Nigel Farage is the most consequential British politician of the 21st century. Certainly a more important historic figure than any of the last eight Prime Ministers. Tony Blair is the only realistic rival.
Without Farage, the UK would never have left the European Union. Farage’s role in forcing the issue to the top of the political agenda, and putting electoral pressure on the Tory Party which Cameron sought to assuage through a referendum, was indispensable.
Subsequently Farage has been central to placing racism at the centre of British electoral politics. Farage has been key to redirecting the frustrations of ordinary people at twenty years of falling living standards, while wealth concentrates to an incredible degree in the hands of the billionaire class. That the blame for this has been loaded onto hapless immigrants, rather than those looting the economy, owes much to Farage. He has more than anybody made UK elections revolve around who can promise the most blood-curdling measures against immigrants.
In doing so, Farage appeared to have shattered the UK’s two-party system. He certainly brought about the biggest shift in Labour/Tory dominance since 1921. It was entirely thanks to Farage splitting the right-wing vote, that Starmer could gain a thumping parliamentary majority with just 32% of votes cast, under the UK’s appalling electoral system. Reform had the same effect in the recent Scottish parliamentary elections, enabling the SNP to win 57 out of 73 constituency seats despite a 10% drop in their vote.
Even after all the abuse hurled at Farage by the media in recent weeks, Reform still leads in UK opinion polls.
I am by nature diametrically opposed to Reform’s brand of politics. For me tolerance, empathy and compassion are the most important virtues in life, and I deplore the atavism and racism which is Reform’s stock-in-trade. I also detest their anti-intellectualism, while the stupidity of believing that the hardship to ordinary people caused by the structural imbalance of late capitalist systems, is somehow the fault of poor refugees, fills me with contempt.
I am however relaxed about leaving the EU.
It has become a right-wing bloc of a very unpleasant nature, under leadership of von der Leyen and Kallas. The sight of MEPs chanting “send them back” in the European Parliament was chilling. I am glad to be out of it. However the decision to reject all sensible trading arrangements with the bloc has greatly damaged the UK economy and harmed the prospects of young people. Again at base this was due to Farage’s electoral pressure on the Tory Party and Johnson’s desire to exploit the sentiment which Farage had created.
I would argue that Blair is in fact a more harmful and more evil figure than Farage.
Blair fundamentally changed British society by gutting the political instrument prepared to use the power of the state to improve the condition of the working class – the Labour Party – and turning it into another reliable agency of neoliberalism. The Uniparty in Britain started with Blair. His government furthered privatisation, particularly of services within the NHS, and ended free university education. Together with Brown, Blair brought in the ruinous Private Finance Initiative, to guarantee looting by private capital of public provision. Brown went on to bail out the banks in the biggest single transfer of wealth from poor to rich in history.
Blair killed hope and progress – in addition to the millions he killed in wars. He now rakes in large multiples of the money made by Farage, from even dodgier sources, while receiving none of the media scrutiny.
Farage of course did not change history on his own. He was relentlessly promoted by both state and corporate media for decades. He has been by a mile the most frequent guest on BBC Question Time, and the relentless media promotion started when he ought to have been an obscure figure, from a party, UKIP, which had never won an election.
In 2005, when I left the FCO and went on to fight Jack Straw in Blackburn in the General Election that year, Nigel Farage contacted me and invited me to lunch. As an Independent I had obtained 5.0% of the vote in Blackburn. UKIP had got 2.2% of the UK vote. Despite having just 2.2% of the vote and no MPs, Farage was already all over the BBC and massively promoted by the newspapers.
Farage said he wanted to explore my joining UKIP. I did a little research, and declined the invitation, finding too much evidence of racism. But interestingly, Farage’s approach to me emphasised his opposition to the Iraq War and to the attack on Human Rights in the name of the “War on Terror”. I believe he was genuine about this – and it is forgotten now that Farage was an outspoken, though in 2001 not very important, critic of the Iraq War – a position he has never repudiated.
All main party politicians are frontmen for other interests. They are owned and controlled by the defence industries, by Big Pharma, by the Israeli lobby, by media barons, by the media industry. Sometimes there is an element of symbiosis, where a politician becomes so confident in the power they exercise in the state as to feel able to address the billionaire class on equal terms, but this is rare.
Farage was promoted, systematically, into a major political figure by intense media coverage. He took full advantage of this, and is a canny operator. His bluff manner and ease in social situations makes him appear different to polished politicians – he can drink a pint without making it look like a rare stunt for the cameras. He was of course always a creature of the wealthy, who promoted him so assiduously.
But having helped turn the dial of politics so far to the right, Farage has been left stranded as it moves rightward still. One problem for him is that Farage is not actually a real racist. He is prepared to pander to racism, to whip it up and exploit if for votes. That is perhaps morally worse than being an actual racist. But Farage does not actually hate brown or Muslim people.
Nor is he enthusiastic for war or NATO expansion.
In the age of the apartheid nurtured, openly racist Elon Musk, the forces that propelled the career of Nigel Farage now want Tommy Robinson and his ilk. Farage is not a stone-cold killer. Trump has cooled his relationship with Farage, and even Farage’s eventual coming round to support Trump on Iran hasn’t changed that.
In UK politics, competing with Shabana Mahmood and Kemi Badenoch, Farage actually comes over as slightly more decent than they are. Politics have moved so far to the right that Farage has nothing really to offer.
When it comes to downright vicious authoritarianism, Robert Jenrick, Rupert Lowe and others now look a far better prospect to the billionaires, with Tommy Robinson as their King (mostly) over the water.
So poor Farage has been dumped. With an extraordinary coordination, all of the media suddenly savaged him. The BBC, the Murdoch press, the Daily Mail, all of those who put him in place have bitten great lumps out of him in just the last three weeks. Farage’s sordid personal financial dealings are revealed bit by bit.
I don’t see a way back for Farage, though he will get re-elected in Clacton. Mainstream media exposure has been his only weapon. It was devastating when fully lined up behind him, but what has he now?
————————————————————————————-
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse my work, including in translation.
My work has no funding at all except for your subscriptions. If you already, subscribe I would be grateful if you could check if your subscription is still active. Over 80% of my subscriptions lapse when debit or credit cards expire: the systems do not warn you.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up additional new methods of subscription payment including Patreon account and a Substack account ; if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish, subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come to this blog and read the articles for free.
I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
The question of opposition to immigration is, I think, more a social rather than an economic one. I say that with direct experience of fairly low grade employment and therefore exposure to the opinions of people around me.
It’s certainly easier to get the emotional juices flowing over social questions than economic ones.
I dunno, Craig. Farage is not a talented politician, but I see no reason to toss words like “racism” around because he wants to stop mass, unvetted immigration. Most people in Britain do. There’s only so much water the bottle will hold. And I’m not at all convinced by the argument that ordinary people are having their anger about declining living standards re-channelled into anti-immigrant sentiments by this bargain-basement Svengali. I don’t think they’re that stupid. It’s a completely materialistic argument that doesn’t allow for the public having genuine regard for their history and cultural inheritance.
Good points, A. Totally agree. Craig’s inherent decency at times blinds him to the quotidian. People are thoroughly sick of having * things * imposed on them from above and, as you say, don’t require to be – somehow? duped into feeling what they feel – based on their ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.
You’ll never hear it on MSM but formerly very Pro-Immigration countries like Denmark are drastically changing their policies on this issue in the face – of no longer deniable – very negative impacts on Crime figures, the Economy and, perhaps most importantly, Social Cohesion and Safety
Craig,
I have read your posts for many years. I have all your books (some of them signed). I don’t agree with everything you say, but I do agree with a lot of it, and I hugely value your insider knowledge from your FCO time. I also recognise a kindred spirit on matters of alcohol and women.
But you really don’t help your argument by writing things like:
“Blair killed hope and progress – in addition to the millions he killed in wars.”
I can see evidence for (a few at most) hundreds of thousands, but “millions”? No.
(although I am open to evidence to the contrary)
The Iraq war lead by Bush and Blair turned the PNAC from a right wing think tank policy to a bloody reality ie the redrawing of the Middle East – it transpires in support of greater Israel.
On the deaths caused by this bold project Brown university reports
“An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting.”
I think it is fair given the amount of promotional work for the project done by Blair, that the results can be laid at his (though no solely his) feet
https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human
I’m afraid that’s a bit too much of a stretch for me. Are we going to attribute all the deaths due to high temperatures in Europe to policies of previous political leaders who allowed fossil fuels to be burned? The directly attributable figure is in the hundreds of thousands for the entire wars, and to put them all on Blair’s head is absurd.
Actually it’s absurd of you to suggest that the inevitable consequences of sending troops to wage war against a country should be treated like some kind of moral orphan; something that “just happened, what can you do, eh?”
If a leader starts an illegal and/or immoral war, he’s responsible for the death and destruction of society that automatically follows from it, yes. Rather than wasting your time glazing war criminals, you should introspect on the deep, personal moral deficiencies that lead you to equivocate regarding the clearest-cut international crime there has ever been a law to prohibit.
An excellent, perspicacious assessment of the Rise and ( no doubt, extremely well cushioned ) * Fall * of the least credible ‘ Everyman ‘ politician in recent times.
The drinking of pints of * bitter * whilst puffing performatively on fags ( blowing smoke in the public’s face as camouflage ) has been a pretty clever device to fabulate his image as ” Anti-Establishment radical ” – LOL! Now, as you delineate, his cover has been blown, the gig is up and his former backers have abandoned him for * fresher *, more unashamedly Muskite ( as opposed to Muskovite, * wink ) feral ideologues
Could he/Reform win the next G.E? Hard to say at this point but I reckon it’s still very possible, not to say likely. It will depend on which variant of the Zionist Atrocity Apologist + Putin Is Satan Uniparty is deemed the most dependable/malleable to keep those two prime objectives Top of the Props.
Of course * we * may by then be at no-loner-phony war with that formidable Russian Reggae maniac, ie Ras Putin and Crew but actual ” BOOM! there goes London, BOOM! Paree, more cash for * them * no life for * me * ” ( to paraphrase Randy Newman ) WAR : in which scenario in all likelihood there wouldn’t be a G.E but something calling itself a ” Wartime Admin ” or some such would be instigated: and which, given the appalling uniformity of compliance with the ‘ Russian Menace ‘ narrative of the current Political Caste, could be selected by lottery and have the desired effect, ie complete obedience to the Puppeteers interests.
Yes, one illustration of the complicity of Their BBC in whatever narrative/individual/group is to be promoted by the vested interests that are the real rulers of the UK, is the fact of Farage’s multiple appearances on ( Don’t ) Question Time and your own never appearance on same. Fortunately, the legacy media – broadcast & print – is declining drastically and rapidly in significance/influence. Unfortunately, not rapidly enough
Good morning Craig, I’ll just post this for now. You wrote:
– “Farage has been key to redirecting the frustrations of ordinary people at twenty years of falling living standards, while wealth concentrates to an incredible degree in the hands of the billionaire class. That the blame for this has been loaded onto hapless immigrants, rather than those looting the economy, owes much to Farage.”
Readers, please see below, though Ii haven’t watched this specific video from Gary Stevenson yet:
Gary Stevenson says Britain is FINISHED unless we fix this problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPeP9xFrtP0
“A former trader who made millions in the City, Gary Stevenson has gained a huge online following as one of the left’s foremost campaigners against inequality.”
Oh please! If he genuinely believed this he would have already given away most of his millions to deserving causes. He’s obviously just an attention whore. Turning up for a Channel 4 interview in shorts and T-shirt just proves my point.
How do you know that he hasn’t ” given away most of his millions….”? And WTF does his sartorial appearance have to do with anything; do only * Suits * have credibility?
To those of us who aren’t crusties then yes, showing some decorum and respect is important.
But having said that, one of the great things about Craig’s blog is that it attracts an extraordinarily wide range of readers, from ambassadors to the most active activists. For me that is a major plus point.
Ah! so ” decorum and respect ” are apparel-conditional; never knew that, thanks for the heads-up. I’ll remember that when I’m taking my dog-on-a-string for a walk around my New Age Traveler site. Might even get my dreadlocks cut 🙂
agree with your latter point, Paul. Though I find, unless someone mentions their line-of-work, social * standing *, it’s kinda guesswork what these might be. still, I agree there appears to be quite a wide variety of commenters BTL here. As for the % of non-commenting readers, one can only speculate about their composition/disposition
I recall a discussion a few years ago over a game of Scrabble with the person who was at the time the UK Deputy Consul-General here in Hong Kong (and also, BTW, a seriously good Scrabble player). He was well aware of Craig and his blog and his opinions. It seemed clear that he was (and hopefully still is) widely-read within the UK diplomatic community.
I watched that the other day, Clark. GS is brilliant at what he does/says; I’ve yet to disagree with anything he says/thinks. But Economics alone is not the existential / definitive issue some seem to think it is. It is, of course, a very important factor, just not exhaustively so
Loading the blame for twenty years of falling living standards onto hapless immigrants does indeed deflect from the real culprits, those looting the economy. I agree.
But that doesn’t mean mass immigration isn’t one of the tools used by the looters. It strikes me as significant that so much emphasis is placed on stopping the boats (i.e. Refugees) rather than those with work visas.
The economic argument for legal mass immigration is seriously flawed in my opinion. It operates only from the perspective of employers and the rentier class, not ordinary people struggling to find reasonably well-paid work or affordable places to rent.
Indeed
So, were all the racists who voted leave not racists after all but perhaps old lefties who took the advice of Tony Benn and didn’t trust the undemocratic, corporate beast that it was all along? Need I remind you of Tony B Liar’s involvement in changing Labour policy toward the EU?
“For me tolerance, empathy and compassion are the most important virtues in life…”
Full marks to Mr Murray, then, for personal virtue and decency. But it’s harder for such a person to succeed in politics than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
When Mr Murray sees poor, exiled, persecuted refugees seeking a home in Britain, I see millions of foreigners, many of them from drastically different cultural, religious, and moral backgrounds, coming to an island that is already severely overpopulated. As in about 4 times.
Christian morality certainly directs us always to help the needy and succour the downtrodden. That is one of many reasons why I am not a Christian. I admire the goodness, but cannot see the feasibility. If we believe – as did the early Christians – that the world will end soon and we will all go to heaven or another place, who cares about the viability or sustainability of nations and their economies?
The world is already critically overpopulated, with the highest birth rates mostly in the poorest countries. There are also serious misallocations of resources, such as the foolish belief in global warming and the West’s childish delight in weapons, death, and destruction. The ruthless, merciless accumulation of wealth by the already far too rich – as observed by Mr Murray – is just as dangerous. But it’s probably too difficult to do anything about, since the super-rich own and control the West. China managed to change the system to the vast benefit of all its people, but only at the cost of decades of war and deprivation – and tens of millions of deaths. I don’t see anyone like Mao Zedong accomplishing much in Britain.
Given that the whole human species is in a critical position, the question arises: should we all go down with the ship? Or should those societies that are able try to survive, when necessary denying strangers access to our lifeboat? There is no shortage of people in the world who would like to come to Britain, and more are being born every minute. We could go on welcoming million after million indefinitely until the UK becomes just as poor, backward, and dangerous as some of the nations from which refugees are feeling.
Just to be clear, I absolutely reject Mr Murray’s accusations of “racism”. I would have thought that the British establishment long ago reached and greatly exceeded its goal of virtue-signalling its liking for anyone who is not white and born in Britain. There are two main issues.
First sheer numbers: apparently no one in office even knows the exact population today, but it is certainly well over 60 million and possibly over 70 million. Those who have studied the matter report that Britain could sustainably support about 20 million indefinitely. Whatever can be done about that is unclear – but adding more millions is a long step in the wrong direction. And it doesn’t matter in the least what kind of people immigrants are – just that they weren’t in Britain, and now they are. Britain imports about half its food, and Mr Trump’s antics in the Persian Gulf have demonstrated how quickly and easily raw material imports can vanish from the menu.
The second issue is cultural and social identity. We hear far too much talk about “British values”; when those were universally known and internalised, no one felt the need to mention them. In Islam we are confronted with a militant religion whose only and authoritative holy book commands the faithful to expand, to convert infidels on pain of death, and to kill atheists and lapsed Muslims out of hand. Islamic Sharia law is utterly incompatible with British law of any kind, so governments that have encouraged the growth of Islam in Britain have been abandoning their most basic duty and committing treason against the people. We have laws – recent laws – that forbid British citizens to own or carry weapons, including ordinary kitchen knives, yet knife crime – often fatal – continues to increase. Sikhs are allowed to carry ceremonial knives “because of their religion”; many others do so because they please, and the police seem quite unable to do anything about it.
The basic question is whether we want to preserve the British nation in any even slightly recognisable form, or instead to welcome in anyone who wishes to come, at the price of losing our liberties, our laws, our religion, our traditional way of life, and our very identity.
To be frank, I don’t care as much as I ought to because I shall soon be dead. But I am sad at the prospect that the nation dreamed of by King Alfred and gradually moulded by the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Elizabethans, and the Victorians will soon cease to be. Like all human creations, it had many weaknesses and downright evils – but it also brought forth Chaucer, Donne, the Bacons Roger and Sir Francis, Milton, Newton, Locke, Pope, Swift, Dr Johnson, Adam Smith, David Hume, the Mills father and son, Dickens, Darwin, Wells, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Russell, Turing, and thousands of other distinguished Britishers. Today the intellectual tradition to which they belonged is already becoming blurred, and may soon be altogether forgotten.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
“Subsequently Farage has been central to placing racism at the centre of British electoral politics. Farage has been key to redirecting the frustrations of ordinary people at twenty years of falling living standards, while wealth concentrates to an incredible degree in the hands of the billionaire class. That the blame for this has been loaded onto hapless immigrants, rather than those looting the economy, owes much to Farage. He has more than anybody made UK elections revolve around who can promise the most blood-curdling measures against immigrants.”
Very true but:
Certainly inequality is one of the 3 big issues in the world that matter (+fall of US empire & climate change).
Of course it dominates domestic politics. But:
Try asking if the top rate of tax should be 70% or 80% at a dinner party.
Try suggesting Universal benefits funded by a wealth tax
Try suggesting higher death duties.
You will be shouted down before you get your sentence out – at dinner parties, public events, TV discussion programs, and shut down by editors as quick as if you were to say “Genocide”.
You may freely link immigration to inequality though – discussion is permitted.
Nigel Farage is not ‘ Anti – Establishment ‘ – he works and gets paid by the REAL ( not State ) Establishment meaning the rich who really run the show and have done for decades.
Tommy Robinson and Rupert Lowe are paid similarly but not as much.
I agree with Craig the EU is openly the fawning and getting poorer relation of the US and because of no resistance ( only performative resistance as they say) to the US it can only get poorer and more vindictive on not just immigrants but its indigenous people.
There are theories that Russia is behind the Right Winging of the EU – I think the opposite and believe that the US is the biggest pusher of Europe to go much further to the Right.
There is a problem though, which the US took a long time to wake up to in the run up to the Second World War.
Does the US want a Re- Militarised Germany with Nukes this time?
I’m not saying it will happen but, in future years it is possible.
Been there – T Shirt and all that.
You have to be careful what you wish for because a War on/in Russia is leading everyone down a very dangerous path.