Friday, August 28, 2026
A very Russian conspiracy
In Betrayal: Trump, Putin and The New Age of Conquest, Harding, who has described Putin’s Russia as a “Mafia state”, suggests that Nathan Gill was part of a bigger pro-Russian network than has previously been reported.
The website notes that Gill is serving a 10 and a half year sentence after being paid £40,000 by the pro-Russian Ukrainian diplomat, Oleh Voloshyn to ask questions in the European Parliament favourable to the Russian regime:
Introducing an extract of his new book published in the investigative news website The Nerve, Harding writes: “In 2008, I met the Ukrainian diplomat and journalist who would go on to bribe Gill: Oleh Voloshyn. At the time he was working as press attaché at the Ukrainian embassy in Moscow, where I was based as the bureau chief for the Guardian. Voloshyn made no secret of his pro-Kremlin views. He was clever, chatty and spoke impeccable English. He later went back to Kyiv to work for the Putin-backed administration of Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovych.
“In the years that followed – wittingly or not, paid or not – Farage and his political colleagues repeated Russian government talking points. Famously, Farage has said he admires Putin as an operator; as recently as last week one of his supporters expressed sympathy with Moscow as it continues to pound Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities with drones and ballistic missiles.”
Nation.Cymru reported how a social media account branded as Reform UK Alyn and Deeside and Wrexham advocated defunding Ukraine, a scenario that would inevitably lead to Russia’s victory in the war between the two countries.
Harding writes how Farage has sought to distance himself from Gill: “He has dismissed Gill as a bad apple. And yet it seems certain that more scandal will engulf the Kremlin-friendly right of British politics, whose allegiances remain murky. There are further betrayals to come.”
The article describes speeches by Gill that repeated talking points fed to him by Volshyn. Harding says that “Gill’s intervention made no impression on the Strasbourg chamber. Two of his Ukip MEP colleagues – David Coburn (the leader of Ukip in Scotland) and Jonathan Arnott – followed up with pithy speeches on the same theme, asking if Ukraine was really ready for EU membership. The trio’s contributions were forgettable, but they delighted one person who had travelled from Kyiv to Strasbourg for the occasion: a Ukrainian journalist and one-time diplomat called Oleh Voloshyn."
He continues: “Immediately afterwards, Gill pinged Voloshyn a recording of his speech, as well as Coburn’s, filmed side-on with a camera phone. Voloshyn was thrilled, telling Gill: ‘Impressive … You are the perfect orator.’ Gill messaged back, alluding to a mysterious person, V: ‘V should be pleased with this 3x what he thought.’ Voloshyn agreed. ‘Exactly!!! Thank you so much,’ he wrote.
Harding states: “The exchanges were part of a conspiracy. It involved Kremlin propaganda, Russian operatives and corruptible public servants. There were cash bribes, delivered in white envelopes over dinners in Strasbourg and Brussels. Gill accepted money on at least eight occasions. He was one head in a hydra-like influence network whose scale was unknown. There were connections to party representatives inside multiple EU states, among them Poland, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Slovakia and Bulgaria.
“There were numerous players on the Russian side. Volosyhn was, London alleged, an undercover Kremlin asset. He had close ties with Putin’s old spy agency, US officials added, labelling him an FSB ‘pawn’. (Voloshyn denies the allegations.)
“According to Czech intelligence, members of his immediate circle were close to the FSB’s Fifth Directorate, the organisation’s ‘foreign division’, responsible for Ukraine and other former Soviet states.
“Voloshyn’s wife, Nadia Borodi, who went under the pseudonym Sass, was also a TV journalist. Both of them worked at 112 Ukraine and News One, stations that were owned by an associate of Viktor Medvedchuk – the V of Gill’s messages. Medvedchuk was a long-time Kremlin agent and Ukraine’s leading pro-Russian figure; Putin is a friend of his and godfather to Medvedchuk’s younger daughter. In 2014 the Kremlin gifted Medvedchuk a Russian oil refinery, used to fund his media empire inside Ukraine.
Harding goes on to explain how Russia’s modern spy agencies still used leftwing actors, but under Putin the main vector of political influence shifted to the populist, anti-EU and anti-migrant far right:
He states: “Many of its supporters in Europe expressed sympathy towards Moscow and disliked Kyiv. As with Maga in the US, there was an ideological overlap between British Eurosceptics and the Russian government. Both wanted to undermine the EU, its institutions and its leadership. The Kremlin supported Brexit, seeing it as an instrument that would weaken Europe and divide British society.
“Wittingly or not, paid or unpaid, Ukip appeared happy to do Moscow’s bidding. Between 2010 and 2014 Farage appeared at least 17 times on RT. He made no criticism of Russian authoritarianism and claimed Europe was governed not by elected democracies, but ‘by the worst people we have seen in Europe since 1945’. Farage said he admired Putin, ‘not as a human being but an operator’, and repeated the claim that Nato’s ‘ever eastward expansion’ had provoked Putin’s war. He qualified this by adding: ‘Of course it’s his fault.’ Gill was another RT guest.
“It was in this context that eight British MEPs appeared on 112, spouting Voloshyn’s talking points. They were elected members of Ukip and its successor, the Brexit party. Among them were Coburn, Arnott and William Dartmouth, a British life peer and MEP for South West England. They were joined by German MEP Arne Gericke and French MEP Nicolas Bay, the latter a member of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally. (It is not suggested that the above committed criminal acts or knew that Gill was taking bribes.)
“Farage says he knew nothing of Gill’s criminal activities or his ties with Moscow. Nevertheless, these were strange goings-on, with Russian emissaries warmly received at the doors of the Ukip delegation’s workplace. Gill would go on to lead Reform, Farage’s current political party, in Wales. The symbiosis between Reform and Russia raised a question: why would a pro-British, pro-independence organisation collaborate with the Russians?
“Gill served as Russia’s loyal proxy, wooing fellow MEPs over dinner to give anti-Ukraine commentary.
Many questions remain about Gill and his connections. Harding asks "How extensive was this spy ring? Were there other members of Gill’s hard-right outfit whose connections to Russia had not yet been fully exposed? And what about MEPs from other countries?
“The academic and writer Anton Shekhovtsov stumbled across Gill while researching a Polish pro-Russian activist, Janusz Niedźwiecki, who was arrested in 2021 on charges of spying for Moscow. Niedźwiecki and Voloshyn had arranged Gill’s Ukraine trips. ‘I presume Gill is not the only politician who took bribes, but he is the one who got caught. The affair is only the tip of the iceberg in a broader web of influence operations,’ Shekhovtsov said.”
Thursday, August 27, 2026
Burnham's betrayal on political funding
The paper says that the prime minister has decided not to back amendments to the elections bill, which would cap the amount a person or an organisation can give in a single donation:
The decision comes after a lobbying campaign from Labour’s trade union backers, who said amendments to the bill, which returns to parliament for its remaining stages next week, could undermine their ability to donate to the party. It is also a retreat from the support Burnham gave to the idea just a few weeks ago, when he emailed a campaigner for electoral reform to say he would support a donations cap of £500,000.
Stella Creasy, one of the Labour backbenchers who has tabled an amendment calling for a donations cap, said: “Millionaires are increasingly treating British politics as their plaything – splashing the cash to get the outcome they want and the next election as their cup final.
“The public won’t forgive us if we miss this chance to clean up Westminster because we are squabbling with each other.”
Shaun Bowler, the campaigner to whom Burnham promised his support in May, said: “Andy Burnham promised me a proper cap on political donations and a ‘wholesale culture change’ in Westminster. If his government now refuses to back a donations cap, then he has broken the promise he made to me – and to voters.
“I wanted to believe the positive message he gave me. I wanted to believe that someone was finally going to take on the culture that has left so many people feeling that their voices don’t matter and that wealthy people can buy influence over our government.
“But words mean nothing if they disappear the moment power is won. Large political donations are not democratic. They create influence, whether politicians want to admit it or not. The prime minister has one chance to start rebuilding trust: the representation of the people act.
“He told me he wanted change. Now he needs to keep his promise and act.”
As Darren Hughes, the chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, says: “Huge donations have a corrosive effect on trust in politics as they leave the public wondering what donors expect in return for their money.
“A donations cap is a crucial step to ending the impression that our politics is for sale to the highest bidder and rebuilding that trust, which is currently at record lows.”
The impression that billionaires can buy influence and elections is undermining our democratic process. It needs to be nipped in the bud quickly, and that requires Burnham to deliver on his promises.
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
Can Burnham deliver on housing?
The paper says that the initial wave of funding will build 70,000 homes across England, at least 60 per cent of which will be social rented houses, though the funding has not just been found as it is reported that it comes from the previously announced £39bn Social and Affordable Housing Programme (SAHP) fund, agreed last year by former prime minister Sir Keir Starmer and former chancellor Rachel Reeves.
However, they add that on the ground, the 300,000 new homes a year needed to achieve the government's targets remains far off. The most recent data shows that around 203,000 new homes were delivered in England in the 12 months ending June 2026 – a rate that would see the final housing total fall short by half a million:
Trickier still is delivering affordable homes within this target. Under the SAHP, the government intends to deliver 300,000 homes for social or affordable rent by 2039.
In reality, pressure from developers – who make less money from these kinds of homes – has already started forcing local authorities to backpedal on their affordable home targets.
Most notably, the mayor of London Sadiq Khan reduced the quota for affordable housing in new developments in the capital from 35 to 20 per cent in November last year. He called this an “emergency measure”, designed to “kickstart house building in London”.
The Independent adds that there are other problems with the target, including a a severe shortage of skilled construction workers following Brexit:
More than 200,000 EU workers have left the UK construction sector since 2019 due to post-Brexit immigration rule changes and the pandemic.
The scaffolding sector alone faces an estimated shortage of 40,000 workers over the next five years, alongside significant vacancies for carpenters and bricklayers.
An ageing workforce is worsening the crisis, with around one million additional workers needed over the next decade to replace retirees and meet demand.
This target is not going to be an easy one to reach, it it is achieveable at all.
Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Can Reform UK even organise a booze-up?
Now the Mirror reports that the party can't even organise a booze-up properly, with the organisers of Nigel Farage's Clacton by-election victory rally, dubbed "Farage Fest", being investigated for failing to get permission to hold it.
This was the event that the Reform UK leader chose to attend instead of going to the by-election count. Instead he appeared in the early hours of the morning in the Essex countryside several miles away, where he could indulge in pleasures such as alcohol, a ferris wheel, DJs and several fire pits. GB News was the only media outlet present:
Mr Farage called the event "Clactonbury" when he spoke to cheering fans from the stage. Fans had to pay to enter the event, but could camp and park for free.
Tendring District Council confirmed it had refused to grant a Late Temporary Event Notice (LTEN) as the application had not been made within the legal timescale required.
After Reform submitted a Late Temporary Event Notice, Tendring Council responded with a "counter-notice" on the grounds that the "Late TEN" was too late. The council said "it was not submitted within the statutory timescales required under the Licensing Act 2003".
As a result "no authorisation" was granted for Farage Fest and organisers were pointed to the section of the Licencing Act that warns them of potential criminal offences if they go ahead.
Section 136 of the Licensing Act 2003 states that "a person commits an offence if he carries on a licensable activity" without authorisation, "or if he knowingly allows a licensable activity to be so carried on".
The Act states: "A person convicted of such an offence is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine of any amount, or to both."
Influencer Bruce Hamill attended and said afterwards: "What a festival it was. What political party out there puts on 200 tents, free food and drink, for everyone to just have a party from the minute the by-election polling started to I think it was 7am in the morning.
"They put on water, put on fire pits, they had marshmallows, there was hot dogs, there was a disco, everyone was having fun."
It is unclear when the hot dogs were served or how hot they were but, under the Licensing Act 2003, supplying hot food or hot non-alcoholic drinks to the public between 11pm and 5am requires authorisation which Reform did not receive.
Mr Farage was re-elected as Clacton's MP - after resigning from the role at the start of July - during the by-election earlier this month. All the other major political parties boycotted the race, branding it a "gimmick" and a "stunt" to try to distract from questions about a £5million gift Mr Farage received shortly before the 2024 general election. Mr Farage's main rival was parody candidate Count Binface.
A Commons probe into the £5m gift Mr Farage received was suspended when he resigned as an MP. It was restarted when he was re-elected.
Lisa Hastings, Corporate Director for Law and Governance at Tendring District Council, said: "We can confirm that a Late Temporary Event Notice (Late TEN) was submitted in relation to an event on Thursday, 13 August, at Great Oakley Airfield.
"This notice was refused, and a counter-notice served, as it was not submitted within the statutory timescales required under the Licensing Act 2003. No authorisation was therefore granted under a Late Temporary Event Notice for the event.
"As the matter may now involve potential enforcement considerations, Tendring District Council is unable to comment further on any ongoing or potential investigations by Licensing or other council departments; nor provide any further details about the Late TEN submission."
Farage and co. really arent very good at following the rules. It's time that they felt some consequences.
Monday, August 24, 2026
Reform's crypto dependency
The paper says that an analysis of Electoral Commission data shows that a staggering 60 per cent of the right-wing eurosceptic group’s funding comes from wealthy individuals associated with the digital currency since the beginning of 2024:
The largest donations, totalling £15m, came from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne, whose separate undeclared donation of £5m directly to Mr Farage is the subject of a parliamentary probe.
Other donors include Ben Peter Delo, the founder of cryptocurrency trading platform BitMex, who gave two £2m payments to the party this year and Maria Rost, the wife of US crypto investor John Rost, who has given nine payments worth £125,000.
Simon William Smith, a London-based bitcoin investor who founded a company which allows content creators to sell their content in exchange for Bitcoin, donated £116,000 ahead of the general election in 2024. Oscar Townsley, the founder of Bitcoin derivatives trading firm A1X, gave the party £30,000 last year.
By comparison, the Conservative Party received £82,250 in donations from Alan Eldad Howard, a hedge fund manager and crypto investor. The Independent did not identify any such donations for Labour, Lib Dems or the Green Party.
Unsurprisingly, since the general election, Farage and his party have fought to liberalise the crypto market, have argued against state involvement in the sector, and have published draft legislation that hopes to ignite a “crypto revolution” in Britain.
Other parties take a different view. The paper says that Labour has taken a strict stance on cryptocurrency, with former PM, Keir Starmer imposing a temporary ban on cryptocurrency donations and a cap on donations from Britons living abroad to political parties as part of a wider government review into electoral interference.
They add that no other parties have promoted pro-crypto policies and the Greens have called for a ban on “unethical” crypto adverts in the London Underground.
The last word on this should go to Tory MP Harriet Baldwin, a former chair of the Treasury committee, who said: “In the US, President Trump has profited personally from liberalising the rules around cryptocurrencies. It would be regrettable if the UK became a place where politicians used power over independent regulators for their own personal enrichment.”
The last word on this should go to Tory MP Harriet Baldwin, a former chair of the Treasury committee, who said: “In the US, President Trump has profited personally from liberalising the rules around cryptocurrencies. It would be regrettable if the UK became a place where politicians used power over independent regulators for their own personal enrichment.”
Sunday, August 23, 2026
The freebie culture
The paper says that despite the outcry in 2024 over Keir Starmer accepting football tickets and gifts of clothing, MPs appear to have been declaring hospitality since the start of the year on a greater scale than previously seen:
The most recent disclosures include £858 worth of tickets to a Harry Styles concert at Wembley from the PRS for Music industry group, which was accepted by Powell, the deputy leader and education secretary. And Wes Streeting, the defence secretary, accepted tickets to the Chelsea flower show from Lloyds Banking Group worth £1,839.
Haigh also accepted a £1,314 ticket to the Ivor Novello awards, while Anneliese Midgley, the chief whip, enjoyed Brit Awards hospitality for two worth £3,432, hospitality at Cheltenham festival horse racing from the betting company Flutter worth £350, and tickets to the Grand National valued at £560. All were backbench MPs while accepting the hospitality and have now been elevated to cabinet jobs under Andy Burnham.
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, accepted £1,480 of tickets to the men’s Wimbledon singles final while in her cabinet job, while Ellie Reeves, the attorney general, accepted a £1,314 ticket to the Ivors while solicitor general.
Burnham declared hospitality worth about £6,000 this year – mostly relating to his former role as the mayor of Greater Manchester, such as £3,800 tickets to the Brit Awards in Manchester, but also £500 worth of tickets to Ladies’ Day at the Grand National in Aintree.
The acceptance of free hospitality by MPs appeared to fall after mid-2024 when the spotlight fell on Starmer’s string of free tickets to watch Arsenal football games. In March 2025, Rachel Reeves, the then chancellor, said she would not accept free concert tickets again after she was criticised for using free tickets to take a family member to see Sabrina Carpenter at the O2 arena. She defended the decision on security grounds but said she would not do it again because she understood “how people feel about it”.
At the time, another government minister, Matthew Pennycock, said he had accepted “zero” free concert tickets as he personally did not think it was appropriate. “If I want to go to a concert at the O2, I’ll pay for it. But individual MPs, individual ministers, make their own decisions,” he said.
The value of free tickets being accepted by MPs was at about £300,000 a year in 2025, according to the Times last December. But this appears to have increased, with almost £400,000 of complimentary tickets, hospitality and other gifts having been declared between January and July this year – not including foreign trips.
It is quite easy to fall into the habit of accepting these freebies as an elected representative, often offered to secure access and to pitch a case or to form a relationship for future influence, a point emphasised by Sue Hawley, the director of Spotlight on Corruption:
“Showering MPs and ministers with gifts and hospitality is a tried and tested lobbying tactic by big business and foreign governments. There is no good reason why elected officials should be accepting jaunts and tickets to events that have nothing to do with their parliamentary or constituency business.”
Perhaps mpre MPs should take note.
Saturday, August 22, 2026
A library on the site of an old fire station
She tells us that there had been a school on the site since 1813, but the British ‘Non-Denominational’ School took over the premises in Dunns Lane in July 1835, when it enrolled 138 pupils:
There had been a school on the site since 1813, but the British ‘Non-Denominational’ School took over the premises in Dunns Lane in July 1835, when it enrolled 138 pupils.
In 1880, following the Public Health Act of 1875, the Oystermouth Local Board was set up and took over the premises of the school, which had closed some years before. There they met and raised rates to finance and implement various aspects of life until 1918.
However Mumbles had no effective fire fighting equipment, and it was to be the occasion of ‘The Great Fire of 12th February 1914’, which burnt down W H Jones’s Grocer Shop and two neighbouring premises (later HSBC Bank, now Greggs) which eventually galvanised the Oystermouth Urban District Council into financing a fire cart for the village. Inspector Davies of the local police arrived with six Constables at 4.10am, but having no fire-fighting equipment, there was little they could do apart from telephoning the Swansea Fire Brigade.
They arrived at 5.15am on their one-and-only horse-drawn vehicle, by which time the building was well alight. (Swansea would not get a motorised vehicle until later that year).
The fire was eventually put out and a local firm was engaged to demolish the walls, which had been left in a dangerous condition.
Councillors from the Oystermouth Local Board went to visit the scene and it was decided to finance a fire station to serve the locality. A tender of £54..8s was accepted from Mr. Morris to build a shed adjacent to the Council offices in Dunns Lane.
From then on, up until the Second World War, the police also acted as firemen, initially running to the fire station in Dunns Lane, to harness up horses hired from Peachey’s livery stable nearby, before setting out to fight a fire. The village mortuary was also sited on the Local Board land.
Sometime in the 1920s, a new fire station was housed at Southend, at the site of an old disused oyster shed, near The Pilot Inn and the ex-local Government Offices, by now disused, fell into disrepair.
On 5 September 1930, the Fire Brigade was called to the site at Dunns Lane, by then being used as stables, which was well alight and destroyed in the blaze.
This was to be the site of the new Oystermouth Library, which would open in September 1935.
Labels: lochist
Friday, August 21, 2026
Has racism and sexism become normalised in the UK?
Phillipson told the Guardians Politics Weekly Podcast that she was increasingly worried about how commonplace misogyny and racism had become, fuelled by online interactions and statements by politicians she said would not have been acceptable a few years ago.
They add that she accused senior MPs from Reform and the Conservatives of having made racist statements in recent years, and accused the police of not taking violence against women and girls seriously enough, saying:
“I worry that we are at kind of a ground zero in terms of attitudes around violence against women and girls. Things that not very long ago felt totally unacceptable are becoming normal. I think we’re seeing that in terms of attitudes towards women, and I think we see that in terms of attitudes around racism.
She accused the shadow justice secretary, Nick Timothy, and Reform’s economic spokesperson, Robert Jenrick, of having made racist statements in recent years.
Earlier this year, Timothy called Muslims praying in Trafalgar Square an “act of domination”, while Jenrick came under fire in October after the Guardian revealed he had complained he “didn’t see another white face” on a trip to an area of Birmingham.
“We’ve had pretty despicable things that the likes of Robert Jenrick have said in the past on his visit to Birmingham,” she said. “We had Nick Timothy, who said some appalling things about Muslim prayer.
“Apparently I’m calling him names when I say that’s racist. I think it is fundamentally racist because I don’t think he would say that about any other group.”
Some might argue that this is just a Labour politician engaging in the usual name-calling, but in my view Phillipson is right about the way some politicians are weaponising racism and sexism and, in doing so fuelling those attitudes elsewhere.
However, it doesn't help that Phillipson's own government is feeding those right wing tropes with official posters telling asylum seekers not to rape and spelling out that child abuse is a serious crime when there is no evidence violence against women and girls is higher amongst migrants and people seeking asylum than among the general population.
Judging by some of the social media responses to those posters they have succeeded in stirring up more of the prejudices the Minister is condemning in others.
Thursday, August 20, 2026
Tory fantasy on net zero
They were commenting on plans by the shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho to ditch net zero, insisting that the UK “should focus all our attention on making electricity cheap, and then let consumer choice be king”:
A report commissioned by the Conservatives, written by Tory-leaning think tank Onward and advisory firm Transira Energy, suggested focusing on cheap power could save families £540 a year from their energy bills.
But green campaigners have said the proposal is “completely out of touch with the public, its own voters, and economic reality”, while others branded the claims a “myth” that would require a “mathematical miracle”.
“After thousands of deaths from extreme heat this summer, this announcement shows the Conservative Party is completely out of touch with the public, its own voters, and economic reality,” Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Danny Gross said.
“Clean power is the route to cheap, secure energy, not a barrier to it. Home-grown wind and solar energy are cheaper and less exposed to global price shocks than gas. The Conservative plan would just leave the UK more exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets in the future.
“Anyone who thinks doubling down on new North Sea oil and gas projects will bring down energy bills is living in fantasy land. The only way to cut our energy costs is to reduce our reliance on expensive oil and gas.”
Greenpeace branded the proposals a “myth”, which flies “in the face of all the real-world evidence, both on climate and economics”.
“It is a myth that gas is cheaper than renewables,” Angharad Hopkinson, political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said.
“One big gas price spike from a war or other major disruption costs Britain more than the entire net zero project.
“We saw the economic risk of dependence on fossil fuels when the wars in Ukraine and Iran sent energy bills skyrocketing. When a political party that receives lots of fossil fuel money says you should switch from the cheapest electricity sources to the most expensive, exercise caution.
“When they claim huge overall savings, best wait until some independent experts have a look before you start celebrating the mathematical miracle.”
Campaigners are right that the Tories are living in a self-imposed fantasy land. Relying on fossil fuels leaves us open to price hikes, and undermines our security.
It is most probably too late to stop or reverse the climate change we are experiecning at present, but taking the path proposed by the Tories will undoubtedly contribute to wrosening it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Reform civil war?
The paper says that Tim Montgomerie criticised Mr Farage after he refused to attend the Clacton by-election count on Friday. They add that he also hit out at combative frontbencher Zia Yusuf, suggesting people "cannot behave like a child" in politics and lifting the lid on internal rows:
Mr Montgomerie has previously been critical over the way Mr Farage has responded to questions about an undeclared £5million 'gift' from crypto billonare Christopher Harborne.
It is understood the Reform hierarchy got fed up with Mr Montgomerie's criticisms. and decided enough was enough Last week the political commentator, who founded the ConservativeHome website before switching allegiances to Reform, hit out at Mr Farage's no-show in Clacton and questioned his ability to keep Mr Yusuf under control.
Instead of attending the result declaration after his ill-thought-out by-election, the Reform leader opted to spend the night celebrating at a 'Farage Fest' with supporters. He claimed he had been warned of a plot to disrupt proceedings, but police say no candidates were advised to stay away.
On Friday Mr Montgomerie suggested that Mr Farage has spent too much time wallowing in self pity. He wrote on X: "This recently far too dominant aggrieved tone is still with us. It's not good.
"You don't skip your own victory count without a much better explanation. Anger from politicians can work but only if it's on behalf of others - not yourself. He's distracting from his victory. Puzzling."
He has been heavily-critical of Mr Yusuf, the party's home affairs spokesman. Speaking on a Spectator podcast, Mr Montgomerie said; "There are a lot of people who are not on speaking terms with Zia, and it's nearly always Zia who initiates this. And it has to end. You cannot behave like a child in politics."
Mr Montgomerie also suggested Mr Yusuf is not a team player. It comes days after Mr Yusuf sparked fury by branding former Defence Secretary and ex-soldier Sir Ben Wallace a "traitor" and called for him to be prosecuted over his role in Afghans coming to Britain.
In a public response on social media, Mr Montgomerie wrote: "This isn't acceptable from Zia. I don't agree with Ben Wallace on this issue but Zia's language and attitude towards any opponent is inappropriate and counter-productive.
"Opponents are opponents... they aren't enemies... or 'moron's. One of the biggest question marks over Nigel Farage's leadership is whether he brings Zia under control.
"ZY is a man of huge talents but too much of his social media output is intemperate and reinforces Reform's number one problem: our negative tactical voting challenge."
Montgomerie has also been open in his criticism of Farage accepting a £5m gift, telling the BBC in July that: “People do not normally get a £5 million gift, we get a box of chocolates or a bottle of champagne, that’s the sort of gift most people get." And he went on: “I think he has to find better answers to these questions so far, and he will do, because the parliamentary process is now underway and he will have to be open”.
Things are clearly not rosy within Reform UK. Are Tim Montgomerie's views representative of others within the party? Is Farage losing his grip on his own organisation?
