Share this post:
Why do people continue to support Reform UK when its leader’s defence against allegations of racism are so feeble we can believe he still has those views?
Here’s the situation, as described by the BBC:
“Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has insisted he has “never directly racially abused anybody”, following complaints from 20 people he went to school with.
“A Guardian investigation spoke to contemporaries at Dulwich College who alleged Farage made racist and antisemitic remarks to them, which a spokesperson denied.
“Speaking directly to a journalist about the allegations for the first time, Farage, 61, was pressed on what he meant by “directly” and replied: “By taking it out on an individual on the basis of who they are or what they are.”
“He also ruled out holding an investigation into his own party, following the jailing of former Welsh Reform UK leader Nathan Gill for taking pro-Russian bribes.
“Among the allegations in the Guardian are that Farage joked about gas chambers and put another pupil in detention, when he was a prefect, for the colour of their skin.
“When asked about the claims, Farage responded: “Have I said things 50 years ago that you could interpret as being banter in a playground, that you can interpret in the modern light of day in some sort of way? Yes.””
This is extraordinary, not because the accusations are new but because of the way Farage chooses to deny them.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Pressed repeatedly, he insisted he has “never directly racially abused anybody” — a phrase that immediately raises the question of what he considers indirect abuse, and why he feels the need for such a qualifier.
When asked what “directly” meant, Farage replied: “By taking it out on an individual on the basis of who they are or what they are.”
That redefinition alone would be headline material for any other party leader seeking to become prime minister of the United Kingdom.
So would his refusal to say categorically that he had not racially abused fellow pupils. Instead, he said he would “never, ever do it in a hurtful or insulting way” — a construction that implies the action itself may have taken place, but that he disputes the intent.
When asked whether he might have said things that were racist or offensive, even if he did not mean them that way, he answered: “I hope not.”
And when pressed again — could he apologise to those making the allegations? — the reply was: “No, I’m not, because I don’t think I did anything that directly hurt anybody.”
Farage’s position seems to be that racial abuse is only racial abuse if it is deliberately hurtful, and that anything said 50 years ago can be reinterpreted as “banter in a playground” which today’s standards unfairly judge.
It is worth noting that the allegations include joking about gas chambers and targeting another pupil for detention because of their skin colour.
If such things were indeed said or done, it is difficult to imagine how even the most generous definition of “banter” would cover them.
People can change. Farage is now 61, and his childhood took place in a United Kingdom where overt racism was far more visible in public life, including on television in programmes like the TV sitcom Love Thy Neighbour.
But Farage’s political career has been built, unmistakably, on stoking fears about immigrants, foreigners and outsiders.
Whether one interprets that as xenophobia or simply hardline nationalism, the thematic continuity is difficult to ignore — especially as it is delivered by a man who has repeatedly used other countries and cultures as scapegoats, despite simultaneously marrying a non-UK national – German-born Kirsten Farage (nee Mehr).
This alone would pose reputational problems for Reform UK. But Farage compounded the issue by defending his refusal to investigate misconduct in his own party after Nathan Gill — former Welsh leader of Reform UK — was jailed for taking pro-Russian bribes.
Gill was, Farage said, “briefly… leader of Reform Wales” and the whole affair was a “very minor embarrassment for Reform”.
Farage also insisted he had neither the responsibility nor the resources to check whether others in the party may have similar links or vulnerabilities.
Given the number of Reform UK representatives who have already been suspended, sacked or disgraced, this refusal to look into the party’s own house is striking.
Yet the more striking fact is that none of this appears to be denting Reform UK’s support.
Part of that is because the Conservatives spent 12 years actively stoking racism, scapegoating migrants, demonising asylum seekers and creating deliberate cultural divisions.
When a mainstream governing party normalises this behaviour, it softens public resistance to it. Farage’s rhetoric now lands in soil already tilled by successive Tory administrations.
The result is that Reform UK, despite its chaotic candidate list and now a leader defending himself from allegations of racism, is still being treated by some voters as a “protest vote”.
It is a remarkable lowering of expectations.
Many people who are furious with the Conservatives seem willing to punish them by supporting something even worse, simply because it has been successfully framed as anti-Establishment.
But a protest vote should not mean excusing racism, overlooking corruption, or ignoring a leader who will neither deny nor apologise for his own past behaviour.
The United Kingdom has better options than that.
The question is whether voters have been conditioned — by a decade of toxic political messaging — not to recognise them.
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
How can we believe Nigel Farage’s claims not to be a racist?
Share this post:
Why do people continue to support Reform UK when its leader’s defence against allegations of racism are so feeble we can believe he still has those views?
Here’s the situation, as described by the BBC:
“Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has insisted he has “never directly racially abused anybody”, following complaints from 20 people he went to school with.
“A Guardian investigation spoke to contemporaries at Dulwich College who alleged Farage made racist and antisemitic remarks to them, which a spokesperson denied.
“Speaking directly to a journalist about the allegations for the first time, Farage, 61, was pressed on what he meant by “directly” and replied: “By taking it out on an individual on the basis of who they are or what they are.”
“He also ruled out holding an investigation into his own party, following the jailing of former Welsh Reform UK leader Nathan Gill for taking pro-Russian bribes.
“Among the allegations in the Guardian are that Farage joked about gas chambers and put another pupil in detention, when he was a prefect, for the colour of their skin.
“When asked about the claims, Farage responded: “Have I said things 50 years ago that you could interpret as being banter in a playground, that you can interpret in the modern light of day in some sort of way? Yes.””
This is extraordinary, not because the accusations are new but because of the way Farage chooses to deny them.
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Pressed repeatedly, he insisted he has “never directly racially abused anybody” — a phrase that immediately raises the question of what he considers indirect abuse, and why he feels the need for such a qualifier.
When asked what “directly” meant, Farage replied: “By taking it out on an individual on the basis of who they are or what they are.”
That redefinition alone would be headline material for any other party leader seeking to become prime minister of the United Kingdom.
So would his refusal to say categorically that he had not racially abused fellow pupils. Instead, he said he would “never, ever do it in a hurtful or insulting way” — a construction that implies the action itself may have taken place, but that he disputes the intent.
When asked whether he might have said things that were racist or offensive, even if he did not mean them that way, he answered: “I hope not.”
And when pressed again — could he apologise to those making the allegations? — the reply was: “No, I’m not, because I don’t think I did anything that directly hurt anybody.”
Farage’s position seems to be that racial abuse is only racial abuse if it is deliberately hurtful, and that anything said 50 years ago can be reinterpreted as “banter in a playground” which today’s standards unfairly judge.
It is worth noting that the allegations include joking about gas chambers and targeting another pupil for detention because of their skin colour.
If such things were indeed said or done, it is difficult to imagine how even the most generous definition of “banter” would cover them.
People can change. Farage is now 61, and his childhood took place in a United Kingdom where overt racism was far more visible in public life, including on television in programmes like the TV sitcom Love Thy Neighbour.
But Farage’s political career has been built, unmistakably, on stoking fears about immigrants, foreigners and outsiders.
Whether one interprets that as xenophobia or simply hardline nationalism, the thematic continuity is difficult to ignore — especially as it is delivered by a man who has repeatedly used other countries and cultures as scapegoats, despite simultaneously marrying a non-UK national – German-born Kirsten Farage (nee Mehr).
This alone would pose reputational problems for Reform UK. But Farage compounded the issue by defending his refusal to investigate misconduct in his own party after Nathan Gill — former Welsh leader of Reform UK — was jailed for taking pro-Russian bribes.
Gill was, Farage said, “briefly… leader of Reform Wales” and the whole affair was a “very minor embarrassment for Reform”.
Farage also insisted he had neither the responsibility nor the resources to check whether others in the party may have similar links or vulnerabilities.
Given the number of Reform UK representatives who have already been suspended, sacked or disgraced, this refusal to look into the party’s own house is striking.
Yet the more striking fact is that none of this appears to be denting Reform UK’s support.
Part of that is because the Conservatives spent 12 years actively stoking racism, scapegoating migrants, demonising asylum seekers and creating deliberate cultural divisions.
When a mainstream governing party normalises this behaviour, it softens public resistance to it. Farage’s rhetoric now lands in soil already tilled by successive Tory administrations.
The result is that Reform UK, despite its chaotic candidate list and now a leader defending himself from allegations of racism, is still being treated by some voters as a “protest vote”.
It is a remarkable lowering of expectations.
Many people who are furious with the Conservatives seem willing to punish them by supporting something even worse, simply because it has been successfully framed as anti-Establishment.
But a protest vote should not mean excusing racism, overlooking corruption, or ignoring a leader who will neither deny nor apologise for his own past behaviour.
The United Kingdom has better options than that.
The question is whether voters have been conditioned — by a decade of toxic political messaging — not to recognise them.
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
For Rishi Sunak, it IS over – but not because of Reform UK or Lee Anderson
Like this:
Reform UK has targeted barbers and candy shops
Like this:
#ToryRacism as ethnic minorities are candidates for ‘hopeless’ seats
Like this:
Like this: