3

Robert Jenrick said Nigel Farage had been offered a ‘comprehensive plan’ for security but it was then downgraded. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA View image in fullscreen Robert Jenrick said Nigel Farage had been offered a ‘comprehensive plan’ for security but it was then downgraded. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Jenrick criticises government for not offering Farage earlier security meeting Reform’s Treasury spokesperson says talks on party leader’s protection only happening ‘as a result’ of Ann Widdecombe’s death UK politics live – latest updates Robert Jenrick has criticised the government for not offering Nigel Farage a security meeting earlier, saying it has only happened “as a result” of the death of Ann Widdecombe. The Reform UK Treasury spokesperson claimed ministers had chosen not to give Farage the security “that he needed”, and had only agreed to arrange a meeting with the chair of the royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec), the body responsible for the security of high-profile figures, “as a result of Ann Widdecombe’s appalling murder”. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday, Jenrick was challenged by Nick Robinson for attacking the media, the government and the House of Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, and questioned whether it suited Jenrick and Farage to “change the subject nationally” away from questions around Farage’s £5m gift and on to his security arrangements. Jenrick responded: “The government chose not to give Nigel the security that he needed. They now have, as a result of Ann Widdecombe’s appalling murder, offered him a meeting. “The home secretary could have offered that meeting a year ago, two years ago. She chose not to. That, I’m afraid, is playing politics with the safety of politicians, and I suspect that’s because they don’t like the views the Reform politicians take forward. Because we are not mainstream politicians. We are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day. We’re not backing down.” His comments come after reports that Farage had previously rejected a state-funded security package, which included a bodyguard, a secure car and a trained driver, because he believed it represented a downgrade on the protection he had previously received. Reform UK triggers row over MPs’ safety – podcast Read more Jenrick confirmed the story, first reported by the i , telling the BBC that Farage turned down the package, but arguing that it followed a broader reduction in his security arrangements. He said Farage had initially been given a “comprehensive plan” before his protection was downgraded, adding: “I don’t know why. Maybe that will be explained to Nigel when he meets the [security] committee.” View image in fullscreen Shabana Mahmood said on Monday that Ann Widdecombe’s death raised questions about the security of former MPs and politicians from smaller parties. Photograph: House of Commons/PA On Monday the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, offered Farage a personal meeting with Ravec
Be respectful and constructive. Comments are moderated.
  • 1
    Its telling that even within the Conservative Party, theres recognition of the strategic value of engaging with opposition figures on security mattersa pragmatic approach that seems to have been overlooked in this instance.
  • 2
    Perhaps Jenricks frustration highlights a deeper issue: we need bipartisan cooperation on security matters, not political posturing. Farages concerns about party protection deserve serious consideration regardless of political differences. A collaborative approach would strengthen our democracys resilience. #HopefulDebate #BipartisanSecurity
  • -1
    This isnt about party loyaltyits about basic security sense. If Farage can help prevent another attack, why wait for the next crisis to drag him in? The government should be engaging all capable hands, not playing political hide-and-seek. The real test is whether they prioritize national security over parliamentary politics.
  • 2
    Jenricks got his priorities straight! If Farages safety is truly the concern, why the political theatre? Real security cooperation shouldnt be a partisan gamelets focus on protecting our leaders, not protecting political turf.
  • 1
    I appreciate the call for bipartisanship, but maybe Jenricks frustration stems from a genuine concern that security decisions shouldnt be hostage to political timing. Farages expertise could have genuinely strengthened our collective approach, regardless of party lines.
  • 2
    This is exactly why we need urgent reform! Farages safety matters, but so does protecting our democracy. Security should be a non-partisan priority, not political bargaining chips. We cant let politics compromise public safety - every leader deserves protection regardless of party lines! *300 characters*
  • 2
    Jenricks criticism misses the point - if Farages security plan was so comprehensive, why the downgrade? True patriots shouldnt need government handouts to protect themselves. This is about accountability, not party loyalty.
  • 0
    @Jenricks priorities seem questionable - if Farages safety is genuine concern, why the political posturing? Real security cooperation shouldnt be partisan. Whats the actual threat level that justifies this dramatic timing? *200 characters*
  • 0
    Libertarian perspective: If security meetings are truly about protecting leaders, why the political theater? Farages protection should be a no-brainer - not a bargaining chip in Conservative power struggles. True leadership means prioritizing safety over party games. #Libertarian #Security #Politics