Nigel Farage may have landed himself in a humiliating contest with Count Binface
NIGEL FARAGE’S desperate by-election gambit has descended into farce as his Reform party was rocked by fresh funding revelations.
It emerged that the Reform boss’s £5 million donation from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne, and other cash for the party, was referred to the National Crime Agency as suspicious.
Labour Party chair Anna Turley called the news “astonishing and deeply serious” and called on Mr Farage to “come clean and co-operate” with the agency.
The fresh scandal about Mr Farage’s funding, first reported by the Guardian, came as he faced the prospect of a hot summer campaigning to keep his Clacton seat in the face of a challenge by Count Binface.
The perennial comedy candidate was the only confirmed opponent to Mr Farage in the by-election he provoked to regain control of a media narrative over sleaze which was gradually paralysing his political operation.
However, the Tories, Labour, Greens, Liberal Democrats and Restore parties all called Reform’s bluff by confirming that they would not stand in the by-election, describing it as a farce.
The local Green party was the last to declare its abstention, issuing a statement saying “we have no intention of helping to legitimise a by-election that appears designed not to serve local residents but to serve Nigel Farage’s personal political ambitions.
“This contest is not about the people of Clacton. It is about one politician placing himself at the centre of a media spectacle and expecting local residents to play supporting roles in a drama of his own making.”
Reform 2025 Ltd’s Director Nigel Farage discusses his five million pounds gift from Crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne. He tells nosey parkers to mind their own business and suggests that you don’t entertain the notion that even some of it could be dirty money from international money laundering. FM, I’ve done it again
RED FEARS: Donald Trump went on an anti-communist rant for Independence Day
DONALD TRUMP’S “red scare” speech on the 250th anniversary of US independence was simply an attempt to “distract from his failing imperialist regime,” the Communist Party said yesterday.
General secretary Alex Gordon condemned Friday night’s speech by the US president as “straight from the playbook of a modern-day tyrant,” adding that “a spectre of communism is haunting Donald Trump.”
Following election wins by candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, Mr Trump’s speech took aim at the progressive politicians pushing back against his wars abroad and violent attacks on immigrants at home.
He said: “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success.
“Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty.”
Mr Gordon hit back: “A spectre of communism is haunting Donald Trump, just as it haunted popes, tsars, Metternich and Guizot, as Marx and Engels wrote in 1848 in The Communist Manifesto.
“Just as in Trump’s first presidential term, as US capitalism collapses and working-class Americans face unemployment, repossessions, inflation hikes and welfare cuts, so Trump’s rhetoric becomes more deranged and his public appearances are accompanied by paramilitary displays aimed at terrorising his own population.
“Trump’s address at the National Mall in Washington DC, the US black-majority capital city, was accompanied by a mobilisation of uniformed white supremacists.
“These are familiar terror tactics of fascist dictators from Mussolini onwards.”
Historian Kenny Coyle rejected Mr Trump’s claim of “100 million victims of communism.”
He told the Star: “This figure is presented so often by corporate media and mainstream academia as an uncontested fact that the claim is rarely subjected to historical research, commonsense questioning or even basic arithmetical skills. It’s not really a surprise that even Trump the Chump could memorise it.”
Keir Starmer warns against following the https://onaquietday.org blog.Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says he wishes someone would lock him up, small Orca speaks bluntly.Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.
UK’s weak lobbying laws leave public in the dark about Flint Global’s vast access to government under James Purnell
Flint Global, the lobbying firm run by Andy Burnham’s incoming chief of staff, James Purnell, held extensive meetings with ministers, senior officials and special advisers with minimal disclosure, openDemocracy can reveal.
Our analysis of public transparency releases revealed Flint’s staff members met with officials from at least nine government departments on 38 occasions – for meetings, breakfasts, lunches, dinners and roundtables – since Labour took office. Attendees included cabinet ministers Jonathan Reynolds, Douglas Alexander and Nick Thomas-Symonds. This figure is likely an undercount as records of such meetings are published months in arrears.
While Flint Global opts not to reveal its client list in the UK, EU transparency disclosures reveal it has lobbied politicians in Brussels on behalf of Microsoft, Apple, BP and Uber. In the UK, the firm is known to have advised Thames Water – the utility Burnham has said “should be” nationalised.
Our findings raise fresh questions about the interests of Purnell, a former Blair-era cabinet minister who is poised to become one of the UK’s most powerful unelected officials when Burnham enters No 10, and have sparked fresh calls for the UK’s weak lobbying laws to be reformed.
One government log appears to confirm just how routine its engagements with Flint were.
A September 2024 meeting between the lobbying firm and the Department for Business and Trade’s then top-ranking civil servant, Gareth Davies, is described as a “regular meeting to discuss latest business updates”. Purnell is also recorded as having hosted “evening drinks to discuss latest business updates” with Davies in March this year.
Yet despite this regular access to government officials, Flint’s quarterly entries to the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists have only ever declared lobbying for two clients. The firm said it lobbied on behalf of the British Standards Institution, which produces technical standards on a range of products and services, in late 2024, and Hellen Systems, a tech firm working on long-range navigation, between July and September 2025.
Across the remaining six quarters that Labour has been in office – covering a total of 18 months – Flint declared having made “no communications which meet the definition of consultant lobbying”.
There is no suggestion that Flint has broken any rules. Rather, its near-empty register reflects major flaws in Westminster’s lobbying transparency rules. While few companies enjoy such extensive access to such wide-ranging government departments, much of Flint’s lobbying activity does not meet the threshold for statutory registration.
The 2014 Lobbying Act requires consultant lobbyists to register only direct communications with ministers or permanent secretaries made on a client’s behalf. They do not have to declare meetings with government special advisers, director generals and senior officials, nor roundtables and briefings that they attend or organise, nor strategic advice they give clients about who to speak to in government, what to say, and when to say it.
The result is that a firm such as Flint Global can maintain a regular presence across Whitehall – breakfasting with officials, dining with ministers, pre-briefing advisers – while lawfully declaring that it does no consultant lobbying at all. Many similar lobbying firms sign up to the industry body’s voluntary code of conduct, which requires them to publish a client list, but Flint has not opted to do so.
This means the public has no way of knowing whether decisions that cross Purnell’s desk in No 10 could benefit his former clients.
Duncan Hames, senior director of policy at Transparency International UK, told openDemocracy: “That a lobbying company can have dozens of meetings across government with so little public information about the purpose of these engagements shows how opaque Westminster remains.
“If the next prime minister wants change from the broken politics-as-usual, they should recognise that keeping things behind closed doors and poorly managing conflicts of interest are recipes for disaster.
“Government should create a firewall between any new appointments and their past interests in the private sector, as well legislating to bring lobbying out of the shadows.”
Vast access to Whitehall
Purnell, who resigned from Flint Global last week, joined the company as chief executive in June 2024 – weeks before Labour’s election win. Although the lobby firm had previously secured meetings with Conservative government officials, its engagement with the government appears to have ramped up that summer.
In July 2024, the firm hosted a roundtable with then-business secretary Jonathan Reynolds alongside Barclays, Google and Virgin Atlantic to discuss “opportunities and challenges relating to business growth”. It is not known whether Flint counts these firms among its UK clients, though EU transparency records reveal it has lobbied for Google in Brussels.
Over the following 20 months, Flint met ministers or officials from the Department for Business and Trade at least 13 times, including three meetings with trade minister Douglas Alexander and repeated meetings, breakfasts, dinners and drinks with civil servant Gareth Davies.
Over at the Treasury, Flint discussed the contents of the chancellor’s January 2025 growth speech with a senior official the day it was delivered, attended a roundtable on financial services policy with then City minister Emma Reynolds, and met a senior official to “discuss policy for Autumn Budget” in October 2025.
Department for Transport special adviser Stef Lehmann, who previously worked in Flint’s transport team, accepted lunch or dinner from Flint on three separate occasions, while the department’s permanent secretary, Bernadette Kelly, recorded a “speaking commitment” with the firm.
Flint also hosted or briefed senior officials at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on digital policy; met officials from the Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero to discuss new publicly owned energy investment firm Great British Energy; and discussed planning “blockers” with Chris Stark, the head of the government’s clean power mission.
The firm also had contact with the Cabinet Office, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Health and Social Care, whose special adviser, Heather Iqbal – another ex-Flint employee – was taken to breakfast by Purnell in August 2025.
Several of the engagements were roundtables organised around Flint’s corporate network. A March 2025 meeting with Douglas Alexander to discuss “the current trading environment” brought together more than 20 companies, including Amazon, Uber, Diageo, Unilever, GSK and Quadrature – the hedge fund that donated £4m to Labour before the 2024 election. The British Standards Institution, one of the only two clients Flint has ever been required to declare, was also present, although Flint did not declare any consultant lobbying for the company in this quarter.
Following Purnell’s resignation, Flint Global said Purnell “has recused himself from all client activity and has no ongoing financial interest in the company of any kind.”
Flint Global and Andy Burnham’s team were approached for comment.
Elon Musk became—at least temporarily—the world’s first trillionaire on June 12 after his space, telecommunications and AI company SpaceX had the largest initial public offering in history. Initially priced at $135 per share for a valuation around $1.77 trillion, shares opened at $150 and peaked on June 16 at $225.64 (a valuation of nearly $3 trillion). The price spiked after Musk announced, before markets reopened on June 15, that he believes “SpaceX might be able to reach approximately $1T revenue in 2030” (CNBC, 6/15/26).
Since its June 16 peak, however, SpaceX’s share price has fallen, steadily declining until June 22 and settling around $160 since. Markets closed on Thursday, July 2, with a share price of $162.00.
SpaceX’s big slump coincided with a mass tech sell-off last week, prompted by mounting concerns that tech firms cannot generate the returns necessary to pay off the colossal debts financing massive AI infrastructure buildouts, especially as companies are beginning to rein in their spending on AI (404 Media, 6/24/26; TechCrunch, 6/24/26).
That was likely a surprise to viewers of CNBC, whose full-day IPO coverage pumped the stock by inviting sources with vested interests to celebrate Musk’s cult of personality and obfuscate the magical thinking behind the company’s projections.
All in on business-facing Grok
SpaceX‘s prospectus has lots of pictures of space, but the details make clear that it’s really envisioning itself as an AI company.
According to its own S-1 filing with the SEC, SpaceX anticipates that its greatest earnings potential does not come from the rocket business for which it is famous, but from selling AI to other businesses. The breathless CNBC discussions entirely omitted the dubious origins of SpaceX’s gargantuan estimate of its maximum potential revenue—a key investor metric known as total addressable market (TAM).
In its S-1 prospectus, SpaceX claims a TAM of $28.5 trillion, larger than the entire GDP of China.
The document separates this figure into SpaceX’s three sectors: space, connectivity and AI. Although the filing argues that space “represents the largest economic frontier in human history,” space makes up just $370 billion, or 1.3%, of SpaceX’s supposed TAM. Meanwhile, AI makes up $26.5 trillion, or 93%, the vast majority of which is for “enterprise applications.”
Enterprise AI is a broad category of business-oriented applications for firms looking to simplify and accelerate workflows, like converting text files into presentation formats, writing and debugging string code, and automating some sales, marketing, HR and IT functions. The most popular AI assistant by far is OpenAI’s ChatGPT, followed by Google’s Google Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude (TechCrunch, 6/16/26).
A closer reading of SpaceX’s S-1 filing reveals that its $22.7 trillion estimate for enterprise AI applications does not actually represent the TAM of the company’s enterprise AI, but is instead an estimate of the size of the entire digital economy—posing a hypothetical wherein xAI’s Grok Business and Grok Enterprise monopolize all digital commerce. It’s worth noting that xAI currently has extremely limited enterprise AI market share, with a March Enterprise Technology Research survey finding that just 7% of respondents use Grok (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/26).
After SpaceX adjusted its chatbot so it would “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect,” Grok declared that Adolf Hitler would “spot the pattern” and “handle it decisively, every damn time” (Politico, 7/10/25).
Note also that subscriptions to xAI‘s consumer AI, SuperGrok, on X (labeled “consumer subscriptions” in the chart) alone make up $760 billion, or 2.7% of SpaceX’s TAM. That’s calculated
based on the global population of individuals aged 10 and over in 2025 … multiplied by the weighted average monthly subscription revenue of $12, resulting in an annualized market opportunity of approximately $760 billion.
So if every person on the planet over the age of 9 sends SpaceX $12 every month to use Grok, the X chatbot that spent four days last year calling itself MechaHitler and promoting the Great Replacement Theory, SpaceX will take in $760 billion per year. Sounds like a business plan!
SpaceX’s public offering has all of the hallmarks of a pump-and-dump scheme, using a “staggered lock-up” schedule that allows insiders to sell off shares much earlier than most other publicly traded firms—enabling them to cash out while the stock is still grossly overvalued. This gambit is also called a “bagholder” scheme, as retail investors are left holding a rapidly depreciating asset.
While most IPOs prevent insiders from selling shares for the first 180 days of public trading, SpaceX uses an expedited schedule that allows most insiders to sell much sooner—selling off overvalued shares to retail customers.
While this pump-and-dump began with retail consumers who bought shares on the first day of public trading, these massive wealth transfers are being thrust upon working people whether they like them or not, as Musk successfully negotiated new rules that fast-trackSpaceX’s inclusion in major index funds, including the Russell 1000 and NASDAQ funds—transferring rapidly devaluing stock from SpaceX insiders to working people’s retirement accounts.
But none of this was explored on CNBC the day of the SpaceX IPO launch. FAIR could find not a single guest or anchor that mentioned that “Elon Musk’s rocket company” valued the potential for SuperGrok X subscriptions at more than twice the total projected TAM for the space industry, nor that SpaceX’s TAM is based on a scenario in which business-facing Grok controls all e-commerce—and certainly not that the IPO would essentially serve as a massive wealth transfer from retail investors to SpaceX insiders.
‘You should have bought as much as you could’
During a completely uncontentious interview with Squawk Box co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin (6/12/26), Elon Musk biographer Walter Isaacson muses, “Who knows, we may have the mining of rare earth minerals at some point—I guess we can’t call them rare earth if they’re not on earth. But I think what we’re seeing is the beginning of a whole new economy, a space-based economy.”
Instead, in the hours leading up to SpaceX’s first trade, CNBC viewers were primed by Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen (6/12/26) lamenting that orders were being snatched up by large institutional investors, and hoping that trades would begin at under $300 per share. He assured viewers that, although he’s nervous, “whenever we’ve worried about any of these great tech companies…wherever it was on opening day, you should have bought them as much as you could.”
The rest of the influential three-hour morning program was as much of a commercial for SpaceX as this opening scene. Squawk Box‘s guests included SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell (interviewed by Morning Call host Morgan Brennan), Elon Musk biographer Walter Isaacson, long-time Musk investor David George, head of financial technology research at Citizens Bank Devin Ryan, and venture capitalist and investor Ben Narasin.
All but one of these guests have vested interests or are members of Musk’s inner circle, and used their airtime to generate excitement around the stock by focusing on Musk as a visionary key man. Kernen, co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin and guest host Melissa Lee offered no pushback.
During his conversation with Musk’s biographer Isaacson, Sorkin responded to a proposal that Musk could mine rare earth minerals in space: “I’m curious what you think of the valuation itself…. When you talk to investors, a lot of them say, ‘Look, the math may not actually math out on paper.’”
But before letting a question that could be interpreted as contentious hang too long, he answered for Isaacson:
But Elon Musk is the math. He’s been such a success over all these years. And just about everyone who’s invested with him in the past, he has found a way to make money, even if he didn’t plan to make money in a specific way originally. He then pivots and finds a way that also creates a key man risk. But I’m curious how you think about that.
Of eight guests and anchors featured to speak with Squawk Box hosts about the IPO, just one offered a critical perspective: final guest Ben Narasin, a founder of Tenacity Venture and self-described “long-term buyer of SpaceX.” Narasin contended that while he believes that SpaceX is “going to be a phenomenal company,” a bad post-IPO performance could “put a true chill on the market.”
Squawk Box also included almost no discussion of SpaceX’s TAM, with just one observation, about two hours into the broadcast, that David George, a partner at venture capital company Andreessen Horowitz, believes in it wholeheartedly. Musk is the “best entrepreneur of our generation,” George claimed, targeting “two of the most important markets in technology for our society.”
‘Doubt large numbers at your peril’
Encouraging his audience to buy into SpaceX, Mad Money host Jim Cramer (6/12/26) pitches, “Musk has the ideas and the execution. Historically, betting against him has been a terrible strategy. Betting with him? Hey, why the heck not? I’m surprised he even lets us tag along.”
Like his colleagues on Squawk Box, CNBC‘s Halftime Report host Scott Wapner (6/12/26) was also seemingly incapable of posing tough questions to those with vested interests—but when one guest expressed skepticism, he was happy to interrupt.
His guests—and SpaceX private shareholders—Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner, Hightower chief investment strategist Stephanie Link and Newedge Wealth CEO Rob Sechan pitched viewers directly to buy in early. (Link completely ignored Wapner’s question as to whether she bought into the IPO.)
Wapner jumped in to parrot Sequoia Capital partner (and Musk DOGE assistant) Shaun Maguire’s suggestion, during previous program Squawk on the Street, that SpaceX’s $28.5 TAM could be an underestimate. He echoed Maguire’s assertion that “this company has the most important mission of any company in history,” warning prospective retail investors to “doubt those large numbers at your own peril” (Halftime Report, 6/12/26).
But when Capital Area Planning Group managing partner Malcolm Ethridge expressed some skepticism as to why retail investors shouldn’t doubt the massive TAM—which, he noted, is almost the size of the US’s GDP—or buy equity in a cheaper space or AI firm with better sales, Wapner cut him off twice—once to rebut with a reminder that SpaceX’s largest revenue-generator is Starlink, and once to prompt Gerstner to offer the same explanation. (Starlink’s 2025 revenue was $11.4 billion, or about 0.04% of US GDP.)
Neither answered Ethridge’s question, but once the topic was successfully changed, Wapner and Gerstner continued peddling.
Meanwhile, during his speculative finance advice program Mad Money (6/12/26), host Jim Cramer likened SpaceX going public to putting a man on the Moon and winning the space race (an analogy he also shared during Squawk on the Street and The Exchange):
The SpaceX IPO felt just like when we put a man on the Moon. Most of you aren’t old enough to remember what that was like back then. We’ve been in a race against Russia for global suppremacy…and then we landed on the Moon…a recognition that we weren’t a nation of bozos competing as a nation of geniuses. These days, I feel the same way about China…. Then along comes Elon Musk, who’s winning the space race against the Chinese, and just got the money he needs to complete projects we haven’t even imagined yet. That’s why my emotion is one of pride.
Although he pointed out that SpaceX may be “outrageously overvalued” by “traditional metrics,” Cramer argued that he nonetheless sees it as a “long-term call on space exploration,” encouraging those who got in early to invest even more. He rattled off the often-repeated refrain that “Musk has the ideas and the execution. Historically, betting against [Elon Musk] has been a terrible strategy.” (Very famously, Musk frequently doesn’t deliver on his promises.)
‘A number so large it destroys your credibility’
CNBC‘s David Faber laughs as his guest NYU business school professor Aswath Damodaran jokes, “When I read [the S-1], I thought Grok had written the prospectus, because we know AI is subject to hallucinations.”This isn’t to say that CNBC’s coverage of SpaceX’s IPO was completely without critical perspectives: Squawk on the Street’s David Faber (6/12/26) spent much of his onscreen time grilling insider guests on whether they’ll sell early, and pushing back on vague, aspirational framing around the AI and space industries.
Faber repeatedly reminded his audience that the S-1 prospectus specifically sees most of SpaceX’s potential in enterprise AI. He skeptically took the projected $22.7 trillion TAM for enterprise AI as given, but pointed out that “it’s not clear” how SpaceX’s Grok could compete with other enterprise AI products:
It’s interesting, as much as we talk about SpaceX, as much as we hear Musk talking about space and then Starlink, the real opportunity in terms of addressing this enormous number is actually still the same opportunity that’s being sought after by Anthropic, and OpenAI, and Alphabet and others.
Squawk on the Street also featured the most critical guest by far, NYU business school professor Aswath Damodaran, who came closest to questioning the origin of the TAM of any host or guest on any of the programs:
When I read [the S-1], I thought Grok had written the prospectus, because we know AI is subject to hallucinations…. I don’t know if it’s a banker who wrote it, I would be embarrassed to even put that number out. I mean, it’s a big market. Why do you need to make up a number, a number so large it destroys your credibility?
But even in scrutinizing SpaceX’s prospects, or the true size of the enterprise AI market, Squawk on the Street’s criticism missed the bigger picture: SpaceX’s record-setting IPO is a pump-and-dump, and retail investments provide the exit liquidity for insiders looking to get out of a failing AI company.
Every day, dozens of guests representing various companies advertise their stock on CNBC for retail consumers, who trust the judgment of their favorite program hosts to give completely uncontentious interviews, essentially constituting a series of infomercials, rather than actual financial journalism. FAIR (3/18/09, 2/3/20) has criticized CNBC on this basis for decades.
So when CNBC invites SpaceX insiders with vested interests to pump the valuation of their stock on the air shortly before dumping it on retail consumers, it seems obvious why even the most critical host cannot alert his viewers to what is really going on: because CNBC’s reporting exists to boost stock, rather than protect consumers.
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
Elon Musk posted 303 times about race and immigration in the period leading up to SpaceX’s listing on the Nasdaq on 12 June. Photograph: Isaac Wasserman/NCAA Photos/Getty Images
Guardian analysis of X feed shows how keen world’s richest person was to air his views and ‘interfere’ in British politics
Elon Musk posted about race and immigration in the UK on his social media network X twice as often as he did about SpaceX, which he also owns, in the run-up to the aerospace and AI company’s initial public offering.
A Guardian analysis of Musk’s posts, replies and reposts between 31 May and 12 June has shown the extent to which the social media activity of the world’s richest person, who lives primarily in the US, has focused on UK politics.
The period was one of heightened tension and concern in the UK about online activity, particularly from rightwing social media accounts, after the sentencing of Vickrum Digwa for the murder of teenager Henry Nowak, which led to claims of “anti-white” policing, and far-right protesters clashing with police. It also coincided with violent riots across Belfast in Northern Ireland, when protests erupted after a knife attack.
While UK ministers were appealing for an end to the violence, in the US Musk was preparing for one of the biggest moments in his business career on 12 June. That was the day SpaceX, his social media, satellite internet and aerospace conglomerate went public, making him the world’s first trillionaire.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.A parody ‘Tesla – The Swasticar’ advert posted at a London bus stop. Photograph: People vs Elon
Nigel Farage may have landed himself in a humiliating contest with Count Binface
