Nadine Dorries has insisted all donations to Reform UK are “legitimate” and “above board” during a bruising Channel 4 News interview that ended with her leaving before the presenter could finish his questions.
The former culture secretary was challenged by Krishnan Guru-Murthy over undercover footage appearing to show two senior Reform figures arranging for a US company to pay £32,500 for political polling.
Dorries repeatedly denied that Reform had commissioned the polls, despite Guru-Murthy taking her through footage showing the party’s head of policy James Orr discussing the research and Nigel Farage’s senior aide Dan Jukes communicating with the pollster.
She also appeared to accept that the two men may not have understood the law they were discussing.
Orr and Jukes have stepped down from their positions while Reform conducts an internal investigation. The party denies breaking any laws.
Dorries says aides were ‘naive’
Guru-Murthy began by asking Dorries about Farage’s admission that the secretly recorded conversations “don’t look good” and that Orr and Jukes had said things they should not have said.
Dorries agreed with the Reform leader.
Asked which comments she thought were unacceptable, she said the officials may not have understood the legal consequences of what they were discussing.
“I don’t think they were aware of the legalities of what they were discussing,” she said.
Dorries claimed any attempt to bring foreign money into Reform would have been rejected by the party’s legal checks.
“What they would have discovered very quickly is if they tried to secure a donation for Reform which originated from foreign funds, our legal processes in Reform would have rejected that immediately.”
She described Orr and Jukes as “naive” and said their discussions were ultimately futile because an impermissible donation would never have passed the party’s vetting process.
Guru-Murthy asked whether Dorries was therefore accepting that the proposal itself was unlawful.
She replied:
“I’m not sure they knew that the potential of what they were discussing would be illegal.”
That answer raised the question of how two people operating close to Reform’s leadership could discuss substantial political donations without understanding the rules governing them.
‘There was no polling commissioned by Reform’
The interview then moved to the three polls paid for by a US company connected to the fictitious donor created by undercover journalists from Verbatim.
Channel 4 News reported that Orr asked the supposed donor to fund a poll and discussed which version he wanted to commission.
The investigation also featured JL Partners co-founder James Johnson discussing his contact with Jukes and describing him as his point of contact within Reform.
Guru-Murthy said the footage showed Reform officials organising the polling and arranging for the invoices to be paid by the US company.
Dorries rejected that account.
“There was no polling commissioned by Reform,” she said. “If it had been commissioned, it would have been declared.”
She argued that the party had merely introduced a potential donor to a polling company and that the subsequent agreement was reached between those two parties.
Guru-Murthy replied that the footage showed Reform officials discussing the contents of the polls and organising payment for them.
“We can see it on camera,” he said.
Dorries continued to insist that Reform had not commissioned the research.
She also claimed that other political parties use foreign donors to fund polling that is released publicly.
“There are political parties, Labour and Conservative Party and others, who use foreign donors to pay for polls all the time,” she said.
Guru-Murthy told her that the police would be interested in any evidence supporting that claim.
Dorries responded that such arrangements could be found publicly because properly declared polling was not hidden.
That left the central disagreement unresolved. Dorries said the polls did not belong to Reform. Channel 4’s case is that the recorded discussions show Reform figures directing the work and arranging how it would be paid for.
JL Partners has said the accuracy of its polling is not in question, but admitted the investigation revealed weaknesses in its procedures.
The Times said it was unaware of Reform’s alleged role in commissioning and arranging payment for one poll. The Telegraph said it believed it had been misled and suspended the relevant articles while the British Polling Council conducts a review.
Why is Farage not part of the investigation?
Dorries confirmed that Reform’s internal investigation would examine the conduct of Orr and Jukes.
Asked whether Farage was also being investigated, she replied:
“No.”
She argued that Farage had not known what his officials were doing, pointing to footage in which Orr allegedly said the Reform leader “doesn’t know, won’t know” about the arrangements.
Guru-Murthy responded that another section of the footage showed Farage meeting the undercover team and being told they had paid for the polling.
Farage thanked them and celebrated the impact of one poll by saying:
“It worked. Boom.”
Dorries said this only demonstrated that Farage knew about the polls and their findings after they had been published. She maintained that he did not know Reform had commissioned them because, in her account, the party never did.
Guru-Murthy then raised the separate discussion about a proposed £500,000 donation.
The investigation alleged that the fictional American father could transfer money to his UK-based son, who would then donate it to Reform in his own name.
Farage was filmed meeting the supposed donors after the proposal had been discussed with Jukes. Channel 4 argues that the source of the proposed money was explained during the meeting and that Farage did not reject it.
Dorries again pointed to Reform’s vetting process.
“Any donation which comes into the party goes through a very rigorous process overseen by lawyers,” she said.
She argued that an illegal donation would have been stopped before being accepted.
The money did not need to reach Reform
Guru-Murthy challenged Dorries’s suggestion that no possible offence could have taken place because the £500,000 donation was never made.
Section 61 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 covers arrangements intended to evade restrictions on political donations.
It can apply where somebody knowingly enters into or becomes involved in an arrangement that facilitates, or is likely to facilitate, a donation from an impermissible source through concealment or disguise.
The provision means the legal question may not be limited to whether money eventually reached Reform’s bank account.
Guru-Murthy read the relevant section to Dorries and argued that making an arrangement could itself potentially constitute an offence.
She replied:
“I don’t believe any arrangement was made for any political donation.”
No court or investigating authority has determined that Dorries, Farage, Reform, Orr or Jukes committed an offence.
The Electoral Commission has said it is considering the available information and is in contact with the Metropolitan Police.
The commission said that any attempt to evade the controls on political donations would be a matter for the police.
Dorries gets Channel 4 claim wrong
Dorries repeatedly attacked the methods used to obtain the footage and accused Channel 4 of conducting a politically motivated sting timed to coincide with Reform’s conference.
She also claimed the broadcaster had employed an actor during its previous investigation into Reform’s 2024 general election campaign in Clacton.
Guru-Murthy immediately corrected her.
“Just for fact, Channel 4 did not employ an actor in the previous investigation,” he said.
Dorries continued to dispute the point and suggested Channel 4 had bought the material from somebody else.
Guru-Murthy told her that Channel 4 had conducted the investigation itself and had not employed an actor.
The dispute referred to undercover footage broadcast during the 2024 election campaign. A Reform campaigner featured in that report was also an actor by profession, prompting claims that he had been planted. Channel 4 denied paying him or employing him for the investigation.
‘I’m going to have to go’
Towards the end of the interview, Guru-Murthy raised Jukes’s alleged claim that passing money from a foreign parent through a UK-resident child was an established fundraising method.
The undercover footage reportedly captured Jukes listing several examples, although the names were removed from the broadcast.
Dorries said she did not believe the claim.
“All donations which go into Reform’s account are legitimate, above board and go through a very robust legal process,” she said.
She then accused Channel 4 of deliberately broadcasting the investigation on the opening day of Reform’s conference.
Guru-Murthy responded:
“It’s called public service journalism.”
Dorries said she needed to leave because she was already late for an interview with political journalist Harry Cole.
As she prepared to go, Guru-Murthy attempted one final question.
“James Orr and Dan Jukes stepped aside pending the investigation. Why hasn’t Nigel Farage?”
Dorries did not answer.
“I’ve got to go now, sorry,” she said before leaving the interview.
Guru-Murthy was left to close the exchange alone.
“Well, that’s all we’re getting from Nadine Dorries,” he said. “I would have said thank you if she still had her earpiece in.”
Leave a Reply