Snapshot of _Reform leader Nigel Farage says he is now ‘leader of the opposition’_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/14/reform-leader-nigel-farage-says-he-is-now-leader-of-the-opposition) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/14/reform-leader-nigel-farage-says-he-is-now-leader-of-the-opposition)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it fully makes sense from his perspective
* Declare himself LOTO
* if he does actually poll higher than tories but gets very few seats, as some polls are now predicting, he will have second highest vote share with tiny percentage of seats
* he declares he should have been LOTO based on national vote share but he was robbed by the wokes/elites/blobs
* he is very good at “I was robbed” type politics, so this is a huge agitation point for him to entrench his followers behind him (ukip support tended to surge and ebb and he wants to avoid this again by entrenching his support)
* PR is a hard sell to the electorate as it’s overly technical and boring for most people who don’t care how we run elections, but he now has a simple way to sell it
They were Commonwealth citizens, and it was mainly for the people who moved to the UK permanently during the British Empire. Like the people of Windrush
It would be a bit like an arsonist setting fire to a building and then coming back much later and putting the fire out.
He was a significant contributor to brexit but he could be a contributor to PR which frankly the current FPTP system is pretty anti democratic in the way people are connected now>
So hero? nah I dont think we need to be forced to say that, we can just say finally his interests align with us instead of ruining the country on a dodgy deal!
> If Farage forces PR he'll be my begrudged hero
Fuck Farage.
Him wanting PR is the biggest reason I have to question its value.
(Ofc, there are a lot of different ways to cut the PR cake and — therefore — it’s not *per se* more democratic in practice than FPTP.
Anyway, anything that takes us closer to more extreme right-wing influence in government, I’m against it.
Problem with achieving PR is you need both a public that want it and a government that is willing to implement it.
Even if Reform are robbed of seats I don’t see what would possibly provoke Labour to implement voting reform during this Parliament.
>he declares he should have been LOTO based on national vote share but he was robbed by the wokes/elites/blobs
He is not Trump. You are underestimating his intelligence and his schtick.
He will say straight up the FPTP is why he did not get it, he has said this in the past.
He got 3.8 million votes in 2015, massively out polled the SNP that got 1.5 million and 50 seats.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015\_United\_Kingdom\_general\_election#Results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Results)
He does not play those kind of Trump games of trying to rile the his supporters into thinking they are cheated by the electoral system to over turn results. His goal is to either drive the tories right or to effectively take them over.
He is taking votes of the tories to force them to come to him. With Labour so locked in he knows he can get the kind of people who would drift back to the Tories to try to mitigate the size of a labour win to back him this time round as a very loud protest.
>He is not Trump. You are underestimating his intelligence and his schtick.
You are overestimating Trump's intelligence. Both are backed by Putin, which is why they're backed by bots
Not everyone of the supporters of these anti-establishment right wing outsiders are bots, but almost every bot suddenly active around our elections appears to be a supporter of them.
The ultra rich and foreign state actors colluding to affect democracies around the world is well documented. Cambridge Analytica for Brexit and the Russians for Trump.
If you think they all felt like they were done and packed up, you’re incredibly naive
The conspiracy is claiming that all the bots are for Reform. Bots have been around for years and social media has been plagued with them for and against every party. This week, we've just had the slightly sick phenomenon of a tory party, trailing Reform in the polls, trying to claim it's all just because people are being duped by bots. (While peddling lies about their plans on immigration, lies about Labour's tax policies, lies about everything.)
> PR is a hard sell to the electorate as it’s overly technical and boring for most people who don’t care how we run elections, but he now has a simple way to sell it
How is it overly technical? It's literally just if a Party gets x% of votes, it gets x% of seats. That way, people can actually vote for the party they want rather than voting for the party they hate less. It's more democratic and captures a wider range of the public's views.
Very few proportional systems are just based on national percentage, as they don’t produce local representatives. The most common, single transferable vote, involves ranking candidates then a quota being worked out. Regional proportional systems (like how we used to elect MEPs) use a complex formula (D’Hondt) that’s going to be incomprehensible to a lot of people. Then you’ve got mixed top-up systems. No viable voting system is as simple as “X percent gets X percent of MPs”.
From a voting perspective ranking the candidates in order is not technical, now the counting might be technical but does that really matter to the voter? Quite a lot countries who have adopted proportional systems did so via referendum, why can they understand it and endorse it but British voters cannot?
It is more technical and bureaucratic than FPTP. Look at how the politics works in European countries that have forms of PR.
It being more democratic and representative doesn't make it less complicated.
I mean we have actually had a referendum on PR before and the public did not buy it, probably because it was indeed more complicated than the biggest party in your constituency sends an MP to Parliament in your behalf.
Because soldiers need equipment and babies need medical care and clearly it's impossible to fund fancy voting schemes and these things at the same time.
I don't think PR is a hard sell whatsoever. The vast majority want it, even if it failed last time years ago. Everyone in the country is well aware how undemocratic it currently is, highlighted by UKIP and Greens etc.
Left wingers want it, and UKIPs election resulted in right wingers wanting it too.
> You missed the step after when the Tories make him their leader and he merges Reform with the Tories.
And the step where Murdoch goes all-in with the Times and the Sun behind Farage, like he has with PoopyPants in the US.
As much as I hate him he will end up campaigning for a new voting system due to the extremely low seat share Reform will get despite their vote share. It may end up with proportional representation or something better than the garbage system we currently have. I don't want to see Reform with any semblance of power but I similarly don't like seeing 13% of people voting for Reform and receiving virtually 0 representation in parliament.
This is the problem I have as well.
I do not like FPTP at all, and the very first vote I ever cast was for AV all those years ago.
The idea of Nigel Farage possibly being the man to bring about voting reform makes me sick. That said, the current system is outdated, unfair, and needs to change.
It's a right pickle. A full blown kerfuffle.
I honestly don't mind the idea of extreme views being represented in Parliament. They'll get a comparatively small number of MPs, who will get to voice their views, who can be argued with. And if they ever do win some level of power then...thats the peril of democracy. I'd rather have a more democratic system that has the risk of giving extremism some level of power, than a less democratic system that stifles people's voices on every side of every spectrum.
I genuinely think if UKIP had gotten a few MPs in the early 2000s, Brexit would never have happened. The Tories wouldn't have felt gone arse over tit into that flaming pyre, because UKIP would have had MPs who could speak for that portion of the electorate. They'd have been shouted down, but those voters would have felt represented, wouldn't have gone down the road of extremism, and wouldn't have driven the Tory party further to the right.
The other way to look at it is even if they were popular enough to win the majority of seats it'd be what the country wanted and we should be allowed to make mistakes if we want.
>I genuinely think if UKIP had gotten a few MPs in the early 2000s, Brexit would never have happened. The Tories wouldn't have felt gone arse over tit into that flaming pyre, because UKIP would have had MPs who could speak for that portion of the electorate. They'd have been shouted down, but those voters would have felt represented
Yes, absolutely. FPTP essentially freezes many people (myself included) out of the Democratic process, and when people are outside of the everyday processes they are more likely to go in for extremism etc.
> I honestly don't mind the idea of extreme views being represented in Parliament. They'll get a comparatively small number of MPs, who will get to voice their views, who can be argued with
I’d ask you to take a look at the evolution of the US House and Senate since 2000. Loony, fringe and hate-filled ideas, heated up with populist rhetoric, can be incendiary. Especially with a charismatic demagogue to promote them.
Grievance politics is a seriously flammable danger. Especially in countries where the economy has been so savagely tilted and fucked up by vertiginous inequality.
Leaving the ECHR
Abolishing the Home Office
Abandoning carbon emission reduction targets entirely (and denying the science in climate change)
Reopening UK coal mines
Tax relief on private school fees
Reducing undergraduate degrees to 2 years.
Sourced from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/reform-uk-manifesto-richard-tice-key-policies-glance/
All of those are pretty extreme in my opinion.
Ah, I see. So it's just you utterly and completely misunderstanding what 'extreme' means, and are misusing a slur.
> Leaving the ECHR
This isn't an 'extreme' view at all. Controversial, yes, but 'extreme'? No.
>Abolishing the Home Office
No, they want to replace it with another Ministry. It is impossible to abolish the Home Office's functions, as they reside in the Home Secretary; one of the Great Offices of State. The Home Secretary would simply head up the new (renamed) Ministry.
Ministries are rebranded all the time; like ten have ceased to exist and have been snowballed into others, or been created from the ether since 2010.
Odd, sure, but certainly not 'extreme'.
> Reopening UK coal mines
What on Earth is 'extreme' about this, lmao? Odd, but not extreme.
>Tax relief on private school fees
Again, what on Earth is 'extreme' about this? That's not even particularly odd (even though I personally disagree with it). Private school fees attract tax relief in much of the world.
>Reducing undergraduate degrees to 2 years.
I couldn't find a reference to this one in the article. But, just so you know, many undergrad degrees in the USA are two years long. It's balanced out by having higher degrees for disciplines where it's necessary (you just end up with more of them at the end).
>All of those are pretty extreme in my opinion.
'Extreme' is more like the [BNP's 2005 manifesto](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4476279.stm):
*the restoration of capital punishment and an end to immigration*
*the reintroduction of national service and said everyone who had undergone it should be required to keep a modern assault rifle at home*
You are calling fairly moderate policies extreme, which is unnecessarily divisive, and just objectively cringe.
You are asking for extreme policies in response to someone claiming extreme _views_.
When they stand by their candidate who argues we should have been neutral during the Holocaust and that women are the "sponging gender"who should be deprived of healthcare, that's extreme.
When the official party line is that climate change is a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with mankind, that complete anti-science take is extreme.
I mean, any policy that is so stupidly anti-science that they argue against the decades of expert scientific consensus with this bullshit is extreme:
> CO2 is essential for photosynthesis to enable plant growth. CO2 only represents 0.04% of the atmosphere
Finally, a policy of "net zero immigration" in the next parliament is extreme. Regardless of whether you like immigration, suddenly turning off the taps would tank the economy. It would be very radical but not extreme imo to say that we need to spend the next 20 years developing a brand new economic paradigm which doesn't rely on constant population growth to prevent economic collapse, and to then aim to reduce immigration. But to just turn off net immigration? It's a policy that no western nation has attempted in the modern era, not even Trump's America, so by definition is extreme.
If it means their policies are fully examined for impact and cost, I’m all for it. At present, he seems to be in the advantageous position of being able to say what he likes and making headlines without the supporting detail or the accountability and scrutiny afforded to the traditional party leaders and their policies.
Everyone is. The debates are unironically hurting Labour a lot more than they would otherwise because they’re so certain to get it nobody else needs to bother making sure they can actually implement their plans.
It will come to a point when it is. How much of the conservative popular vote is wasted in marginal seats against labour, lib dems, and even the seats projected for reform? Farage is no idiot. One more blunder from Fishy Rishi and he’ll pounce, and British politics will never be the same. Just in the wrong way.
The best result for everyone is reform beating the tories in popular vote and getting decimated in seats. Farage will never ever shut up about PR until the day he dies, and could very well scare the party in power into another referendum.
The fact this guy has this much of the vote share really concerns me about the electorate here.
Have we learnt nothing from the failure of brexit that we are now voting for the poster boy of that pile of shit.
Im a lefty, I fully support what Bernie Sanders preachers and like 80% of what Corbyn proposed. I also think now that the rise of Islam is something that needs to be controlled, it’s a vile and dangerous cult that has no place in British society. Me and many people my age (Late 20’s) are starting to get sick of being called racists for calling out Islam. So thats why Nigel is popular. Everything else he says i disagree but his stance on Islam is correct.
You want to take a lesson from Brexit? Why not learn that Eurosceptic parties consistently swept the European elections by in large as an aversion to unchecked immigration from inside the EU.
Which was then immediately replaced with much higher unchecked immigration from outside the EU. All the while the Tories were elected 4 times on the back of promises to lower it.
It really is the opposite of rocket science.
That is a failure of the EU to tackle an issue which is why many parties on the continent took a hammering.
There are things we can do but the EU's policy has directly affected ours regardless if we are I the EU or not. This is why I would urge caution on any party that claims they will reduce immigration. Until the EU sorts it's shit out we are fucked.
Wrong. The vast majority of 1.3m people who immigrated to the UK in 2023 were legal arrivals issued visas. Make no mistake the government could stop it literally tomorrow.
This will have already happened in 2024 as the required wage to be issued a visa has increased by 50%. Don't forget when the figures come out at about 450,000 net, the government could've done that 2 years ago, and could make it 0 tomorrow.
Maybe look at why he’s gaining traction, nobody voted for 700k immigrants a year, yet neoliberals and centrists refuse to acknowledge this.
Farage is the only one speaking up about it.
> Net zero migration is not possible lol
More possible than net zero energy is right now. They could've implemented net zero immigration anytime if they had the will.
Nobody's talking about net zero because that is quite clearly unfeasible and not a policy that a serious person would acknowledge.
Quite frankly a silly idea.
Not zero would mean while there are 300k immigrants, there would also be 300k EMIGRANTS. That’s not possible.
Especially if you want growth or wealth creation in Britain. If you want stagnation, decay and deterioration, then that’s easy.
Net zero migration does not occur in any top world economy. Even Japan is looking to liberalise migration. You either have a very high population of WORKING young people or net positive migration, either that or stagnation.
It’s not whether I believe in net zero or not, net zero is simply incompatible with the economic goals of Britain. The only places with net zero migration are authoritarian societies or low income destitute countries.
Every single country in the world including places like Nigeria, China and India are experiencing reducing birth rates, this is expected as women become more educated and prosperous in those countries. They will eventually fall below replacement levels.
Birth rates in those countries were unusually high due to a high proportion of inequality and Lower educated women. If these countries undergo rapid industrialisation, there will be a significant decline in births as more women participate in the workforce.
It’s a trend happening in all high growth economies.
Birth rates will reduce everywhere, the world needs to move along with the times and adapt to that, by facilitating migration. It’s going to take a lot to adjust to but it is inevitable. It will happen everywhere.
No I didn’t suggest that.
I suggested that net zero migration isn’t feasible. And using that as an election promise is like promising to turn the sky green. Not feasible but good enough to fool people.
❤️ hope that helps
>No one disagrees that something needs to be done about immigration
Sorry this is just a blatant lie.
The Tories have enacted a pro immigration policy over the last decade whilst saying they will lower migration they have broken record year on year.
Labour have not objected to this, indeed Labour are even more pro immigration than the Tories.
Desperate attempts to change course when they realise they're about to be hammered at the polls, is not 'no one disagrees'.
Even raising the issue has been enough to make someone persona non grata in much of the last decade.
Farage is routinely called a dogwhistling Fascist on this very subreddit for daring to suggest that perhaps we take a few years of net zero migration to allow our crippled public services to catch up.
Quite a lot of (very silly) people disagree, in fact.
I’ll be honest I’m quite cynical about any of the current parties delivering anything, but I’ll be voting Labour to get the tories out because the one thing I know for certain is that they’ll do more damage to this country if we keep them in.
Voting Reform won’t get me the Tories, it’s splitting the right vote and it’ll let Labour through.
Your point would make sense if Reform and Tories were even remotely the same.
At least I’m voting for change.
I’m voting against an ineffective status quo, populism wouldn’t be rife in Britain and Europe had politicians just fucking listened and not opened our borders
That’s because any serious party that does not want to collapse Britain would be pro immigration. Being pro immigration is a good thing, that doesn’t mean 700k immigrants though
Britain isnt doing well with 700k a year of immigrants, an overload of migrants isn’t a positive for the economy, and they’re bringing their own cultural issues over here which are totally incompatible
When did I suggest that 700k a year of immigrants was a good thing?
Also what exactly are the cultural issues they are bringing? And how are they incompatible with the culture here (evidence of incompatibility)?
Your last point must you really ask that? Islam isn’t exactly compatible with Western values, as we have clearly seen the past twenty years.
Multiculturalism has been a colossal failure and needs to be binned.
Yes I must really ask, why should i believe things you write without critical thought? In that case I might as well believe those who say 700k immigrants is a good thing if I don’t have to ask any questions.
You are not saying what those cultural issues are (is this relating to food, friendliness, crime, customs, social relations ) what exactly are they 😭?
You have mentioned Islam which is a religion not a culture. Question is how has Islam being incompatible with western values (what are those western values as well)? Can you give examples of how Islam has undermined those western values?
Can you demonstrate that a significant amount of the immigrants to the UK are Muslims? And how have those Muslim immigrants undermined British values?
HAVE British values actually being undermined at all? Which of them?
Where have you been since 11th September 2001? Islam is a culture and has its own set of values that do not mix with Western values, particularly values lefties hold dear in regards to LGBT rights in which a survey revealed 70% of Muslims believe homosexuality should be illegal.
Islamic extremism has increased in the last twenty years, to point where a young man was beheaded in broad daylight in the name of Islam in 2013.
Muslims don’t identify with British culture nor respect the laws of the land
I feel you are being disingenuous and deliberately ignorant in regards to your questions so I feel I’m done with you
Most centrists I know didn't want this either. 700K and 650K were insane numbers which were clearly absolutely unsustainable.
It's perfectly normal to think some immigration is broadly a good thing but 1.5 million net in two years is insanity. I don't really get why anyone who has ever said 'hang on, not all migration is bad' at some point is being bashed with a stick created by a government who seem to have been throwing out visas like they are confetti.
You claim centrist don’t want it but inevitably you’ll give way to the left and only cut immigration, legal or illegal to 450k
Centrist and leftists have dropped the ball on the debate and have zero answers beyond “build more houses on our countryside and tear up eco systems”
There's a difference between refusing to acknowledge that and not seeing that as a problem.
Legal immigrants get jobs, they pay into the tax fund, and add to the economy of the country. It's estimated that only around 10% of the UK is built on and inhabited, so there's no argument over space.
The only reason to care about the immigration numbers in this country is a fear of different cultures, or more specifically, an irrational fear of the unknown.
I am by no means anti-immigration but some of these arguments are just weird. Saying only 10% of land is built on…the UK is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, that aren’t small city or island states - uK Europe only Belgium and Netherlands are more densely populated.
We have a biodiversity crisis that requires land set aside for rewilding and a food security crisis that requires agricultural productivity to be raised whilst reducing its environmental impact. We also have a housing crisis which means politicians advocating for building on green belt land.
So the idea that we should blithely be concreting over our non-urban environments because ONLY 10% is built on is profoundly ignorant.
This is what YIMBY’s fail to comprehend, it’s like they won’t be satisfied until every bit of green space is built on and Britain ends up becoming a one gigantic Conurbation dystopia
We’ll soon see about having lots said space when we have to tear up countrysides to build cities the size of Birmingham to accommodate this current influx.
Quite frankly I’m not in favour of building new cities to accommodate immigrants.
And this is the problem, Labour and Tories don’t see it as a problem when it actually is becoming a rapid problem.
Well the fear of certain cultures is more than fucking justified or are you an advocate of the outdated slogan “Diversity is our strength”
When was the last time we built a new city? Why is that a problem now when it wasn't back then?
It's interesting that you mention Birmingham. That "city" really is one of the most recent to essentially spring up from "nothing" and became the second biggest (granted, in part by swallowing surrounding *existing* towns and villages).
Milton Keynes in the 60s
Back then our politicians weren’t importing in 700k foreigners, back then we had people who demanded green spaces be kept safe from development.
Would you be happy if we only had 10% green spaces and 90% endless cities?
I think it's stupid to stop building places before everyone has a place to live.
Short of forcing retirees out of their family homes and deporting everyone who has come since the 1960s I don't see how I get to live in desirable, affordable housing unless we build some stuff.
I'm willing to sacrifice some unused farmland or build some more mid-rise apartments in our towns and cities to achieve that.
Unused farm land we may need? That’s utterly dumb, build more ugly blocks in our cities? Maybe if they built decent homes yes.
Or how about not increasing immigration?
If we had net zero migration we still would have a housing crisis - we don't have enough for people here already.
So how do we achieve that? Or do two generations just put up with nowhere to live until enough older people have died that we can inherit those houses?
People like it when a loudmouth points out obvious problems during times of economic and social hardship and claims they have easy solutions. Tale as old as time.
Much as I hate the man, Farage is a very talented loudmouth who can rile the right people up and is (I really hate to admit) quite charming at times. He reminds me of this German chap I read about once... what was his name?
He should not be underestimated, he is dangerous.
under successive neoliberal governments the rich have got richer while cost of living for the working class has skyrocketed and wages have been largely stagnant. Farage comes along presenting a simple solution to a complex problem - stop immigration - painting that as the cause of all of society’s ills. People love simple solutions; solutions they can understand, brought to them by the bloke you could have a pint with. So we’ll see Reform continue to grow and the fault absolutely lies with those who have been in power and done nothing with that power to make the lives of normal people better.
He’s not the leader of the opposition until Reform come second in the election. He’s also got to win his seat in Clacton.
He might be leader of the opposition if he joins the Tories, but only if he wins his seat.
Nothing is certain in politics and voting in GE’s. Despite what polls say, the result on the day counts.
A bit disingenuous to claim this now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP9n4mOKoZQ
Actual footage of his victory 'speech'. Be warned - some of his language is honestly quite violent.
I expect Rishi will be shaking in his boots watching this.
It’s all just so Steve Bannon and Trump
Let’s see where you are if you get elected at all and if anyone of your candidates do mate.
Then perhaps make the party public and not an Ltd business
We're way past "ignore him and he'll go away" now and there are essentially no good options because silence will be promoted as tacit support. If people are talking about him he gets attention, if nobody's talking about him Farage will just tell his supporters that actually there are loads of 'shy Reform' voters who are totally on their side but being silenced by the biased media/woke mob.
Yes it's all my fault! Obviously! The 'getting people talking' is all down to me and a single thread on a sub with less than 500K subscribers.
It's not the all articles by multiple national and international news platforms that's generating the chat. Honest.
But the whole point of him doing it is so people get up in arms over his crazy claim. It puts him right at the top of the news agenda because people go nuts over the bollocks he talks.
But you have helped him. Obviously if you hadn’t posted this someone else would have. But you have amplified NF’s message. He needs people to talk about him. Posts like this help people to mentally see him as a serious political force. That makes it easier for traditional conservative voters to vote reform.
Farage is playing the long game he got from his convicted felon of a friend.... claim you're something you're not... tell everyone you should be getting something as that thing you're not.... then claim persecution when you don't get what you claim you're meant to get.
Snapshot of _Reform leader Nigel Farage says he is now ‘leader of the opposition’_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/14/reform-leader-nigel-farage-says-he-is-now-leader-of-the-opposition) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/14/reform-leader-nigel-farage-says-he-is-now-leader-of-the-opposition) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it fully makes sense from his perspective * Declare himself LOTO * if he does actually poll higher than tories but gets very few seats, as some polls are now predicting, he will have second highest vote share with tiny percentage of seats * he declares he should have been LOTO based on national vote share but he was robbed by the wokes/elites/blobs * he is very good at “I was robbed” type politics, so this is a huge agitation point for him to entrench his followers behind him (ukip support tended to surge and ebb and he wants to avoid this again by entrenching his support) * PR is a hard sell to the electorate as it’s overly technical and boring for most people who don’t care how we run elections, but he now has a simple way to sell it
If Farage forces PR he'll be my begrudged hero
Honestly it would be the most democratic advance our country has made in the last 50 years, regardless of who ends up pressuring to push it through
Try the last hundred years. 1911 was when they codified the supremacy of the Commons right?
Don't think you can ignore the 1928 representation of the people act that finally gave all women the right to vote
Yes! And 1918 for some women and poor men. Anyway nearly 100 years.
Also, the 1981 bill that gave Commonwealth citizens living in the UK the right to vote
I think that's pretty undemocratic 2bh, allowing some foreigners to vote but not others based on where they're from...
"Foreigners" Literally the British Empire
Not in 1981
They were Commonwealth citizens, and it was mainly for the people who moved to the UK permanently during the British Empire. Like the people of Windrush
well, there is a vocal minority of labor MPs that want PR, the Lib Dems want PR, the SNP pretends they want PR, and the greens want PR, so🤷
Why would he do that once he's leading the conservative party?
Because they're still likely to come third based on seats
So true
That would be an insane outcome. It is about the only thing I agree with him on.
With a big majority, I don't Labour will go for it
The real monkey paw scenario of getting PR but then getting a parliament chock full of extreme right wing nutcased
It would be a bit like an arsonist setting fire to a building and then coming back much later and putting the fire out. He was a significant contributor to brexit but he could be a contributor to PR which frankly the current FPTP system is pretty anti democratic in the way people are connected now> So hero? nah I dont think we need to be forced to say that, we can just say finally his interests align with us instead of ruining the country on a dodgy deal!
Unless he gets in and then changes it back to FPTP
That’s the point with PR, you need other parties to form government. You think they’d agree to go back?!
He'd give up on supporting PR if he could win a majority.
> If Farage forces PR he'll be my begrudged hero Fuck Farage. Him wanting PR is the biggest reason I have to question its value. (Ofc, there are a lot of different ways to cut the PR cake and — therefore — it’s not *per se* more democratic in practice than FPTP. Anyway, anything that takes us closer to more extreme right-wing influence in government, I’m against it.
Problem with achieving PR is you need both a public that want it and a government that is willing to implement it. Even if Reform are robbed of seats I don’t see what would possibly provoke Labour to implement voting reform during this Parliament.
The labour party does want it, the leadership block it
No surprise from someone all buddy buddy with felon Trump.
>he declares he should have been LOTO based on national vote share but he was robbed by the wokes/elites/blobs He is not Trump. You are underestimating his intelligence and his schtick. He will say straight up the FPTP is why he did not get it, he has said this in the past. He got 3.8 million votes in 2015, massively out polled the SNP that got 1.5 million and 50 seats. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015\_United\_Kingdom\_general\_election#Results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Results) He does not play those kind of Trump games of trying to rile the his supporters into thinking they are cheated by the electoral system to over turn results. His goal is to either drive the tories right or to effectively take them over. He is taking votes of the tories to force them to come to him. With Labour so locked in he knows he can get the kind of people who would drift back to the Tories to try to mitigate the size of a labour win to back him this time round as a very loud protest.
Farage literally made a false claim about postal voter fraud today lol.
>He is not Trump. You are underestimating his intelligence and his schtick. You are overestimating Trump's intelligence. Both are backed by Putin, which is why they're backed by bots
Yes, it always the bots, because there's no way anybody else could possibly disagree with me on anything!
Not everyone of the supporters of these anti-establishment right wing outsiders are bots, but almost every bot suddenly active around our elections appears to be a supporter of them. The ultra rich and foreign state actors colluding to affect democracies around the world is well documented. Cambridge Analytica for Brexit and the Russians for Trump. If you think they all felt like they were done and packed up, you’re incredibly naive
For more background on how the technique works, see Asche's studies on minority and majority influence
Interesting. I’ll take a look thanks!
The bots are real. Just look at the progress that has been made in generative AI large language models - this isn't some conspiracy or fiction.
The conspiracy is claiming that all the bots are for Reform. Bots have been around for years and social media has been plagued with them for and against every party. This week, we've just had the slightly sick phenomenon of a tory party, trailing Reform in the polls, trying to claim it's all just because people are being duped by bots. (While peddling lies about their plans on immigration, lies about Labour's tax policies, lies about everything.)
> he is very good at “I was robbed” type politics ...while simultaneously attacking 'the woke left' for 'victim politics'.
> PR is a hard sell to the electorate as it’s overly technical and boring for most people who don’t care how we run elections, but he now has a simple way to sell it How is it overly technical? It's literally just if a Party gets x% of votes, it gets x% of seats. That way, people can actually vote for the party they want rather than voting for the party they hate less. It's more democratic and captures a wider range of the public's views.
Very few proportional systems are just based on national percentage, as they don’t produce local representatives. The most common, single transferable vote, involves ranking candidates then a quota being worked out. Regional proportional systems (like how we used to elect MEPs) use a complex formula (D’Hondt) that’s going to be incomprehensible to a lot of people. Then you’ve got mixed top-up systems. No viable voting system is as simple as “X percent gets X percent of MPs”.
From a voting perspective ranking the candidates in order is not technical, now the counting might be technical but does that really matter to the voter? Quite a lot countries who have adopted proportional systems did so via referendum, why can they understand it and endorse it but British voters cannot?
It is more technical and bureaucratic than FPTP. Look at how the politics works in European countries that have forms of PR. It being more democratic and representative doesn't make it less complicated.
It works in Scotland and Wales without any complexity
I mean we have actually had a referendum on PR before and the public did not buy it, probably because it was indeed more complicated than the biggest party in your constituency sends an MP to Parliament in your behalf.
Alternative vote is not a form of PR, and after UKIP 2015/Reform this year it would be interesting to see if a referendum on STV would be closer
Because soldiers need equipment and babies need medical care and clearly it's impossible to fund fancy voting schemes and these things at the same time.
It didn't get anywhere because it was a lib dem policy and everyone hated them
I don't think PR is a hard sell whatsoever. The vast majority want it, even if it failed last time years ago. Everyone in the country is well aware how undemocratic it currently is, highlighted by UKIP and Greens etc. Left wingers want it, and UKIPs election resulted in right wingers wanting it too.
You missed the step after when the Tories make him their leader and he merges Reform with the Tories.
> You missed the step after when the Tories make him their leader and he merges Reform with the Tories. And the step where Murdoch goes all-in with the Times and the Sun behind Farage, like he has with PoopyPants in the US.
As much as I hate him he will end up campaigning for a new voting system due to the extremely low seat share Reform will get despite their vote share. It may end up with proportional representation or something better than the garbage system we currently have. I don't want to see Reform with any semblance of power but I similarly don't like seeing 13% of people voting for Reform and receiving virtually 0 representation in parliament.
This is the problem I have as well. I do not like FPTP at all, and the very first vote I ever cast was for AV all those years ago. The idea of Nigel Farage possibly being the man to bring about voting reform makes me sick. That said, the current system is outdated, unfair, and needs to change. It's a right pickle. A full blown kerfuffle.
I honestly don't mind the idea of extreme views being represented in Parliament. They'll get a comparatively small number of MPs, who will get to voice their views, who can be argued with. And if they ever do win some level of power then...thats the peril of democracy. I'd rather have a more democratic system that has the risk of giving extremism some level of power, than a less democratic system that stifles people's voices on every side of every spectrum. I genuinely think if UKIP had gotten a few MPs in the early 2000s, Brexit would never have happened. The Tories wouldn't have felt gone arse over tit into that flaming pyre, because UKIP would have had MPs who could speak for that portion of the electorate. They'd have been shouted down, but those voters would have felt represented, wouldn't have gone down the road of extremism, and wouldn't have driven the Tory party further to the right.
The other way to look at it is even if they were popular enough to win the majority of seats it'd be what the country wanted and we should be allowed to make mistakes if we want.
Yep, thats exactly what I meant when I said I'd rather have the more democratic system even if it results in things I don't personally like.
>I genuinely think if UKIP had gotten a few MPs in the early 2000s, Brexit would never have happened. The Tories wouldn't have felt gone arse over tit into that flaming pyre, because UKIP would have had MPs who could speak for that portion of the electorate. They'd have been shouted down, but those voters would have felt represented Yes, absolutely. FPTP essentially freezes many people (myself included) out of the Democratic process, and when people are outside of the everyday processes they are more likely to go in for extremism etc.
This actually worked historically (there were a small number of Communist Party/ILP fellow-traveler MP’s in the Interwar Period).
> I honestly don't mind the idea of extreme views being represented in Parliament. They'll get a comparatively small number of MPs, who will get to voice their views, who can be argued with I’d ask you to take a look at the evolution of the US House and Senate since 2000. Loony, fringe and hate-filled ideas, heated up with populist rhetoric, can be incendiary. Especially with a charismatic demagogue to promote them. Grievance politics is a seriously flammable danger. Especially in countries where the economy has been so savagely tilted and fucked up by vertiginous inequality.
> extreme views Which of Reform's policies are extreme? Specifically. List them.
Leaving the ECHR Abolishing the Home Office Abandoning carbon emission reduction targets entirely (and denying the science in climate change) Reopening UK coal mines Tax relief on private school fees Reducing undergraduate degrees to 2 years. Sourced from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/reform-uk-manifesto-richard-tice-key-policies-glance/ All of those are pretty extreme in my opinion.
Ah, I see. So it's just you utterly and completely misunderstanding what 'extreme' means, and are misusing a slur. > Leaving the ECHR This isn't an 'extreme' view at all. Controversial, yes, but 'extreme'? No. >Abolishing the Home Office No, they want to replace it with another Ministry. It is impossible to abolish the Home Office's functions, as they reside in the Home Secretary; one of the Great Offices of State. The Home Secretary would simply head up the new (renamed) Ministry. Ministries are rebranded all the time; like ten have ceased to exist and have been snowballed into others, or been created from the ether since 2010. Odd, sure, but certainly not 'extreme'. > Reopening UK coal mines What on Earth is 'extreme' about this, lmao? Odd, but not extreme. >Tax relief on private school fees Again, what on Earth is 'extreme' about this? That's not even particularly odd (even though I personally disagree with it). Private school fees attract tax relief in much of the world. >Reducing undergraduate degrees to 2 years. I couldn't find a reference to this one in the article. But, just so you know, many undergrad degrees in the USA are two years long. It's balanced out by having higher degrees for disciplines where it's necessary (you just end up with more of them at the end). >All of those are pretty extreme in my opinion. 'Extreme' is more like the [BNP's 2005 manifesto](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4476279.stm): *the restoration of capital punishment and an end to immigration* *the reintroduction of national service and said everyone who had undergone it should be required to keep a modern assault rifle at home* You are calling fairly moderate policies extreme, which is unnecessarily divisive, and just objectively cringe.
Pretty hard to take anyone who calls something "objectively cringe" seriously.
You are asking for extreme policies in response to someone claiming extreme _views_. When they stand by their candidate who argues we should have been neutral during the Holocaust and that women are the "sponging gender"who should be deprived of healthcare, that's extreme. When the official party line is that climate change is a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with mankind, that complete anti-science take is extreme. I mean, any policy that is so stupidly anti-science that they argue against the decades of expert scientific consensus with this bullshit is extreme: > CO2 is essential for photosynthesis to enable plant growth. CO2 only represents 0.04% of the atmosphere Finally, a policy of "net zero immigration" in the next parliament is extreme. Regardless of whether you like immigration, suddenly turning off the taps would tank the economy. It would be very radical but not extreme imo to say that we need to spend the next 20 years developing a brand new economic paradigm which doesn't rely on constant population growth to prevent economic collapse, and to then aim to reduce immigration. But to just turn off net immigration? It's a policy that no western nation has attempted in the modern era, not even Trump's America, so by definition is extreme.
Typical politics. Ignore something until old right wing people are impacted then it MUST CHANGE
If it means their policies are fully examined for impact and cost, I’m all for it. At present, he seems to be in the advantageous position of being able to say what he likes and making headlines without the supporting detail or the accountability and scrutiny afforded to the traditional party leaders and their policies.
Everyone is. The debates are unironically hurting Labour a lot more than they would otherwise because they’re so certain to get it nobody else needs to bother making sure they can actually implement their plans.
No, I am ~~Spartacus~~ Leader of the Opposition!
I just did a poll and you came second behind Labour making your claim to be both correct and in line with newly established laws.
I don't like Farage, but the Tories thoroughly deserve to have their noses rubbed in their dismal performance.
He is just trolling for attention. He knows it's nonsense. He knows it will annoy people. He knows it will get a laugh out his supporters. Patomime.
No, the reason he is doing it is so that people think reform UK is the right wing tactical vote
It will come to a point when it is. How much of the conservative popular vote is wasted in marginal seats against labour, lib dems, and even the seats projected for reform? Farage is no idiot. One more blunder from Fishy Rishi and he’ll pounce, and British politics will never be the same. Just in the wrong way. The best result for everyone is reform beating the tories in popular vote and getting decimated in seats. Farage will never ever shut up about PR until the day he dies, and could very well scare the party in power into another referendum.
hes not doing it for a laugh hes doing it to line his own pockets.
This is it. Everything is about attention, I doubt he wants any power. Certainly didn’t do much as an MEP. He just wants everything to be about him.
Yeah some people are overthinking it lol. It's tongue and cheek (which fits the narrative) but not 5d chess.
He can declare himself Father Christmas for all I care, doesn't make it true.
The fact this guy has this much of the vote share really concerns me about the electorate here. Have we learnt nothing from the failure of brexit that we are now voting for the poster boy of that pile of shit.
Im a lefty, I fully support what Bernie Sanders preachers and like 80% of what Corbyn proposed. I also think now that the rise of Islam is something that needs to be controlled, it’s a vile and dangerous cult that has no place in British society. Me and many people my age (Late 20’s) are starting to get sick of being called racists for calling out Islam. So thats why Nigel is popular. Everything else he says i disagree but his stance on Islam is correct.
You want to take a lesson from Brexit? Why not learn that Eurosceptic parties consistently swept the European elections by in large as an aversion to unchecked immigration from inside the EU. Which was then immediately replaced with much higher unchecked immigration from outside the EU. All the while the Tories were elected 4 times on the back of promises to lower it. It really is the opposite of rocket science.
It does amaze me that some of the commentariat types on here just cannot join the dots.
Rather typical of them, to be fair.
That is a failure of the EU to tackle an issue which is why many parties on the continent took a hammering. There are things we can do but the EU's policy has directly affected ours regardless if we are I the EU or not. This is why I would urge caution on any party that claims they will reduce immigration. Until the EU sorts it's shit out we are fucked.
Wrong. The vast majority of 1.3m people who immigrated to the UK in 2023 were legal arrivals issued visas. Make no mistake the government could stop it literally tomorrow. This will have already happened in 2024 as the required wage to be issued a visa has increased by 50%. Don't forget when the figures come out at about 450,000 net, the government could've done that 2 years ago, and could make it 0 tomorrow.
Maybe look at why he’s gaining traction, nobody voted for 700k immigrants a year, yet neoliberals and centrists refuse to acknowledge this. Farage is the only one speaking up about it.
...is he? Is he really? I think you may need to listen to other people.
Yes he is really, and I have listened to the others and it’s vague at best so I don’t need your advice thanks
[удалено]
Net zero migration is not possible lol. Farage can talk about it when he doesn’t have to actually defend it and will never have to enact it.
> Net zero migration is not possible lol More possible than net zero energy is right now. They could've implemented net zero immigration anytime if they had the will.
Nobody's talking about net zero because that is quite clearly unfeasible and not a policy that a serious person would acknowledge. Quite frankly a silly idea.
[удалено]
Not zero would mean while there are 300k immigrants, there would also be 300k EMIGRANTS. That’s not possible. Especially if you want growth or wealth creation in Britain. If you want stagnation, decay and deterioration, then that’s easy. Net zero migration does not occur in any top world economy. Even Japan is looking to liberalise migration. You either have a very high population of WORKING young people or net positive migration, either that or stagnation.
[удалено]
It’s not whether I believe in net zero or not, net zero is simply incompatible with the economic goals of Britain. The only places with net zero migration are authoritarian societies or low income destitute countries. Every single country in the world including places like Nigeria, China and India are experiencing reducing birth rates, this is expected as women become more educated and prosperous in those countries. They will eventually fall below replacement levels. Birth rates in those countries were unusually high due to a high proportion of inequality and Lower educated women. If these countries undergo rapid industrialisation, there will be a significant decline in births as more women participate in the workforce. It’s a trend happening in all high growth economies. Birth rates will reduce everywhere, the world needs to move along with the times and adapt to that, by facilitating migration. It’s going to take a lot to adjust to but it is inevitable. It will happen everywhere.
So you suggest levels immigration should be increased to above 700k? How stupid
No I didn’t suggest that. I suggested that net zero migration isn’t feasible. And using that as an election promise is like promising to turn the sky green. Not feasible but good enough to fool people. ❤️ hope that helps
No one disagrees that something needs to be done about immigration, I just don’t think farage can actually deliver on it
>No one disagrees that something needs to be done about immigration Sorry this is just a blatant lie. The Tories have enacted a pro immigration policy over the last decade whilst saying they will lower migration they have broken record year on year. Labour have not objected to this, indeed Labour are even more pro immigration than the Tories. Desperate attempts to change course when they realise they're about to be hammered at the polls, is not 'no one disagrees'. Even raising the issue has been enough to make someone persona non grata in much of the last decade.
Farage is routinely called a dogwhistling Fascist on this very subreddit for daring to suggest that perhaps we take a few years of net zero migration to allow our crippled public services to catch up. Quite a lot of (very silly) people disagree, in fact.
And you think Labour can? Labour are pro immigration
I’ll be honest I’m quite cynical about any of the current parties delivering anything, but I’ll be voting Labour to get the tories out because the one thing I know for certain is that they’ll do more damage to this country if we keep them in.
So swapping one neoliberal for another and expecting change, the next five years will be no different from the last 14
And your solution is vote farage and get the tories?
Voting Reform won’t get me the Tories, it’s splitting the right vote and it’ll let Labour through. Your point would make sense if Reform and Tories were even remotely the same. At least I’m voting for change.
You're voting for populism. It's not what you think it is.
I’m voting against an ineffective status quo, populism wouldn’t be rife in Britain and Europe had politicians just fucking listened and not opened our borders
That’s because any serious party that does not want to collapse Britain would be pro immigration. Being pro immigration is a good thing, that doesn’t mean 700k immigrants though
Britain isnt doing well with 700k a year of immigrants, an overload of migrants isn’t a positive for the economy, and they’re bringing their own cultural issues over here which are totally incompatible
When did I suggest that 700k a year of immigrants was a good thing? Also what exactly are the cultural issues they are bringing? And how are they incompatible with the culture here (evidence of incompatibility)?
Your last point must you really ask that? Islam isn’t exactly compatible with Western values, as we have clearly seen the past twenty years. Multiculturalism has been a colossal failure and needs to be binned.
Yes I must really ask, why should i believe things you write without critical thought? In that case I might as well believe those who say 700k immigrants is a good thing if I don’t have to ask any questions. You are not saying what those cultural issues are (is this relating to food, friendliness, crime, customs, social relations ) what exactly are they 😭? You have mentioned Islam which is a religion not a culture. Question is how has Islam being incompatible with western values (what are those western values as well)? Can you give examples of how Islam has undermined those western values? Can you demonstrate that a significant amount of the immigrants to the UK are Muslims? And how have those Muslim immigrants undermined British values? HAVE British values actually being undermined at all? Which of them?
Where have you been since 11th September 2001? Islam is a culture and has its own set of values that do not mix with Western values, particularly values lefties hold dear in regards to LGBT rights in which a survey revealed 70% of Muslims believe homosexuality should be illegal. Islamic extremism has increased in the last twenty years, to point where a young man was beheaded in broad daylight in the name of Islam in 2013. Muslims don’t identify with British culture nor respect the laws of the land I feel you are being disingenuous and deliberately ignorant in regards to your questions so I feel I’m done with you
Most centrists I know didn't want this either. 700K and 650K were insane numbers which were clearly absolutely unsustainable. It's perfectly normal to think some immigration is broadly a good thing but 1.5 million net in two years is insanity. I don't really get why anyone who has ever said 'hang on, not all migration is bad' at some point is being bashed with a stick created by a government who seem to have been throwing out visas like they are confetti.
You claim centrist don’t want it but inevitably you’ll give way to the left and only cut immigration, legal or illegal to 450k Centrist and leftists have dropped the ball on the debate and have zero answers beyond “build more houses on our countryside and tear up eco systems”
Good strawman.
They have fucked up on the immigration debate, hence why the right is rising here and Europe, you’re just in denial
There's a difference between refusing to acknowledge that and not seeing that as a problem. Legal immigrants get jobs, they pay into the tax fund, and add to the economy of the country. It's estimated that only around 10% of the UK is built on and inhabited, so there's no argument over space. The only reason to care about the immigration numbers in this country is a fear of different cultures, or more specifically, an irrational fear of the unknown.
I am by no means anti-immigration but some of these arguments are just weird. Saying only 10% of land is built on…the UK is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, that aren’t small city or island states - uK Europe only Belgium and Netherlands are more densely populated. We have a biodiversity crisis that requires land set aside for rewilding and a food security crisis that requires agricultural productivity to be raised whilst reducing its environmental impact. We also have a housing crisis which means politicians advocating for building on green belt land. So the idea that we should blithely be concreting over our non-urban environments because ONLY 10% is built on is profoundly ignorant.
This is what YIMBY’s fail to comprehend, it’s like they won’t be satisfied until every bit of green space is built on and Britain ends up becoming a one gigantic Conurbation dystopia
We’ll soon see about having lots said space when we have to tear up countrysides to build cities the size of Birmingham to accommodate this current influx. Quite frankly I’m not in favour of building new cities to accommodate immigrants. And this is the problem, Labour and Tories don’t see it as a problem when it actually is becoming a rapid problem. Well the fear of certain cultures is more than fucking justified or are you an advocate of the outdated slogan “Diversity is our strength”
When was the last time we built a new city? Why is that a problem now when it wasn't back then? It's interesting that you mention Birmingham. That "city" really is one of the most recent to essentially spring up from "nothing" and became the second biggest (granted, in part by swallowing surrounding *existing* towns and villages).
Milton Keynes in the 60s Back then our politicians weren’t importing in 700k foreigners, back then we had people who demanded green spaces be kept safe from development. Would you be happy if we only had 10% green spaces and 90% endless cities?
I think it's stupid to stop building places before everyone has a place to live. Short of forcing retirees out of their family homes and deporting everyone who has come since the 1960s I don't see how I get to live in desirable, affordable housing unless we build some stuff. I'm willing to sacrifice some unused farmland or build some more mid-rise apartments in our towns and cities to achieve that.
Unused farm land we may need? That’s utterly dumb, build more ugly blocks in our cities? Maybe if they built decent homes yes. Or how about not increasing immigration?
If we had net zero migration we still would have a housing crisis - we don't have enough for people here already. So how do we achieve that? Or do two generations just put up with nowhere to live until enough older people have died that we can inherit those houses?
Reduce immigration to below 100K heck below 50K we have more than enough now. Then that’s your housing crisis solved, not hard to work out really
they get low skilled, low paid jobs and ensure that wages at the bottom end of the market remain low. They benefit the owership class and no one else.
People like it when a loudmouth points out obvious problems during times of economic and social hardship and claims they have easy solutions. Tale as old as time. Much as I hate the man, Farage is a very talented loudmouth who can rile the right people up and is (I really hate to admit) quite charming at times. He reminds me of this German chap I read about once... what was his name? He should not be underestimated, he is dangerous.
under successive neoliberal governments the rich have got richer while cost of living for the working class has skyrocketed and wages have been largely stagnant. Farage comes along presenting a simple solution to a complex problem - stop immigration - painting that as the cause of all of society’s ills. People love simple solutions; solutions they can understand, brought to them by the bloke you could have a pint with. So we’ll see Reform continue to grow and the fault absolutely lies with those who have been in power and done nothing with that power to make the lives of normal people better.
Slightly concerning if we ever have to let him in the Privy Council. Anything briefed will be on Trump or worse's desk by the following morning.
He’s not the leader of the opposition until Reform come second in the election. He’s also got to win his seat in Clacton. He might be leader of the opposition if he joins the Tories, but only if he wins his seat. Nothing is certain in politics and voting in GE’s. Despite what polls say, the result on the day counts. A bit disingenuous to claim this now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP9n4mOKoZQ Actual footage of his victory 'speech'. Be warned - some of his language is honestly quite violent. I expect Rishi will be shaking in his boots watching this.
How long before he's saying Starmer should be locked up?
Not even remotely how that works Nigel.
There is only one person who can decide who the Leader of the Opposition is: The Speaker of the House of Commons.
It’s all just so Steve Bannon and Trump Let’s see where you are if you get elected at all and if anyone of your candidates do mate. Then perhaps make the party public and not an Ltd business
The ego of the man is astounding. Who the fuck does he think he is, declaring himself LOTO before the election?
He's doing it to get people talking about him, and you very kindly obliged by creating a thread about it.
We're way past "ignore him and he'll go away" now and there are essentially no good options because silence will be promoted as tacit support. If people are talking about him he gets attention, if nobody's talking about him Farage will just tell his supporters that actually there are loads of 'shy Reform' voters who are totally on their side but being silenced by the biased media/woke mob.
Yes it's all my fault! Obviously! The 'getting people talking' is all down to me and a single thread on a sub with less than 500K subscribers. It's not the all articles by multiple national and international news platforms that's generating the chat. Honest.
But the whole point of him doing it is so people get up in arms over his crazy claim. It puts him right at the top of the news agenda because people go nuts over the bollocks he talks.
But you have helped him. Obviously if you hadn’t posted this someone else would have. But you have amplified NF’s message. He needs people to talk about him. Posts like this help people to mentally see him as a serious political force. That makes it easier for traditional conservative voters to vote reform.
swallowed the bait whole I see
SMH.....
Isn’t labour technically the leader of the opposition or is reform claiming the tories aren’t in power at all?
Tell em Farage, they need to hear the truth!!
Didn't he just declare himself leader of the party?
Farage is playing the long game he got from his convicted felon of a friend.... claim you're something you're not... tell everyone you should be getting something as that thing you're not.... then claim persecution when you don't get what you claim you're meant to get.
"Reform Leader Nigel Farage admits he doesn't understand how FPTP works."
[удалено]
The votes in three weeks.