Why Farage and his Reform Party are a danger to democracy

There is an excellent argument for why Reform must not be allowed to win the by-election at Makerfield on 18^th June and it’s not because I have an inherent passion to see Andy Burnham the next leader of the Labour party, or because I am a closet supporter of any of the other parties. I confess, if I were to be able to vote in that election, I would vote for Burnham, but only because I would hope it would keep Farage's Reform candidate, Robert Kenyon far away from the House of Commons.

Such a vote would grieve me greatly, especially after years of virulent antisemitism within the Labour Party – an issue, I would add that seems to still be present and where there appears to be little passion by its members to resolve it.

I think it would be fair to say the parliamentary candidates in this by-election are some of the most lack-lustre we have seen for some years. 

Burnham is a talented and experienced politician and, in terms of debate has shown himself to be leaps and bounds better than the others, but he wants voters to support a party that since being elected is on a path that will leave our defences in crisis, our housing stock reduced even more and illegal immigration largely unabated. The last being one of the biggest concerns amongst UK voters.

As for the rest of the candidates, well let’s look at them, and to make it simpler, I am going to eliminate those smaller parties and independents who will most certainly lose their deposits. As for the rest, we have:

Jake Austin (Liberal Democrat) – is an experienced local councillor from Wigan but with polls showing him running at only 1%, he is one of those likely to lose his deposit. He will be hoping this will improve by election day, but I remain doubtful.

Michael Winstanley (Conservative) – Another local councillor, who one would have expected to be polling at least double numbers, but with polls showing him only reaching 3%, the Conservatives must be asking what are they doing wrong. Sadly, voters keep telling them, but they are not listening.

Sarah Wakefield (Green) – A Manchester City Councillor who has shown herself to be a competent candidate and may, in the future, prove to have a career in national politics, but with a party leader eager to divest himself of his Jewish background and a propensity to offend anyone remotely appalled by antisemitism, she is unlikely to do well. However, current polls put her at 5% so she may, at least be able to keep her deposit.

Rebecca Shepherd (Restore) – Though highly unlikely to win, with polls averaging 7%, she may prove to be a major thorn in Reform’s side and enough to split the vote and give the seat to Andy Burnham. Her party leader, 

Rupert Lowe was once a member of Reform but he was thrown out when he made false allegations of violence against Reform’s party chairman, Zia Yusuf. One of his most well-known gaffs was saying, “I won’t have woke creeps telling is we’re racist.”. Against this, he has argued how Indians and Pakistanis are taking British jobs – is he racist? I leave that to you, but the evidence is stacked heavily against him.

Robert Kenyon (Reform) – A recently elected councillor on Wigan council and a plumber by trade (If elected maybe he could pair up with Green MP and fellow plumber, Hannah Spencer and start an in-house plumbing business in the Commons). Kenyon has a warehouse full of political gaffs (more on this later), but despite this is still managing to achieve 41% (5% behind Burnham) of the vote. He stood in 2024 as a candidate in Makerfield and came second.

By any stretch of the imagination this is a pretty shoddy selection of candidates and, quite honestly, I think the only reason there has been interest in this by-elections is because of Burnham’s stated intention to force a leadership contest within the Labour party if he is elected. 

So, let’s now look at the vulgarity of Reform, its leader and its candidates.

Nigel Farage

Recently I've been taking a look at some of Farage's speeches, press conferences and news reports and I've concluded he is a man with a highly questionable background, especially regarding his attitude towards Jews.

But first, let’s look at his financial dealings - in 2024, Farage personally received £5m from Christopher Harborne (Harborne, also known as Charit Sanskrit) is a British Thai billionaire technology investor and the largest financial backer of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party. He has provided them with over £22 million in donations, including a record-breaking single donation of £9 million in 2025) and add to that tens of thousands Farage received over the years for "travel expenses" and let's not forget the £1.4m house, according to Harborne, this was bought outright for him, though Farage and later Harborne both claimed he bought it from fees for appearing on I'm a Celebrity).

All this could be forgotten, (especially when considered against a number of other MPs who take advantage of their parliamentary work to make money outside) if he did his job while in the House but, using a more recent example (there are others), during April and May this year alone, he missed 77 parliamentary votes without explaining his absence to his electorate while taking a £98, 599 salary. I should also mention that detailed analysis of legislative records indicate he has registered other frequent absences for votes.

Then, of course there is his history of antisemitic comments when he was younger. You may recall how an investigation by the Guardian newspaper disclosed how over 30 former contemporaries and teachers at Dulwich College in south London alleged that the teenage Farage engaged in racist and antisemitic behaviour. He put this all down to childhood antics and therefore irrelevant, though interestingly he refused to apologise. Additionally, in his early political career, Farage faced a backlash for his interviews with far-right US media, where he discussed supposed globalist plots, the financier George Soros, and the Bilderberg group. He denied they were antisemitic, but nonetheless, UK Jewish groups condemned these as antisemitic "dog whistles".

Finally a scour through the Campaign Against Antisemitism archives revealed  how in 2017, Farage attempted to end a controversy over remarks he made when he told LBC Radio listeners how he believed American Jews exert disproportionate political power and even appeared to agree with a claim they have financial control over American politics.

As for his supposed pro-Israel position this was killed off when a caller on another LBC programme named only as Ahmed, told Farage he thought the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States was no less dangerous than alleged Russian hacking, Farage appeared to agree, and started talking about Jews: “Well the Israeli lobby, you know, that’s a reasonable point Ahmed, because there are about six million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it’s quite small, but in terms of influence it’s quite big.” When Ahmed said Israel has both the Republicans and Democrats “in their pockets”, Farage responded: “Well in terms of money and influence, yep, they are a very powerful lobby”. Summarising the call, Mr Farage once again made clear he believed a “Jewish lobby” is at work on behalf of a foreign Government, and adding: “ … that there are other very powerful foreign lobbies in the United States of America, and the Jewish lobby, with its links with the Israeli Government is one of those strong voices.”

Racism, sexism and intolerance amongst Reform party candidates and officials

Given the number of Reform members with known links to Britain First, BNP and in a couple of cases Patriotic Alternative it should come as no surprise how a significant number of candidates and officials have been shown to be sexist, racist or generally intolerant. Indeed, even a cursory look at past candidates reveals  questionable characters who, normally should never have seen sight of a ballot sheet eg Jonathan Kay, Mick Greenbough, Jack Denny, Stevie Bates, Lucian Fernando, Marc Burca, Augustine Obodo, David Prior, George Martin Parnell, or John Black - and this list is only a cursory glimpse through the database. If we dig deeper, it is no surprise Tice himself admitted some of Reform's own candidates are Muppets and morons.

Other recent candidates and officials who helped expose the true racist and sexist nature of the party have also included the candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election, who was suspended over racist and antisemitic comments; the candidate for Hill End, who made a spate of shocking comments about Jewish people, black people, Muslims and Indians; the candidate for Bury, who said the Charedi Jewish population has created a “demonic social structure” and compared it to Al Qaeda and ISIS; and the chair of Brighton and Hove, who had to stand down after antisemitic posts on X were revealed

Now, let me be clear, though I am always astonished it needs saying, I do not believe Reform UK are National Socialists. Indeed, I am on record as saying elsewhere how I concur with Prof Cas Muddle they are a Radical Right political party and NOT even far-right. But even more, if we acknowledge populism is a (thin) ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the pure people and the corrupt elite, and which argues politics should be an expression of the volante Générale (general will) of the people, then within this we can label Reform Party Ltd a populist Radical Right party, and in this regard, I find both Farage and his party dangerous.

Of course, all the Reformers out there will now be screaming 'but we suspended most of them' or ' that's old news', but my reply is simple and from something I learned while teaching - once is an accident, twice a coincidence and three times a pattern - so what's well over one hundred? The answer is simple - the party remains steeped in Radical Right politics but influenced by far-right fellow travellers who remain in the party.

Robert Kenyon 

But probably the best example of the true nature of Reform lies in their candidate in the Makerfield by-election, Robert Kenyon, a disturbingly sexist individual who, despite daily revelations of his deep-seated disdain for women’s equality, continues to be endorsed by them, 

Let’s look at some of his comments:

On an online rugby forum, he said: “… women can’t “ref, drive or give directions,” and on the subject of women presenting rugby games on TV said: “aren’t up to the job and only there to tick a box”, adding: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.”

He also objectified European women’s bodies, saying English women “don’t care” and “just walk around with their fat bellies and odd shapes pushing a pram at 16 in their PJ’s”.

Now, in case you aren’t clear about his position yet, let me tell you about his 2019 comments on a rugby league forum claiming women who have abortions get them for “vanity purposes” and so they can “shag anyone they want”.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, he went on to pontificate about abortion, arguing it was: “a cowardly act of murdering a defenceless baby” and then went on to suggest women falsely claim to have been raped to terminate a pregnancy.

The LGBTQ community have also been recipients of his wrath, arguing gay people are “poofs” on a 2009 forum, and later, in 2010, describing them as “mincing about” on TV and in one post on “X” wrote: “You can’t call her ‘The Queen’ anymore because it offends the poofs.”

The next year, he wrote:  “People who want to make a stand for homosexuals need not combat the throwaway comments of a sportsman on twitter, but need to do something about the way homosexuals are perceived in the mainstream media, for instance … having Julian Clarey [sic], Graham Norton, 4 poofs and a piano and Paul O’Grady mincing about on TV does a lot more damage to the reputation of homosexuals and causes greater insult in my opinion.”

In, as late as 2020, he wrote: “If LGBT just want acceptance, then stop making a big song and dance about it, attention seeking and taking over other events because that’s turning people against you”. He also called Labour the “party for tyranny’s”.

Back on the subject of his sexism, Hope Not Hate revealed in 2021 Kenyon interacted with a social media message sent to the UK TV Countdown co-host, Carol Vorderman , which read: “Happy birthday Carol, my God I would love to smell and lick your arsehole.” And when she publicly demanded an apology, he replied, “… only saying what we’re all thinking,” along with a thumbs up and a laughing emoji.

More disturbingly, the campaign organisation, Searchlight which specialises in exposing far-right activists, discovered Kenyon was friends with Gary Raike, the neo-Nazi, Hitler-loving leader of the New British Union, a successor to the old Mosley British Union of Fascists.

Political Comment

It seems to me to be extraordinarily obvious Reform is extremely dangerous and contrary to all the values that have made the UK a great nation. Their hatred of immigrants, legal or otherwise, isn’t based on a desire to protect the culture and traditions of our country, but on a fierce racism steeped in neo-fascist ideology and supported by members who, in many cases, are themselves from a far-right or neo-fascist background. Rather than wishing to rebuild Britain, they want to destroy its democracy and build intolerance and division.

Their tools are lies and denial using propaganda as its cudgel. Writing in the book, “1984”, Orwell once said, “If all others accepted the lie which the Party [or its leader] imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth.” – never has this become more true than in the writings and speeches of both Farage or Reform party officials.

Currently, they are riding on the crest of a wave – a wave that will subjugate women and virtually every minority group; a wave preaching tolerance and division – and like an infected abscess it requires lancing and eradicated. It is my urgent prayer this starts on voting day on June 18^th but even if that happens, it will mean a combined, Restore and Reform vote could easily still achieve over 50% of the overall vote. And if that happens, Labour, Conservatives, Greens and the Liberal Democrats must finally listen to the electorate and change direction to adopt a New Politics. If they fail, democracy in this country could be doomed.

 

 

 

Has Ageism become the new respectable slur?

As the years go by, I am starting to realise that the older I get, the grumpier I become. So, when somebody, trying to be endearing describes me as being seventy-three years young, there is an above average chance I might rip their head off, reach in and grab their spleen and feed it to my neighbour’s Pomeranian dog. A little dramatic you might think and reluctantly, I would have to agree. However, you need to see this in context, because most people nowadays would say I am old. It’s not an unreasonable assumption. I have all the regulatory signs: I have wrinkles; there are parts of my body nowadays that ache without me doing anything; I groan and sigh just from standing up or sitting down; and, I don’t have as much hair as I did when I was in my twenties. Let’s face it, I am now what the young call a ‘boomer’ – and herein lies the problem.

For many years being a ‘boomer’ was simply an identifier to show roughly when a person was born; in other words, someone reared in the immediate post-war (and I mean the Second one, not Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq) era and probably experienced some form of rationing, rode bikes or scooters on empty streets, played “war” using a broken stick as a sten gun (we didn’t have toy guns in those days, or if we did, they barely lasted longer than a week before breaking), and when we misbehaved in school, we were caned, or had the dreaded “slipper”. For those too young to know this malicious instrument of torture (what we call today a plimsoll or a sneaker) could create such pain that when manipulated by an expert could inflict such pain on our extremities that it would sting and burn with a ferocity that it was sufficient to griddle enough burgers to supply MacDonalds for an entire day.

Unfortunately, the term ‘boomer’ has now become a term of ridicule or contempt; a means to dismiss the opinion of those who are older because, after all, we ‘oldies’ couldn’t possibly have a clue about computers, politics, living in the modern age, handling budgets, driving cars, international travel, raising kids, coping with debt, moving house, problems at work – the list is simply endless. Terms like ‘boomer’ or ‘old’ have become a part of a new respectable slur – ageism.

Of course, through the past centuries we can see how ageism has always been a thorn in our society, so there’s nothing new here. After all, it was Aristotle who said of the elderly, “… they are small-minded, because they have been humbled by life,” while an even more harsh perspective of growing old came from Juvena, who argued: “… their heads without hair, their noses drivelling. Their bread poor wretches, has to be munched by toothless gums”.

But, speaking personally, I’m a bit sick of it. I’m a bit tired of the snide jokes on social media about my age; I’m tired of being seen as an irrelevance; and I’m fed up, to the back teeth of being made to feel older people don’t count.

And you know what makes it worse? Some of those who today refer to themselves as generation Z or millennials know they are doing it, but dismiss its importance. This was typified to me in an article written in 2020 by Emma McDermott entitled ‘When did it become OK to be ageist’. Now, of course, like any politically correct writer, she emphasised how bad it was to dehumanise older people, but not before offering her readership a little titbit of her true feelings.

"I want to clarify that I am in no way trying to equate the usage of ageist slang, like ‘boomer,’ to the continued usage of racial slurs, specifically those directed toward African Americans and Black Americans, or homophobic rhetoric. To do this would be a gross underrepresentation of the environment that racist, anti-LGBTQ+, xenophobic, ableist, antisemitic, and other dehumanizing language has created for the marginalized groups on the receiving end."

Cool, but put simply, she is arguing ageism isn’t very nice, but we really shouldn’t see it in any way as offensive as all the other ‘isms’. After all being refused a job because you are ‘too old isn’t as bad as being refused it because you are a person of colour, a woman, gay or trans. Being beaten for being gay is far worse than elder abuse. I guess I must be missing something, because I always thought they were all as bad as the other.

In fairness, I think there are many who think the same way as her and see racism, sexism and homophobia as the real evils while ageism is little more than a ‘bit of a problem’ in modern society, ignoring the ageist epidemic in our language, or how estimates suggest between 500,000 and 2.7 million older adults in the UK are affected by elder abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation annually,  including an estimated 375,000 older victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales alone; or how in the United States, an estimated 1 in 8 older adults experience some form of physical abuse each year. We also know over half (52%) of job seekers over 50 feel their age puts them at a significant disadvantage when applying for jobs and this figure only gets worse as you look at older job-seekers who, despite legislation to prevent older applicants being refused interviews for work. Indeed, we know older applicants are routinely rejected at the pre-interview stage in favour of identically qualified, but obviously less experienced younger candidates.

So we come to the heart of the problem – ageism has always been  an acceptable “ism”, but with social media and the internet now a dominant part of everyday life, it has become the new respectable slur where  terms like "aged" and "ageing" have become socially acceptable insults frequently delivered by middle-class liberals (although other classes and political groups are often as culpable) who would never dream of using equivalent language about other protected groups. Instead, they protect a societal double standard where ageist language and behaviour isn’t treated with the same social and professional consequences as sexist or racist language. Indeed, in our speech and writing, whether we be Americans or British, we see how it has become so riddled with prejudice that even  the most basic of phrases like "ageing institution" are frequently used as pejoratives to imply irrelevance or decline.

 

Commentary

Growing older is an inevitability for us all. We know this and though we all try to ignore its ineluctability, it will happen, as will the certainty that in all of our futures it will be preceded by years of being  dismissed, patronised, overlooked, infantilised, and ignored. We know this, the evidence abounds, yet in the last thousand years we have done nothing to address it. Indeed, if I didn’t know better I would almost believe there’s no desire to bring about change. We simply close our eyes and pretend it doesn’t exist, until the prejudice and contempt lands in our own laps – and then, when it does, we have reached an age when we don’t complain because we already feel we are a burden on our family, on medical services, or on our carers. So, we do nothing; we don’t rock the boat just in case we are seen to be a burden or a nuisance.

As for responding to those who call us ‘boomers’, ‘past it’, ‘ancient’ or out of date, again we say nothing, Why?  Because eventually we start believing it ourselves, until finally reaching a point where we don’t stand up for ourselves, we don’t argue, we just sit back, stay silent and conform to what society wants of us. We become manageable. Since the late 1970s psychologists have known about this process and refer to it as the illusory truth effect – a process where you actually accept the lies being told to you by others; you start believing your way of raising kids was wrong because the ‘new way’ is seen as better (ignoring the reality that in a further ten years that way will also be condemned). At the end of the day, it is a mechanism to emotionally, physically and intellectually strait-jacket older people to say nothing, until we eventually are so subdued  that we conform to a system that takes away everything from us , including our very identity

But we have a choice. We can resist. In 1970, Maggie Kuhn created a militant group called the Grey Panthers that fought openly against ageism in all its forms, and acted as an advocacy group fighting against elder abuse. Sadly, Ms Kuhn and her Panthers died in 1995 with her death and since then there has been no significant advocacy group internationally to fight ageism. Now, admittedly there was a lot wrong with the Panthers and, in some part, that was their failure. But, it did show older people that we may be retired, but we haven’t automatically lost our voice, unless we choose to be silent. We do not have to sit there ever day and be patronised and dismissed by a younger generation, some of whom seem to have absolutely no care about our emotional health.

The Panthers are long gone and anyway, society has changed, but that doesn’t stop us from developing our own personal manifesto for growing older. A set of rules to live by that guide me in how I want to be treated and tell those I encounter that in their dealings with me there is a line in the sand.  I have mine and it may not work for you and that’s great, but create your own to make sure that as well as looking after your physical health as you grow older, you also protect your emotional health. Do not accept the new respectable slur. Of course, sometimes I get it wrong, because I’m human .. and that’s fine, but at least it means I don’t live my life under the thumb of a despicable slur.

 

My Personal Manifesto for Growing Older.

•       Do not call me ‘honey’ or ‘sweetie’, unless I give permission – I have a name
•       Do not assume because I am old you can use my first name. Ask first;
•       I am not a ‘boomer’, I am a human being;
•       My opinions count. You do not have to agree but I expect you to listen;
•       In my life I have learned many things. I have studied very hard. I had a highly   successful career. Show respect for that learning and career;
•       Being older does not mean I am incapable;
•       Respect me and I will respect you;
•       I am more than the sum of my years – reduce me to just ‘being old’ and I will probably tear you apart.

Can Sturgeon or the SNP survive Murrellgate?

Douglas Murray recently asked a very interesting question - What would you say if your spouse bought a luxury campervan? Now for those of you living outside the UK let me explain because this is a glorious story of embezzlement, deceit and ultimately, political downfall. Admittedly, it’s not quite in the league of William M. Tweed or Randall Cunningham in the United States but it definitely ranks amongst one of the best stories of illegality for the last few years. In sleepy and dare I suggest, somewhat nondescript Scottish politics, Nicola Sturgeon served as, until a couple of years ago, First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, while her husband, Peter Murrell was employed as the Chief Executive of the party. Now, Mr Murrell has been charged with and is pleading guilty to embezzlement to the tune of £400,000 (about $540,000) part of which included purchase of a £110,000 campervan.

In her defence, Ms Sturgeon argued she had no knowledge of her husband's criminal behaviour, arguing her salary at that time was £145,000, while her husband's salary ranged between £80 - 100,000. She argued: "None of these things [the purchases] I would have looked at and thought how on earth could he afford them? We were two people on high salaries. We don't have children. We didn't have an extensive social life, mainly because of the pressures of my job."

Now, before we continue, let's not forget, Murrell's purchases included:

·       £9,350.25 on two Bremont watches;

·       £24,324.60 on Montblanc goods;

·       £24,495.50 on items from Smythson;

·       £6,085.86 on Dyson products;

·       £8,991.65 on coffee machines;

·       £1,782.99 on cup warmers;

·       £5,319.28 on Le Creuset products;

·       £1,990.50 on umbrellas;

·       £2,618.16 on two salt and pepper grinders from Lalique;

·       £1,056 on reed diffusers and candles from Jo Malone;

·       £3,500 on a hand chased silver wine coaster from Hamilton & Inches               jewellers.

... that's quite a bit of kit to bring into the marital home without it being noticed. I mean, take my own home, albeit our salaries are less - I can't bring in a custard slice into my home without it being noticed though, in fairness my wife never complains about my occasional ‘sweet treat’ relapses.

But one thing's for sure - if I pulled up outside my home in a huge and brand new luxury campervan, I think she'd notice and when there was no change to our bank account, she would ask how I paid for it. Indeed, and having once owned a motorhome, I think there’s an above average chance she would have hit the roof on spending so much money without us having some kind of conversation about the matter.

So, am I accusing Ms Sturgeon of lying? No, but it does make me wonder about their relationship. Of course, it could be they each held separate bank accounts and kept their financial affairs separate and private. Hardly unknown, though somewhat unusual and of course, in this case it quite easy to accept she might ignore the Montblanc pens and stationery, the jewellery and the watches. However, the new Jaguar iPace worth £80,000 parked in your driveway, and the £125,000 Niesmann and Bischoff motorhome parked outside the home of her (then) 67 year old mother, Joan Sturgeon who, until 2017 also served  SNP councillor and provost (civic head of council) of North Ayrshire? Well that bit is a little harder to understand.

Personal political ramifications

Quite clearly the consequences of the Murrell case will impact heavily on Ms Sturgeon and bring into question her ability to exercise due diligence in her affairs. The annual spending budget of the Scottish parliament averages about £68bn and, of course is heavily monitored and audited, but if (and it remains unknown) Ms Sturgeon was part of a conspiracy to embezzle party funds, could she also have been party to stealing taxpayers money, It seems unlikely, but cannot be dismissed without investigation. In the coming months we can reasonably assume this will be investigated and if, as we would hope, she is innocent then the worst she could be accused of is naivete and gullibility – not qualities you would hope to see in senior politicians. On the other hand, if she is in any way guilty, the political and legal ramifications for her are immense.

Party political ramifications

If the Murrell case has shown us anything it is that the SNP financial system was wide open to abuse. At this time, the SNP is holding a deficit of about half a million and a rapidly declining membership. On the other hand it still hold ownership of the campervan, now only worth £41,000 and a £60,000 loan to Peter Murrell they are unlikely to ever see again. In short, the party is in something of a financial mess with no concrete plan to sort the problem out.

What is clear is that while the SNP secured sizable support in the last Scottish elections (57 seats) it seems unlikely to dam the holes and the only thing holding them up at the moment is the fact there is no viable alternate Scottish Independence party – if that changes before the next general election their future could be bleak.

When Alex Salmond was politically active and set up the Alba Party this may have happened soon er rather than later, but with his untimely death and the demise of his party it seems that for now they are safe. As for the Independence for Scotland Party, they continue to be a minor thorn in the SNP side though their leader Colette Walker remains an unknown and with less than 1% of the vote they pose no real threat.

However, if the likes of ex-SNP members such as Mhairi Black, Ash Regan or Neale Hanvey were to establish a new Scottish Independence Party the threat could be formidable

Why aliyah to Israel for many old Jews just isn't an option

As I sit in the comfort and security  of my home in the South West of the UK, I am still reflecting on the two Jewish men who were stabbed two Jewish pedestrians in Golders Green, an area that, for as long as I can remember has been one of the most iconic area for both secular and haredi Jews in London.

Shortly after the attack inevitable  platitudes came out in force from politicians of all persuasions who condemned the acts of violence in time-honoured meaningless words. The government spokesmen spoke of their shock as to what had happened whilst serving up a good mix of “word salad.”

And guess what - nothing has really changed

Condolences without action

So many politicians’ “hearts went out to the Jewish community,” to such an extent that now, a couple of weeks later, I am forced to consider how they even  managed to catch their breath between their slippery banalities. “They all felt our pain,” though we saw none writhing in agony.

Virtually every one of these political hyenas wanted us to know “words are not enough,” though none suggested any practical solution  to ease  community fears and the ever insipid British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who has consistently shown himself incapable of doing anything that might directly confront Muslim voters, or criticize any country other than Israel has now shown he could not be bothered to travel the 6 miles from Downing Street to Golders Green

Instead he ordered a Cobra security meeting where they sat around and chatted about the problem of Jews under attack. After all, after a comfortable chat comes a time for reflection, closely followed by a Cabinet Committee where they can submit a report to some nameless Select Committee, who will will question witnesses from a range of NGO's with no conclusive solutions ever being put on the table.

Meanwhile, Starmer will not grasp any nettle that needs grasping lest he offends anybody because he so terrified of being decisive in case a "stalking horse" comes forward to challenge his leadership.

At the same time, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, told those who bothered to listen that he was “angry” and “appalled,” then, while feeling our pain, returned to Spain to meet Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and discuss their shared views on Gaza

Is it any wonder that while so much passionate disinterest was taking place, many Jews started asking whether now is finally the time to make Aliyah. Is this the time to return home.

But herein we have the core problem - and it has become the problem that remains the elephant in the room and no-one is talking about it. Unless you have plenty of money, a well-paid job, or a good pension, moving to Israel is not an option.

Cost of living in Israel

We know there is a significant cost-of-living crisis in Israel, with roughly 2 million people, or ~21% of the population, living below the poverty line, including high rates of child poverty and food insecurity. It is now also common knowledge there has been a disturbing rise in food insecurity and financial struggles, with about 28% of Israeli households unable to meet all monthly expenses and 1 in 4 children live below the poverty line.

Additionally, data shows utilities average roughly 935 shekels per month (£230/  $310) and food is generally 21% higher than the richest European nations, with high prices for dairy and staples.

Now, of itself this is a matter of concern but not necessarily critical if an immigrant is fortunate enough to have a high salary, substantial investments and savings or a really good pension.

Socioeconomic status of Jews

However, data from the Office of National Statistics (UK) shows that roughly 40% of the Jewish population in the UK are, on average in receipt of a median or below income each month, and that roughly 3,000 Jewish children were classified as living in poverty, while in the US, 15% of Jews live below the poverty line and 26% reported difficulties paying for necessities like food or medicare. 

Put into a more accessible manner, data suggests in the UK, 9,000 Jews are almost certainly living in poverty, while in the USA this could be as high as 1.1 million people

Financial support

Of course, cynics would argue that potential immigrants would be able to access financial support to allow a move to Israel and I would have to agree. As I understand it, a couple wishing to make such a move would be able to access the "Absorption Basket" allowing eligible claimants to access up to £12,500 ($16,4000 during the first six months of residency plus possible free flights to Israel. However, this aid is only for the first six months then aid ends. So, unless a couple can secure an annual income of between £24,000 to £40,000 ($32,000 to 54,000) they are almost certain to be on or below the poverty threshold and likely to be in much worse financial position than they were before immigration.

Older people

Those above pension age are most likely to be living on a fixed income ie a state pension. For UK citizens this averages at a maximum of £12, 000 (and anything up to $36,000 for US citizens) per year, meaning that unless the older person has one or more private pensions they are unlikely to have sufficient money to survive. This, pf course, may be offset for some by the Israeli social security system who, in certain circumstances, may supplement any income if the claimant is eligible.

For British citizens in particular this is highly problematic as, even with a full state pension there would be insufficient to live on and they would not be eligible for supplementary a UK pension credit.

In most countries, but the UK in particular there has been a long history of significant deprivation amongst our older population and never has this become more clear than when exploring how older Jews living on a severely limited income may be disenfranchised from fleeing to Israel if ever the need arose.

Healthcare

As many will know, the Israeli healthcare system is a mandatory public/ private hybrid that provides universal coverage where about 20% of spending is out of pocket expenses including co-payments for visits to consultants, medication and imaging, As a consequence, currently nearly 6% of Israelis face catastrophic health spending and we can legitimately assume that senior immigrants without significant private pensions could easily become part of this group,

Additionally, we cannot afford to ignore those who are elderly and infirm, as well as our disabled. For some a flight to Israel is something far beyond their physical ability, while for others, disability creates so many problems as to make immigration an impossibility. And of course, there are also rare occasions where the Ministry of Interior can block immigration, so, in many respects the issue of aliyah for older people is something of a health minefield.

Political comment

For many the notion of making aliyah is not an option if life deteriorated in their current location. British or US Jews living in poverty would have neither the wherewithal to make the move, nor the income to support themselves in Israel after six months. 

The only choice available to them is to bring about effective change; For these people there is no other option and, what surprises me is how this point is never made. All too often we hear Jews saying 'well, if it gets really bad we'll just go to Israel', as if this is an option for everyone. But nobody talks about what happens to our poor, or weak, our disabled and our elderly. Where do they go if the pogroms were to start? Where are they to go when the synagogues are burned or the Jewish schools are forced to close? Are they expected to stay? Are they the ones we sacrifice?

It is a question no-one is asking and someone needs to. Remember, right now nobody is doing anything to end antisemitism and with nothing being done, we must assume that it will get worse. And if it gets worse what happens to those we, in our blind ignorance choose to leave behind.

Are we about to segregate Jews?

It is possible, in the excitement of today's march in London against antisemitism that you may not be aware that, as of May 2026,  The Ministerial Committee for Legislation in Israel is set to vote on a proposal by Religious Zionism MK Simcha Rothman that would bar non-Orthodox converts—including those converted by Reform and Conservative movements—from obtaining automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. This proposed legislation aims to reverse a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that mandated recognition of these conversions for citizenship purposes.

For decades, Israel has accepted conversions performed by the Reform and Conservative movements abroad as sufficient for Israeli citizenship, as the Law of Return left the issue of conversions deliberately vague, not specifying if they had to be performed by an Orthodox rabbi.

However, conversions inside Israel had to be performed under Orthodox religious law to be recognized for the purposes of citizenship.

Rothman asserted that changing the language of the law “expresses a return to the principles established by the founders of the state and is necessary for the unity of the Jewish people both in Israel and in the Diaspora.”

Committee approval is only the start of a long process and it remains uncertain if enough time remains before the election, and if it is enough of a coalition priority, for the bill to pass under the current Knesset.

Should the Ministerial Committee for Legislation back the bill, it will be added to the legislative agenda and advance to a preliminary reading in the Knesset, after which it will be assigned to a committee for further discussion ahead of the three readings necessary for it to be passed into law.

Sorry here we are in a world where violent antisemitic attacks are taking place, where shuls are being fire bombed, and where Jews no longer feel safe to wear kippot or Star of David pendants and decent people are fleeing for safety. Yet at the same time, the ultra-orthodox, in the safety of their Jerusalem homes are now saying if you were born into a Reform or Conservative home, or if you converted to one of these groups, Israel may not grant you the right of return or sanctuary. The eternal home of the Jewish people will not keep you safe if you aren't a good enough Jew!

But they will take the money you donate every month to Israeli charities, they will encourage you to fight for, and defend Israel on social media - but they will not let you make Aliyah because a few rabbis have decided you aren't a good enough Jew!

So, my question to my chaverim  on this committee is this simple - if ever antisemitism became so bad that Reform and Liberal Jews feared another Shoah - would you turn them away? Would you leave them to die simply because they lacked an orthodox pedigree?

I've loved, supported and worked for Israel most of my life, I've publicly defended governments I have privately opposed, I have publicly spoken in support of legislation that I have privately despised - but this is too much.

Am Israel chai isn't just a nice saying, it is a declaration that we are one nation, a people and we are united as one and cannot, and will not be divided.

There is no such thing as a better Jew - we are one - and no committee will ever divide us.

So to my Reform, Liberal and Conservative brothers and sisters I say this - we will not and must not ever forsake you. You are part of us and your link to Israel is absolute and must always be protected.

The "Blame Game" - Why just blaming Muslims or Leftists for the rise in antisemitism is dangerous

A cursory glance at social media posts from pro-Jewish/ Israeli pages will soon reveal how contributors are understating or oversimplifying the root causes of modern day antisemitism. Many blame modern hate against Jews as being the fault of  "the Left", without ever clearly defining who they really mean. For some it refers to those on the hard left (Communists, anarchists etc), while for others it includes liberals, social democrats or those who associate their ideas with the Democratic Party.

But there is another sizable group joining the "Blame Game" and these are those who broadly support the Radical Right and point a grubby racist finger at Muslims, despite evidence showing most hate crime against Jews has led to the arrest of White British or American citizens. This is not to say that some Muslims are not antisemitic, or that a disturbing number of incidents have occurred where some Muslims have used various techniques to threaten or intimidate Jews, but, I would argue they are a minority amongst the larger Islamic population who wish to live peaceably. For those Muslims perpetrating threatening behaviour I would argue our judicial system is capable of inflicting harsh custodial sentencing and I would urge this to be put into action.

In the UK there are currently approximately 4m Muslims accounting for roughly 6.5% of the overall  population. Of these, it is believed about 200,000 could be described as 'radical', though not necessarily criminal. Unquestionably this is entirely unacceptable and no society can, or should accept rule by a minority desiring the implementation of Sharia Law. Indeed, this writer would argue if you do not like the rules of a country the solution is very simple - leave or we should help you. But all this is an entirely different argument and for another time.

In the UK last year there were roughly 4,000 reported hate crimes perpetrated against Jewish people and there are signs this may be on the increase, BUT there is no evidence Muslims are the key perpetrators, suggesting accusations of Muslim created antisemitic violence against Jews is both fallacious and dangerous.

As for arguing the fault lies with the "Left" this is also problematic. In the UK there is sound evidence of antisemitism in the history of the Labour party, the trade union movement, as well as other socialist movements. Indeed, it was Marx he myself, one of the founders of modern socialism who said: "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money". He added, "The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew".

                                             Karl Marx

Now we do know in the last few years the Labour Party in the UK has had a significant problem with internal antisemitism. We also know the far Left have consistently pilloried Israel and pushed many lies to further the 'Palestinian' cause, arguing anti-Zionism is not antisemitism despite this they have  continually pushed a range of anti-Jewish tropes to justify their actions.

It is clear these opinion are not universal across the entire Left. In the UK there are number of sizeable Leftist groups and individuals who work hard to eliminate antisemitism (eg Stop the Hate, Runnymede Trust, Antisemitism Policy Trust), while in the US groups like Combat Against Antisemitism, Shine a Light, and the Philos Project do they part to eradicate hatred.

So while acknowledging there is evidence of Leftist Antisemitism, it would be wrong to argue this is universal, or that all left wing politicians are, by definition antisemitic.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum both the UK and US have long and deep roots in both fascism and Nazism. In the UK early signs were visible with the British Fascisti in the 1920's then, from this grew  the antisemitic British Union of Fascists under the leadership of Oswald Mosley who achieved an active membership of 50,000; statistics that obscure a far larger public support that could have taken the party to government had there not been a war and/or Defence Regulation 18b.

Similarly in the US, the violent and virulently antisemitic Ku Klux Klan attained an estimated 8m members and secured a strong influence within the US government. Admittedly, in both countries the membership of fascist groups declined but, this writer would argue their ideological roots have persisted and are fundamentally embedded in the culture and social mores of both countries.

                           .   Ku Klux Klan parade in Washington D.C., 1926.

Even postwar we can see evidence of active far-right antisemitic engagement in the political system of both nations (in the UK there is an early postwar lineage going back to Mosley's Union Movement moving through to the BNP and NF and more recent Patriotic Alternative, New British Union and Britain First; and similarly in the US we see the far right continuation of antisemitism within large sections of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, as well as countless far right groups present in every state. Add to that a more violent and dangerous type of antisemitic hate group in the terrorist organisation, Atomwaffen.Division).

Quite clearly, we see how postwar fascist or Nazi groups were forced out from the traditional political ingroup to a seemingly unwelcome outgroup - it became no longer politically acceptable to espouse race hate, but let us also never forget that previous members of these far right groups did not lose their sympathy for virulent antisemitism, they simply learned to remain silent, or find a way to sanitise it. Indeed, we have seen how a number of extremist far right politicians sanitised their past by later appearing moderate and mainstream.

The first action these 'hidden' fascists chose was to show how the US and Europe had learned from the Nazis and become civilised continents where hatred of Jews was in the past.

One effect of this pastification of antisemitism is that if people say that there is antisemitism in the air today or that they themselves are victims of antisemitism, they must either be mistaken, over-sensitive, delusionary or worst of all dishonest. Those who complain about antisemitism, or fight against antisemitism, or even wish peacefully to study antisemitism, cannot be right since it is already established that antisemitism no longer exists except on the fringes of right-wing extremism. The secret agenda some people see behind the ‘charge’ of antisemitism is that of defending Israel against its critics. We are told that the charge of antisemitism is abused in order to defend the indefensible. In this way, antisemitism appears as a ploy designed by Zionists to let Israel get away with murder. 

One dodgy presumption behind this argument is that Israel cannot be defended openly, so that its defenders have to resort to underhand tactics.  Another is that criticism of Israel is not ‘as such’ antisemitic or more strongly that no criticism of Israel can under any circumstance ever be antisemitic. A moment’s thought should disabuse us of this prejudice. It’s a bit like saying that no criticism of, say, India or Zimbabwe can ever be racist. If we criticise governments in India and Zimbabwe for being authoritarian or for abusing human rights, there might indeed be nothing racist about such criticism. But if we were to say that Indians and Africans are incapable of ruling themselves, we would be right back at ingrained notions of the superiority of the white race or of European civilisation.  

We must therefore come to the dangerous conclusion these 'hidden modern-day fascists', both left and right, have a vested interest in denying any existence of  antisemitism, for to do so would assume some kind of personal responsibility. When the data showed a rise in violence against Jews they were forced (as we saw being done by Leftist Jew-haters) to obscure their hate agenda by redefining antisemitism and their first port of call to achieve this is always Israel. They do it by arguing anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Put quite simply, the circle is then complete and both Left and Right are united in their hate.

What makes this disturbing in my mind is how elements within "our side" (ie Jews and our supporters) water down, or use sophistry or obfuscation to identify the genuine causes of antisemitism to suit their own political ends - and so,  the "right" blame the "left", or the "left" blame the *right", while, racists can blame it all on Muslims, thus preventing anything being done, so nothing changes, scapegoats keep being found and, as has happened for two thousand Jews continue to live in fear waiting with heads bowed for the next pogrom.

Political comment

If anything has become clear in the last two thousand years it is that an understanding of the 'oldest hate' will not come from a single explanation. Social scientists have worked for many years to do that and without success beyond a final realisation - there are many possible reasons.

When dealing with such a critical issue as the hatred of the Jewish people, there can be nothing more dangerous, more cruel and more heartless than to encourage reductionism. It excuses some of the offenders and people who perpetrate this reductionism protects those who are guilty, ignored or remain unidentified. 

It was Aristotle who said: “Not being of the same tribe is a cause of strife until they “breathe in sync” for just as a state does not develop from an accidental mob, so too it does not come together at an accidental time.”

Transparently antisemitism is one of the biggest 'strifes' society  has ever seen compounded by reductionists refusing to see the big picture and taking a deeply flawed 'blame a single bad guy' approach. In doing so they excuse hatred and harm those who fight to end antisemitism - and to those reductionists both left and right, I can only say one thing - for obscuring, justifying and minimising the hatred of the Jewish people, a plague on all your houses.