm ready for it.

AnsweredTold it makes him angry to deal with this. Says no: what made him angry was what happened to his family.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person