Nigel Farage

Aux armes, citoyens!

The rise of UKIP means British politics is becoming more European

See article

Readers' comments



The most startling comment here for me is that Nigel Lawson is highly respected! When did that happen?


"analysis by the Times newspaper, which UKIP also disputes, points to a hole of some £120 billion ($185 billion) in its fiscal plans."

I'm guessing this figure is valid, only if Britain signs a trade agreement with the EU to get access into the common market, meaning they’ll have to contribute more money per head than today (as Norway does), and allow free labour movement for every EU national.
If not, the hole in the public expenses can easy be double, and that’s the problem with populist parties, they sound good but they’re usually disastrous when in power.

Italian Aristocrat

To compare UKIP to Mr. Grillo or Le Pen is an insult to intelligence. Mr. Farage is not a racist nor a buffoon but an eloquent visionary politician who is a breath of fresh amongst the hypocrites who are in charge of our countries.


Unfortunately, I see no reason for the UKIP "surge" to stop until the next election - the Tories in government and disarray, the LDs having lost command of the protest vote, and Labour unable to form policies or provide any representation for anyone, UKIP's popularity will only continue to rise... until the moment they actually have to run anything, at which point the scrutiny the receive and responsibility bestowed upon them will combine and expose their complete inadequacy for politics. Nutters, racists, and political pygmies who have little to unite them aside a misplaced sense of feeling hard-done-by and a series of ignorant generalisations about the political process. Good luck occupying the "shame on all their houses" ground if they actually win! At the moment it seems the main consequence of the UKIP surge will be a big Labour majority, let's hope they don't manage to do any more damage than that!

Dr Lou

Ukip is not remotely an '....especially British phenomenon' but a broad symptom of economic malaise and disinformation, disconnected and self indulgent politicians and a struggling electorate who have little hope for qualitative change. Popular support for Ukip, like that of their peer 'populist' parties on both sides of the Atlantic, is more an emotive, reactive response than deliberately political.

I'd actually like to caution Farage not to overstate Ukip's primary relevance and to recognize that Ukip is EXACTLY like nearly every other so called 'populist' movement whether that be Golden Dawn in Greece or the numerous 'Tea Party' affiliates in the U.S.

Each of these groups certainly shape around their own cultural milieu and (a few) unique issues. That Ukip isn't as deliberately assaultive as Golden Dawn, for instance,only reflects different sociocultural and political exigencies rather than a unique or more superior broad agenda because, in essence, the macro platform and priorities of these different groups are often very similar.

And trying to reverse history and naturally occurring sociocultural change is typically a key dynamic and motivation. Ukip, also like its peer groups, is far less focused on 'change' or a new political model and much more so on saving a 'way of life' which, in reality, is gone forever.

That Ukip, and many of its peer groups, are 'anti-government' or anti-political party is another false construct. Ukip, like its peer groups, desperately want in to that same government resenting not the other parties but that their own party has not been prioritized by the existing establishment.

Take note, here, of Farage's political aspirations. Take note, too, that once so included, ideologues like Farage often find that the political theater which got them their seat meshes poorly with getting anything done or the hard work involved in reaching true and sustainable political compromises.

An important reality is that 'populist' groups as Ukip have come and gone in the West for at least the last 2+ centuries and immigration is a long standing political bogeyman. Since there is always a time delay before each new immigrant group generates influence and starts the process of political assimilation, they have traditionally been an easy target.

When that 'wave' of immigrants melt into their new social and body politic, the cycle ebbs until the next socio-political and economic crisis. Then, the next group becomes the mistaken focus by the older groups as those who have compromised lives, culture, history, family and jobs.

Each time and with each cycle, political groups exactly like Ukip use immigration as a framework in an attempt to reverse history and save the nation. That is; send these immigrants back to where they came from and the world will realign.

Stupid politics will end, economic political malfeasance will modify, naturally occurring social change will revert, a 'way of life' will be recovered, good jobs as had been there before will be had once again (for our group, anyway), lost entitlement will return, schools and health will improve.

Then, there are the reams of dishonest and disingenuous politicians who similarly use and they long have...immigration and immigrants to deflect from their own ineffectiveness and cowardice; from their own economic mismanagement and disconnect and towards their own next reelection campaign and fund raising letters.

But with attention to true and sustainable economic stability; with acceptable access to resources as competent schools and reliable health care; with a focus on real jobs and coherent management of the national budgets (for starters), Ukip, again like similar groups,will largely dissemble back into the historical cycle leaving only the most base reactionaries screaming into the wind.

FeTle in reply to Dr Lou

Of course we are living in the best of possible worlds. EU is best thing that ever happened. Taxation is at optimal level, etc...

I wonder what would have happened if communism had won after WWII? Not only in Europe but everywhere and some people today would argue that we should go back to capitalism. Probably they would be labeled as populists or mentally ill.

Dickonbard in reply to FeTle

Of course the EU is an imperfect and sometimes seriously dysfunctional organisation, and it is possible that the Brits would be happier (albeit slightly poorer) outside it. But I think Dr Lou is right to suggest that the deep-seated aspiration that Ukip and others are tapping into is the desire to return to an earlier and simpler age. And neither marching out of the EU nor booting out the Poles will do that. The UK will still have to earn its keep in an increasingly competitive, globalised and interconnected world. And it will find that its freedom of manoeuvre is constrained at every turn. As a trade-dependent island with an ineradicable deficit on visibles, the UK will have to do business on terms set by the big boys - the EU, US and increasingly the PRC et al. The 'i' in Ukip stands for something that is ultimately undeliverable.


Why don't you mention that he has participated in a series of meetings with France's Debout La République party, led by Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who scored 2% in the 2012 presidential election ? You mention the National Front, which Mr Farage has no link to.


In the twenties, thirties, fringe nationalist parties won above 20% in unimportant elections in a few Continental countries notably Italy first, Germany after.
Nobody paid any attention, dismissing it as unimportant and even some shrewd politicians admitted it could be a good thing (Churchill among many)
I know the first reaction of many people, myself included, is "it can never happen in Britain".
Every time I hear that, it always happens be it in Borduria or Finland (football corruption, for instance).
Thank God, it looks as if better economic times are slowly washing ashore in Britain and that will dilute extremism. That's heartening but there is an old English saying: "better safe than sorry".
None of the above implies suggesting any choice for Britons that's theirs alone to make. I have chosen to forfeit that right a long time ago. I only meddle if it can have international repercussions.
This can.

Cutters. in reply to sanmartinian

What one had in continental Europe in the 20' and 30's were parties on the extreme left, protectionist and insuluar lunatics. Far from nationalist, they were chauvinist parties, you may want to learn the difference between the two things.

Just like those lunatic groups, the EU uses social indoctrination through propaganda in education and the media and regulation of the production of educational and media materials. Education designed to glorify the EU and inform students of its historical and political importance, like the EU having a bigger role to play than NATO in european peace.

Corporate nationalism is still raging on the continent and supported by the main political parties, as is state corporatism, and these are why much of the continent is failing to globalism. It is a problem with the left wing in particular.

So one wonder just who's side you were fighting on if you were really alive that far back, given your comments.

sanmartinian in reply to Cutters.

To Cutters on the twenties and thirties fringe parties
I seldom read or reply to your posts but your last response is so comical I can't resist.
As anybody with a little knowledge of History knows, the two fringe parties I was referring to were the Fascist Party in Italy and the Nazi Party in Germany.
If you want to call them extreme left it is your privilege, but I'm afraid quite a few people will have a good laugh.
You are right: I wasn't born in the twenties. Just on October, 3rd 1931. I'm still a youngster...
I won't revert to this or any matter on this subject.

Cutters. in reply to sanmartinian

Then that shows you lack of knowledge on political theory, and the make up of left and right political philosophy.

It is funnier still how the EU emulates much of both those parties mechanisms, and here you are,
sanmartinian, supporting the EU.

I always knew you were an Anglophobe, but your comment here go almost are far as supporting the ideology you claim as extremism on one hand, and supporting large institutions use it on the other. Quite typical of a continental that.

How is your conscience holding up knowing you have supported an ideology that has seen many of your fellow Portuguese starve and made homeless? And you call those small parties in the 20's and 30's extremest.

FeTle in reply to sanmartinian

Take a look at Chile for instance. Pinochet saved them from communism, but today he is called dictator.

Look and Bolshevism in Russia in 1917. One day, the government was replaced with another, more progressive one. People didn't care much, they didn't anticipate the future full of terror and genocide. Of course everyone would say, that can't happen in Europe, but European Union is full of communists, that do not accept any disobedience. French, Dutch and Irish people said NO to constitution and guess what happened?

sanmartinian in reply to FeTle

to Fe Tle on dictators, referenda and democracy
Thank you for paying attention to my musings.
Wasn't it Plato who first said that all democracies end in tyranny?
Well, one day he'll be proved wrong.
At least, we hope so.


The Economist seems to think that by placed Ukip in a wider European context it is adding insight.

In fact it doesn't seem to understand Ukip at all.

As others have already pointed out here for example, the black hole in Ukip finance proposals is a myth and it is not xenophobia is Ukip's driving force.

Similarly it is a mistake to think that there is some mystical 25% limit to the numbers who will vote for Ukip.

Ukip policies are attractive to a range of former Labour supporters. Many low skilled private sector workers,unemployed school leavers and self employed skilled tradesmen e.g.feel badly let down. They are now as recent Sunderland, Harold Hill and Basildon results show coming over to Ukip in droves.

Its policies are also, as David Cameron is painfully aware, attractive to a large swathe of former conservative supporters.

Ukip has not like the Lib Dims lobbied for an AV voting system and cheerfully accepts the inequity of the "first past the post" system. It understands that with a few percent more votes it will be over the hump and "first past the post" will start to yield it shedloads of seats.

Perhaps TE should open its perspective a little more widely still. It only needs to look to Canada to to see a precedent for how this can happen.


It always amuses me how 'populism' is apparently such a loaded term in Europe.

In most decent countries 'populism' is really just the wishes of the people, the sum of public opinion. Public opinion is the life blood of a healthy democracy, which must be founded on institutions that interpret and reflect the will of the people. Politicians ignore public opinion at their peril; it is generally how elections are lost.

Yet in Europe public opinion is apparently society’s most shameful menace. It must be expunged from all levels social discourse, at all times and at all costs.

GaleB in reply to grozz

There is a reason for it. As Churchil once said the biggest enemy of democracy is the avarge voter. The populist views are usually not the best solutions. Besides in Europe, Hitler rose to power through economic crisis and populistic slogans, and we all know how it ended. I am personally scared of Mr Farage and what he reperesents. Difficult decisions are usually not very popular but they tend to yeild best results in the long run.

Curate's Egg

Indeed. It is more than a bit unfair of continental Europeans to decry the rise of UKIP as some sort of an endgame for British association with the European Union.

It is difficult to imagine, had the popular will, whether right or wrong, had actually prevailed, there would be much of the Union in the first place. And also remember that Britain was denied the membership of the Union (what was it back then, European Community? ) for years by Charles de Gaulle for pure, unadulterated geopolitics. No matter how insane Britain's own brand of Euroskepticism may look, you can't blame the British for having no sense of belonging in Brussels. Great man, de Gaulle, but I think his stay as an exile in London during wartime had embittered him.

Curate's Egg in reply to Vive_chimie

A stronger affiliation with America isn't a good enough reason to exclude a country from a regional grouping that it clearly belongs to, by virtue of geography, culture, history and shared interest. Especially if that country is a major power in that region. And as for true loyalty - well, we all know where the true loyalties of the EU member countries lie, don't we? They lie with their own nation-states, as they should.

In the end, it's difficult to say "So what?" to the charge that Britain isn't fully committed to the European unity - who is? And even if there are member countries with such commitment, why should Britain's misgivings be a reason for total alienation from a regional body dedicated to shared peace and prosperity?

Unless that body was NOT dedicated to shared peace and prosperity, but was instead intended to be an embryo for a new European empire with France at the helm. Which Charles de Gaulle clearly imagined it to be.

It doesn't matter though. It turns out that de Gaulle's foresight failed him on this one, and that (1) empires cannot be built by democratic consensus alone, and that (2) France simply has no strength to lead Europe. Which is as it should be.

James Yarwood

As the Tea Party is a creation of Fox News, UKIP is a creation of the Daily Mail.
The Republicans failed to capitalise on the purge of the extremist fringe to the Party.
The question remains if Cameron will make the same mistaken lurch to the right trying to win UKIP voters, or move back the centre and seize the opportunity to purge the parties extremist, xenophobic fringe, and thus make the Tories electable to the much larger population of floating voters.


"It likes defence, dislikes wind farms and absolutely loathes high-speed rail."

Not true, it supports very strongly high-speed rail insofar as we update our existing railways. What it is actually opposed to is Hs2 which will run through the countryside. Big difference.

"It is, though Mr Farage strongly denies it, the epitome of a populist party: analysis by the Times newspaper, which UKIP also disputes, points to a hole of some £120 billion ($185 billion) in its fiscal plans."

The Times made a mistaken analysis and it has been debunked. It mused that Ukip wanted to cut taxes by 90 billion and spend another 30 billion, and they added the two together to get 120 billion. However, 50 billion of that is cutting employer's national insurance - and it is explicitly stated that this could not be done in the near future, it is a very long term aspiration. Most importantly, The Times deliberately didn't take into account the cuts and savings Ukip wanted to make.

It is quite frankly very dishonest to make passing reference to this as if it is true - or probably true - to use as evidence (without even engaging with it) to show that Ukip's policies are a 'mess'.

As far as the rest of the article goes, people can decide for themselves if you have an agenda or not in desperately trying to align Ukip with facists and communists. Speaking of communists, President Barroso of the EU is former Maoist, the most extreme form of communism you can get.


Ukip having xenophobic stance TE says. What does TE have to back up this claim? Labour have admitted they got it wrong on immigration, so criticising Labours record on it is not xenophobia.

Can TE show evidence that Ukip members have attacked jews or Roma in the UK? Can it show evidence that the UK's estimated 300,000 Roma and 350,000 are targeted by Ukip in any way? Yet TE is happy use Jobbik as a comparison to Ukip.

What does TE use to back up these spurious and quite serious claims? Why tedious generalisations based on the party being all for the UK leaving the EU and cutting the numbers of immigrants, nothing empirical, nothing likely to stand up in an English courtroom. This article is the europhile press seeming to act like a headless chicken.

Many thing could happen in the next election, Farage becoming PM is on the very extreme edge of that, and Ukip MP's in the Commons are not that likely either. It could be possible for Ukip to replace the Lib-Dems in the Commons, but not something to stick ones wages on.

If anything, the continent is moving closer to being like the UK. First it was Labour against the Common Market, and even Thatcher was not keen on it towards the end, then all change with the leopard change its shorts in 1997 and up in till Cameron. There has always been a party in the UK that was against Britain being part of the european project.

Many see a move away from mass immigration as common sense, and while it may not be much of a vote decider, the Tories did run an election campaign to bring immigration down in 2010 and got more votes than any other party. It could be that people could careless what the left wing say about people who are positively in favour of cutting immigration and leaving the EU, cause despite the name calling, those in favour of both have, in the view of many, got much wrong.

Perhaps next time TE writes on this, they will actually present facts instead of propaganda in fancy dress.

Mikeylano in reply to Cutters.
Cutters. in reply to Mikeylano

Who was it that brought in so called 'Positive Discrimination'? Those measures are racist and sexists. See nothing there that cannot be turned on Labour.

In fact it looks like the party has looked to weed out any that hold extremest views, and all your links back that up, well done.

Labour and the Conservatives have targeted UK gypsies, and Labour have a clean sheet when it comes to there own coming out with other racist comments.

And then there is Diane Abbott, possibly one of the most racist MP's with a seat in the commons.

Try sticking to policies because historically the pro-EU parties have given birth to the likes of Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell.

Mikeylano in reply to Cutters.

1. Are you suggesting that positive discrimination is equivalent to discrimination in the normal sense? Because that is entirely incorrect; their objectives operate on entirely opposite sides of the spectrum.

2. The fact that a political party tries to weed out explicit racists (etc) does not mean that passively the party does not have that agenda: it just shows an attempt to mask it.

3. The fact that so many members of a party follow such bigotry brings into question the whole validity and motivation of the policy itself. There is no smoke without fire.

4. I agree that every party discriminates to a certain degree; any body of people will have a variety of views. However, that does not mean that some parties discriminate more than others. This is evidenced by the fact that your examples are archaic. The rivers of blood speech was in 1968 (before the UK's accession to the EC, might I add - more evidence that the EU is a mere scapegoat in UKIP's agenda).

5. Fanatical leaders such as Farange have caused more chaos on this planet than the three MPs you mentioned could ever manage. The parallels between UKIP's policies and Hitler's rise to power are particularly alarming. Especially since his scheme is to break down the same transnational body that was established partially to prevent the rise of another extremist.

Cutters. in reply to Mikeylano

Honestly? That can only be considered your opinion, you have yet to give examples that would label Ukip as any worse than any other party.

1. One cannot 'positively' discriminate, the phrase is nothing more than an oxymoron.

2. This would apply to all political parties.

3. You would be better off turning on the religious establishments, they hold similar views to Ukip.

4. Some would say that those that support Enoch are no better than those that currently support Diane Abbott, so has much relevance to day as it did then. Ukip would not be able to lay the blame at the EU's door if it was not guilty of a fair amount of what they say.

5. Ed Milliband is a fanatic, one just has to look as the whole left wing establishment to see many more. The rest of you comment comes under 'Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies'.

Mikeylano in reply to Cutters.

1. ??? Obviously the discussion was about the practice of affirmative action

2. ??? Obviously, see 4.

3. Yes, so? I do as well. All the same evil.

4. Diane Abbot v. Enoch Powell...really?

5. Ed Milliband [sic] v. Nigel Farange...really? And UKIP is not a Nazi analogy. It wants to remove the UK from the UK and take supreme power. The leader is a homophobic, racist extremist, who has indoctrinated a legion of fools to believe in everything he says.

Cutters. in reply to Mikeylano

1. No such thing, the discussion was on the discrimination of others. Call it what you what, it is socially toxic and without merit even as a necessary evil.

2/4. Very much so.

3. Then you are a hypocrite.

5. Red Ed is very much in favour of 'nanny state' and central control, it is a disease of the left. The last Labour government had councils snooping in bins, more CCTV per person than China and the curtailing to Habeas Corpus, to name a few.

You would know if you had studied law that there are numerous reasons why the only way to gain "supreme power" in the UK is to remove the crown. Labour sought to and failed under Blair, so what makes you think that any other would have a chance? I have not seen anything empirical to back up such a claim either, just the rantings of EU fanatics.

Mikeylano in reply to Cutters.

Once again your ignorance of how the law works has brought the conversation to an end.

Google "Royal Prerogative" and learn about the Crown's powers. This is the third time in three articles that you have come out with this "if you had studied law" rubbish and then completely missed the mark with your point.

It is laughable, why do you continue to post?

Cutters. in reply to Mikeylano

Perhaps you should actually read Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, if you had you would know just how stupid your comments are.

No coup without the armed forces, and they do not answer to parliament, they are not sworn to anything other than the Crown.

Why do you post? You know nothing of what you claim.

Mikeylano in reply to Cutters.

You are actually hilarious.

You think those documents (which have been mostly repealed) from the 13th and 17th centuries bear the significance of a codified constitution in the 21st century.

Hint: we don't have one.


This man, a rampant homophobe, will never have integrity. Shame on the people that vote for him and shame on his terrible party.

It is just the BNP under a different guise.

Cutters. in reply to Mikeylano

So because Ukip don't support gay marriage, you some how make the connection between them and the BNP.

I take it all the major religions as also the "BNP" under a different guise as well?

Not exactly a reasoned or rational commentator, me thinks.

jdcooper in reply to Cutters.

"I take it all the major religions as also the "BNP" under a different guise as well?"

The BNP are a poorly-organised group of chimpanzees. Major religions, while similarly authoritarian and grotesque in their simplistic and hateful contempt for human dignity, are far better organised.

Mikeylano in reply to Cutters.

Oh I have no care for religion either. They, along with UKIP and the BNP, can all go to hell for their homophobic views - as can the disgraceful people that vote for them (and therefore against equality and human rights for innocent people).

Cutters. in reply to Mikeylano

Then perhaps you should be far more aware of those that come to this country.

According to Biedroń, the president of the Polish Campaign Against Homophobia, "most Polish gays emigrated to the UK not for economic reasons but because of persecution in Poland."
They apparently numbered in the thousands.

Citizens of other EU member states resident in the UK can vote in local elections, how do you think they will react to gay rights, given the numbers from eastern europe?

Mikeylano in reply to Cutters.

Proof? I have several friends who are gay and Polish, and other friends who are Polish and not homophobic.

And I have no idea what "getting suing you for libel" means

Again, stick to numbers.


I feel the writer underestimates the future of the UKIP.

During the last election , all 3 political parties painted a too optimistic picture of the economic situation in Britain and did not explain the tough measures needed to get through the crisis. Not much has changed really - as such they will continue to disappoint - benefiting UKIP. They will not go away soon and will grow.

The potential EU referendum is also an important issue
The Referendum will not be about the EU, but about the incumbent leader. David Cameron cannot hope to win it , even if he promised free beer to everybody in England

It is not unreasonable to assume that David Cameron will no longer be PM after the next elections. Will it be possible for anybody to become a leader of the Conservative party without promising a referendum in the next 20 years ?
(what does this do to the millions of people who's legal status might be impacted by a referendum like this - does it help the economy ?)

You folks like to make fun of Italian politics in TE, but after losing control over the EU referendum debate , is David Cameron in a stronger position at the moment to rule than eg the new Italian PM ?

France has a first past the post system - and they have disrupted politics there for years.

I feel TE could contribute also a bit more: you continuously get UK growth and inflation figures wrong (too optimistic) - but you do manage to produce enough alarmist articles about the Eurozone(which are too pessimistic). The use of the Eurozone as a constant scapegoat in the British press helps UKIP
(and inflation is another thing that pushes the social classes that vote for these anti-establishment parties)


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail 41 mins ago
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40


Products and events



