Since his election, Nigel Farage has spoken twice in the Commons – once, on the first day of the new parliament, to announce “We are the new kids on the block”; and another to make his maiden speech, in which he called for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Court of Human Rights.
Having tried so hard to get in, the new kid on the block doesn’t seem able to use his platform effectively; he seems far happier on social media and GB News, campaigning as if he is an outsider.
On Tuesday, Farage used Twitter/X – rather than a debate in the Commons – to criticise the government over the murder of three girls in Southport. He speculated about whether the murderer was being monitored by the security services and said: “I just wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us. I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it is a fair and legitimate question.”
That is, as Sean O’Grady has pointed out, the weasel formula of the conspiracy theorist through the ages. Farage wasn’t saying that the deep state was complicit with the murder of three girls at a Taylor Swift dance class – he was “just asking questions”.
Not only that, if he had asked the questions in the Commons, he might have had some answers. But the giveaway was his failure to condemn the violence that followed the murders – violence that was whipped up by untrue rumours that the attacker had a Muslim name and had come to the UK in a small boat.
That failure gave Keir Starmer the chance to fight back against the unpleasant implication that the government was somehow responsible for the murders. The prime minister summoned police chiefs to No 10 and held a news conference. This was the right thing to do after such a horrifying crime that has shaken the nation. But it was also a rebuke to Farage, whose equivocation could have been read as an attempt to exploit the terrible incident for political advantage.
Starmer refused to refer to Farage by name at his news conference, saying, “I’m not going to run a running commentary on the motives of other people”, but it was obvious who he meant when he said: “Anybody who says or does anything that impedes their [the victims and their families] ability to get the justice they deserve cannot claim to be acting in their best interests – because they’re not.”
The prime minister condemned a “tiny, mindless minority in society” who rioted in Southport, Hartlepool and Whitehall in London.
Starmer is well aware that Farage could start to draw support from the Labour government if he is able to speak up for people who feel threatened by crime, and who feel ignored by government, whether local or national.
But Farage’s attempt to do so over the terrible murders in Southport has misfired badly. He can complain all he likes about the imprecise term “far right”, and the implication that Reform UK has any similarity to the semi-defunct English Defence League (founded and then disowned by Tommy Robinson). But when he saw people throwing bricks at a mosque, he should have been able to condemn it.
Most people in this country are deeply sceptical of politicians. Starmer was heckled when he went to Southport to pay his respects – because people feel that the members of the establishment do not really care about them.
But most people, when they see thuggery and violence, know which side they are on. Most British people are on the side of the people of Southport who came out on Wednesday morning to clean up the streets and rebuild the wall outside the mosque.
Farage has misjudged this one. By failing to condemn the thugs, he has given Starmer the chance to align himself with the people with the brooms and the trowels who cleaned up after those whose only contribution was to sow division.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
