Original

Nigel Farage used nearly £33,000 of donor cash to help support Donald Trump in the US election - months before he complained about Labour activists volunteering for Kamala Harris.

After he was elected as an MP, the Reform UK leader missed the King's Speech to travel to Wisconsin in July to attend the Republican National Convention (RNC).

He publicly admitted his trip was intended "to support my friend Donald Trump at the RNC", adding "we all have a duty to support and defend democracy."

It comes after Mr Trump's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), calling for an investigation into whether around 100 UK Labour Party activists and staff volunteering for Ms Harris' campaign was a breach of US election rules.

Under federal law, the travel expenses of a volunteer are considered a donation to the party they work for if they exceed $1,000 (£770) in one election.

When it was first revealed that Labour activists had been volunteering for Ms Harris, Mr Farage said: "This is direct election interference by the governing Labour Party, and particularly stupid if Trump wins. Who is paying for all of this?"

Mr Farage's trip was paid for by Christopher Harborne, a British tech investor based in Thailand.

Mr Farage declared on his register of members interests that the flights and accommodation for the trip came to £32,836.

Also see yesterday's discussion of Trump's complaint.

Crosspost

Nigel Farage's fans have been offered tours of Parliament with an MP for £300.

A fundraising email was sent out by Reform UK inviting supporters to a Christmas party at a central London bar and nightclub, with an option to purchase expensive tours around Parliament as an extra. There are restrictions on MPs using their access to Parliament, with the invite appearing to be a breach of House of Commons rules.

In 2020 Green MP Caroline Lucas was found to have breached parliamentary rules by giving a tour of the Commons for a £150 contribution to a fundraising campaign. An investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner found she had breached the Code of Conduct for MPs.

Reform UK's MPs are understood to have been unaware of the event or tours until someone who bought a ticket contacted them. The party said the email, first seen by the Times, was incorrectly sent out by a local branch that wasn't aware of the rules. Those who have bought a ticket are now being offered a refund.

Full list of investments can be found on the government website.

Investors attending the Labour government’s first International Investment Summit have announced pledges totalling £63bn today, which will create an estimated 38,000 jobs.

Spending commitments include £20bn from ‘Vampire kangaroo’ Macquarie, on projects including a rollout of fast-charging electric vehicle infrastructure at motorway service stations, over £6bn of new data centres by US tech firms, an expansion of Stansted airport, and a tie-up with US pharma firm Eli Lilly.
[…]
The government also secured a £1bn expansion of London Gateway port, after the row over transport secretary Louise Haigh’s criticism of its owner’s poor business practices was defused.

Opening the event, Sir Keir Starmer said the government and investors were bound together, in the “shared endeavour of prosperity”.

Growth, Starmer argued, was “vital…if we are to steer our way through a great period of insecurity and change”.

Having ‘celebrated’ 100 days in office on Saturday, Starmer pledged to fix the UK’s public service and stabilise the economy quickly, and also repair Britain’s brand “as an open, outward-looking, confident, trading nation”.

In comments that have caused alarm, Starmer pledged to “get rid” of regulations that are holding back investment, such as building homes, data centres, warehouses, grid connectors, roads, and trainlines.

Both the Green Party and the RSPB have voiced concerns about what this will mean for Britain.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told delegates that UK corporation tax would be capped at 25% for the lifetime of this parliament, in an attempt to give bosses some certainty.

She also warned that the government faces ‘difficult choices’ as she draws up the budget, and hinted that she is planning to raise employer national insurance contributions.

Reeves also announced that the UK Infrastructure Bank has been converted into the National Wealth Fund, which will be capitalised with £27.8bn to catalyse private investment in the market.

Conservative leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch has faced criticism after a report she endorsed suggested people with autism get “economic advantages and protections” and “better treatment or equipment at school”.

The pamphlet, which Badenoch had launched at a campaign event, covers ways the Conservative Party can get “back on track” and includes contributions from 24 of her supporters.

It claims that “the socialisation of mental health so everyone has to treat you differently has failed to improve people’s mental health outcomes” and that this has “created costs and failed to improve people’s mental health”.

The section specifically references autism and anxiety as two examples of this, stating that people diagnosed with either of them get “economic advantages and protections” not afforded to their peers.

“If you have a neurodiversity diagnosis (e.g. anxiety, autism), then that is usually seen as a disability, a category similar to race or biological sex in terms of discrimination law and general attitudes,” it states.
[…]
Former Conservative justice secretary Robert Buckland, who published the Buckland review earlier this year into employment rates among autistic people, said the section appeared “muddled”.

He added that the report shouldn’t be “stigmatising or lumping certain categories in with each other”, adding: “Anxiety is not a neurodiverse condition… autism is not a mental health condition.”
[…]
Before the election, former education secretary Gillian Keegan admitted that special needs support in schools – which can be accessed by autistic children – was in “crisis” with many parents having to “fight to get the right support”.

Sir Keir Starmer has promised “no more talking shops of the past” when he meets regional mayors and leaders of the devolved nations on Friday as part of his programme to transfer power away from Westminster.

But despite the rhetoric, some mayors are concerned Treasury officials are already putting the brakes on a project designed to give locals greater say over housing and adult education.

Downing Street said the meeting in Scotland is intended to bring together First Ministers John Swinney, Michelle O’Neill and Eluned Morgan; 11 English metro mayors; and Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to discuss “shared challenges” and “opportunities” to boost inward investment across the country.
[…]
However, without spending clout there is a limit to what they can achieve, sources said. While the mayors broadly welcome how Sir Keir has promoted devolution, some say they are frustrated by the Treasury, which they say is hoarding power by putting national priorities for growth and jobs creation ahead of giving local leaders control.

“The Treasury is saying to the mayors, ‘This is the national strategy; we see you as just implementing our strategy,’” one mayor told [I]. “They don’t see it as devolution or, ‘You have control, and you decide.’ They just see us as a mechanism for delivering their national plans. And the mayors hate it.

“It’s not a fight yet, but there’s a big, very, assertive discussion going on at the minute about the strings that the Government is still trying to attach to all the pots of money that we’re going to get.”
[…]
“It’s a Treasury orthodoxy issue rather than a political one with Angela [Rayner] or Rachel [Reeves].

“What’s the point of mayors, if you’re just basically going to tell us what to do and how to do it without giving us the freedom of having devolution? At the moment the mayors are not getting devolution, it’s decentralisation because it’s all linked to the national industrial strategy.”

The mayor said that “the Government rhetoric on devolution is really good, but they love central control. So how do you deliver devolution without giving us more control over jobs and skills or our local industrial strategy? Instead, you have a national industrial strategy, you have a national jobs plan.”