Why Farage and his Reform Party lost the Makerfield by-election

There is an excellent argument why Reform did not 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. 

Thankfully the electorate gave an overwhelming vote against Kenyon and Reform giving them less than one-third of the vote, while the victor, Andy Burnham polled roughly 54% of the total vote.

Tonight has been a wonderful night for common decency and democracy

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

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.

Farage and Robinson - Are they really friends of Israel

Amongst my readership there are some who have identified themselves as being overtly Islamophobic. Amongst these people are some who support  the thoughts and actions of the likes of "Tommy Robinson", Nigel Farage as well as  significant elements within the Reform Party and view them as heroes and true supporters of both Jews and the State of Israel.

But is this true? Are these people friends of the Jewish community or are they riding on our backs as a tool to attack the Muslim community?

Today's blog will try to tackle some of these issues.

First, let's look in depth at some of the personalities involved, because it is quite clear that, for the most part they are all highly charismatic personalities, well experienced in using the media for their own political ends. Of course, it could be argued in this respect they are little different from any other politician, but it is how they use their skills and whether it creates a threat to the Jewish community.

So, let us analyse the history and ideology of the personalities.

1. Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon)

Robinson first came to attention when he helped found the English Defence League (EDL) in June 2009. The EDL was set up originally as an amalgamation of football hooligan groups opposed to the presence of a small Salafi group called Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamah based in Luton, UK.As EDL beme more popular among the broad far right it expanded its remit to become a broadly ant-Muslim organisation, eventually with between 25,000 - 30,000 members and headed by Robinson. 

By the time he took the leadership of EDL, he was already an experienced political activist, having been a member of the UK British National Party (an organisation with significant Nazi roots and historical connections with infamous Nazis, including John Tyndall and Colin Jordan. The political scientist Chris Allen noted that the EDL shared much of the BNP's ideology, but that its "strategies and actions" were very different.

Robinson admits to his membership of the BNP, though has argued that he left in 2005 after a year because 'it was not for him'. However, his links to the far right did not end there - in 2012 he became vice chair of the British Freedom Party in 2012, headed by Paul Weston, a known antisemite and later, in 2019 Robinson became an active supporter of UKIP under the leadership of  Gerald Batten (a questionable character with considerable evidence of his antisemitic leanings).

                                                  Paul Weston

About the same time, he had a further fling with the far right by joining Patriotic Alternative led by Mark Collett, a known antisemite among the far-right community. PA itself is a political group known for its strong antisemitic leanings and clear links to the proscribed neo-Nazi terror group,, National Action.

Realising the risks of being associated with such an outfit, he quickly left and had a short fling with "For Britain", another short-lived far-right party headed by Anne-Marie Waters (an ex-Labour Party member turned neo-fascist) with links to a number of well known European antisemitic groups and individuals.

                               Anne Marie Waters

Robinson then calmed down for a while, only to reappear on a platform with Hitler look-alike, Alex Yerbury (yes, the one whose then girlfriend was a contestant in the far-right beauty pageant "Miss Auschwitz") of the National Support Detachment.

                                               Alex Yerbury

One of the greatest sources of confusion surrounding Robinson’s project is his claim to oppose antisemitism and his supposed support for Israel. For more than twenty years, Robinson has presented himself as a defender of Jews against Islam, invoking Israel's right to defend itself against jihadist opposition and framing his own street politics as part of that struggle.

Robinson’s alignment with Israel and Zionism can be best understood as a strategic adaptation to the historical defeats of British fascism. The 'new' approach responds to the question of how do you mobilise an authoritarian political campaign where openly Nazi symbolism and thought, including promoting antisemitic conspiracies  are heavily contested. In short, he has denied his inner antisemitic convictions by obscuring it under a shroud of supposed "Zionism" that is, in itself fundamentally baseless and only used  as an agent to attack Muslims.

If you think this is too harsh, remember this is a nan who remains an undischarged bankrupt, but according to Hope not Hate through lies and subterfuge today has access to over £3 million worth of funds.

2. Nigel Farage

                                                      Nigel Farage

While it would be wrong to accuse Nigel Farage of having links to the far right, he is no stranger to suggestions of him expressing antisemitic comments. For example:

Antisemitic Abuse: Multiple contemporaries have alleged Farage used antisemitic slurs, sang Nazi-themed songs, and made hateful comments, including stating "Hitler was right" and "Hitler should have gassed you all" to Jewish students.

Witness Accounts: Over 30 former classmates and teachers have come forward with accounts of racist or antisemitic behaviour by Farage, including accusations he led a group that harassed Jewish students.

Social Media: In a tweeted video message, Farage said the UK faced “cultural Marxism”, a term originating in a conspiracy theory based on a supposed plot against national governments, which is closely linked to the far right and antisemitism.

Mainstream media:  In a recent opinion piece for the Newsweek website, Farage talked about “unelected globalists shaping the public’s lives based on secret recommendations from the big banks”. Goldman Sachs was the only bank he mentioned by name, echoing another common theme from far-right antisemitism

Add to this his writing in a separate Newsweek column, Farage said Black Lives Matter was made up of radical socialists trying to destroy nationalism, “oftentimes funded by globalists”, another term linked to such ideas.

In response, the Community Security Trust, a charity that works for the safety of Jewish people in the UK, said in a statement: “This is not the first time that Nigel Farage has used language that evokes antisemitic conspiracy codewords ...". 

Andrew Percy the Conservative MP argued: “These conspiracy theories have real world and dangerous consequences and are without question antisemitic,” he said. “So now he is being put on notice. Farage needs to cut it out before he causes further harm by providing further fuel to racist antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories.”

Other commentators include Catherine McKinnell the Labour MP who stated: “Talk of shadow cabals, Soros conspiracies and other nonsense has repeatedly been proven to find its roots in anti-Jewish racism. His choice of language, which echoes some of that circulating amongst the far-right online, is worrying and getting worse.”.

So when Farage says he supports the right of Israel to exist I am inclined to ask why. Is it because of a genuine belief that Israel has a right to exist and is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, or is it because he wants a United Kingdom that is both Judenrein and Judenfrei.

3. Elements of the Reform Party

Despite recently establishing the Jewish Reform Group there is substantial evidence of deep-rooted antisemitism within the party. More importantly there appears to be little heart amongst the political elite to tackle the issue and indeed, it is not beyond fantasy that some may endorse it.

• A Reform activist who had been campaigning ahead of the Gorton and Denton by-election was suspended over racist and antisemitic comments he made on social media.
• Another Reform candidate, Tony Mack, a psychotherapist and former black cab driver whose campaign literature promised to fix “woke ideology” and “discrimination against the people of Britain"  shared images of a well-known mural featuring antisemitic tropes. The mural depicts hook-nosed financiers counting money and playing a Monopoly-style board game on the backs of naked figures. The images of the mural shared by Mack was captioned: “If the people stand, the game is over.” When Mack posted the image on Twitter, he added the words: “Get up, stand up.” He also shared the image on Tiktok, writing that Reform was the only way to save Britain from the “globalist agenda”, 
• Or take Gary Farmer, chair of Brighton and Hove Reform Party who posted depictions of the Jewish Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband as a vampire (the version of Ed Miliband as Nosferatu was quickly deleted after posting 
• What about two parliamentary candidates who previously shared on social media material defending Adolf Hitler, denying the Holocaust, promoting conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family and Jewish financier George Soros, denial of antisemitism, and comparisons of the state of Israel with Nazi Germany.
• Or the Tameside Campaign manager include one in which he stated he "would never touch a Jewish woman", and another that appeared to downplay the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. The latter was in response to a post by former UFC fighter Jake Shields, which claimed that the Holocaust’s death toll is "made up".

I could easily cite many more, but I will stop now for the sake of some kind of brevity.

Political comment

While I am no supporter of Nigel Farage, I think there are some problems accusing him of being an antisemite. In part this is because some of his actions go back to his school days. Now, if we are to accuse Mr Farage of wrongdoing because he sang old Nazi songs then, by that standard, we would also have to accuse Prince Harry, the Duke of Suffolk because he wore a Nazi uniform to a friend's fancy dress party back in 2005. Was the incident antisemitic? Or was it simply a tasteless and grossly inappropriate act by an immature 20 year old student? However, Farage's youthful outbursts must be contextualised alongside some of his later comments and writings. Taken as a whole it does lead to grave questions that need to be answered and, to date these have not been. With this in mind I feel the Jewish community needs to be extremely cautious before taking him under their wing.

Similarly with the Reform Party. While I acknowledge there are many genuine people in the party who support the Jewish community and are fully committed to Israel and its right to exist, I do feel there is extensive evidence to support the belief that antisemitism is endemic within the party and again, while this remains unresolved there is little reason to trust them. Just as Labour, Green and to a lesser extent Conservative parties have an unresolved problem with antisemitism, so too does Reform, perhaps more so.

The case of Tommy Robinson is much clearer. With a 20 year history of association and engagement with the far right across Europe and a blatant disregard for demands from Jewish community groups it is clear Robinson is only out to satisfy his own ends. His Zionism is non-existent and is only used to create further division between Jews and  Muslims. He is very far from a true friend and should be avoided at all costs