Nigel Farage Isn’t Serious About Saving Britain
Any leader on the British right unwilling to consider mass deportations and denaturalization is just controlled opposition.Any leader on the British right unwilling to consider mass deportations and denaturalization is just controlled opposition.'Game's up, mate': Starmer refuses to resign over appointment of disgraced Epstein ally as US ambassador
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing calls from lawmakers and critics to resign over his appointment of Peter Mandelson, a known associate and possible informant of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as the United Kingdom's ambassador to the United States.
While Starmer's right-hand man, Morgan McSweeney, resigned on Sunday over his involvement with Mandelson's appointment, the prime minister doesn't appear keen to meaningfully accept any responsibility himself — a reluctance now supported by many of his liberal allies in the British government.
A short-lived appointment
Starmer appointed Mandelson — known in British political circles as the "Prince of Darkness" — as ambassador to the U.S. in December 2024, claiming he would "bring unrivaled experience to the role."
Starmer's choice was controversial at the time.
'The game's up, mate, and it's time you recognized it.'
After all, Mandelson had not only publicly described the recently re-elected Donald Trump as a "danger to the world" and "little short of a white nationalist and racist," but was an associate of Epstein long after Epstein pleaded to soliciting sex from girls as young as 14.
A source told the BBC that when Starmer made the decision, "The Epstein stuff in broad terms was definitely known and discussed in detail before his appointment."
RELATED: Why are so many people all of a sudden saying Epstein is alive?
Emails released last year revealed that the Starmer pick was not only chummy with Epstein, but had grown close enough with the sex offender to apparently regard him as his "best pal."
The Foreign Office announced on Sept. 11 that Mandelson had been withdrawn as ambassador, noting that the "emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment."
"In particular Peter Mandelson's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information," added the Foreign Office.
It gets worse
Any hopes that Starmer's office may have had of putting the Mandelson appointment in the rearview mirror were dashed by the Department of Justice's latest release of the Epstein files, which contains emails showing that Mandelson was not only tight with Epstein but possibly furnished him with confidential government information.
The New York Times noted, for instance, that newly released emails appear to reveal that Mandelson provided Epstein with a confidential economic memorandum that had been sent to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The documents also reportedly indicate that Epstein paid Mandelson $75,000 across three separate transactions in the early 2000s.
Mandelson announced earlier this month that he was leaving Starmer's Labour Party to spare it from "further embarrassment."
In a Feb. 1 letter to the party's general secretary, Mandelson claimed that he had no record or recollection of financial payments from Epstein; he regretted "ever having known Epstein"; and had dedicated his "life to the values and success of the Labour Party."
Mandelson is presently under investigation for possible misconduct in public office.
Starmer digs in heels
Days after his appointee left the Labour Party, Starmer gave a speech, stating, "Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him."
After insinuating that he was deceived by Mandelson, Starmer suggested that he will remain in the role of prime minister to "ensure accountability is delivered."
Apparently, accountability for Starmer meant letting Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney fall on his sword.
In a statement obtained by the Spectator concerning his resignation on Sunday, McSweeney wrote, "The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong. He has damaged our party, our country, and trust in politics itself."
McSweeney, an apparent protégé of Mandelson, claimed that he advised Starmer to make the appointment and that the "only honorable course is to step aside."
On Monday, Starmer's director of communications, Tim Allan, also quit "to allow a new No. 10 team to be built."
Neither resignation appears to have placated those in the British Parliament keen to see Starmer shoulder some blame.
Calls to resign
Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, said on Monday, "The leadership from Downing Street has to change," reported ITVX.
"We cannot allow the failures at the heart of Downing Street to mean the failures continue here in Scotland," continued Sarwar. "They promised they were going to be different, but too much has happened. It cannot continue."
Clive Lewis, a member of Starmer's party, suggested that upon reflection, it's clear the Labour Party is "ruined" and needs to be rebuilt without its current leadership.
Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK Party, told GB News, "It's over; it's done. The game's up, mate, and it's time you recognized it."
"He's lost legitimacy, he's lost authority, events have moved way beyond his control, and I'm afraid it's all down to his own grievous misjudgment," continued Farage. "But remember, even before the Peter Mandelson case, he was already the most unpopular prime minister in living memory."
On Monday, Starmer stated, "After having fought so hard for the chance to change our country, I’m not prepared to walk away from my mandate and my responsibility to my country, or to plunge us into chaos, as others have done," reported the Guardian.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
America can’t afford to lose Britain — again
The Labour government that rules the United Kingdom is hardly a year old, but its time is already coming to an end. Its popular legitimacy has collapsed, and it is visibly losing control of both the British state and its territories.
Every conversation not about proximate policy is about the successor government: which party will take over, who will be leading it, and what’s needed to reverse what looks to be an unalterable course. What is known, however, is that the next government will assume the reins of a fading state after what will likely be the final election under the present, failed dispensation.
We should equip our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with the lessons of the new right’s ascendancy and of a nation-first government in America.
The Britain birthed by New Labour three decades ago, deracinated and unmoored from its historic roots, is unquestionably at its end. Its elements — most especially the importation of malign Americanisms like propositional nationhood — have led directly to a country that is, according to academics like David Betz of King’s College London, on the precipice of something like a civil war. That’s the worst-case scenario.
The best case is that a once-great nation made itself poor and has become wracked with civil strife, including the jihadi variety. It is a prospect that will make yesteryear’s worst of Ulster seem positively bucolic.
American policymaking is curiously inert in the face of the dissolution of its closest historic ally. This is not because Britain’s decline is anything new: the slow-motion implosion of that nation’s military power has been known to the American defense establishment for most of the past 20 years. Ben Barry’s excellent new book, “The Rise and Fall of the British Army 1975–2025,” offers many examples to this end, including the 2008 fighting in Basra in which American leadership had to rescue a failing British effort.
The knowledge that Britain is facing a regime-level crisis has remained mostly confined to the establishment. Outside of it, the American right has mostly dwelled on an admixture of Anglophilia and special-relationship nostalgia, obscuring the truth of Britain’s precipitous decline.
The American left, of course, entirely endorses what the British regime has done to its citizenry — from the repression of entrepreneurialism and the suppression of free speech to the ethnic replacement of the native population — and regards the outcomes as entirely positive.
It is past time for that inertia to end. The last election will redefine the United Kingdom — and therefore America’s relationship with it. Even before it comes, the rudderless and discredited Labour government has placed Britain into a de facto ungoverned state that may persist for years to come.
The United States has an obligation to protect its own citizenry from the consequences of this reality. It also has what might be called a filial duty to assert conditions for Britain to reclaim itself.
That duty means taking a series of actions, including denying entry to the United States to British officials who engage in the suppression of civil liberties. American security and intelligence should focus on the threats posed by Britain’s burgeoning Islamist population. The U.S. should give preferential immigration treatment to ethnic English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish who are seeking to escape misgovernance or persecution in the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, the United States should make it clear that the robust Chinese Communist Party penetration and influence operations in U.K. governance will result in a concurrent diminishment of American trust and cooperation.
Also necessary is the American government’s engagement with pro-liberty and pro-British elements within the U.K. This means working with Reform U.K., which presently looks to gain about 400 parliamentary seats in the next election. Its unique combination of a dynamic leader in Nigel Farage, intellectual heavyweights like James Orr and Danny Kruger, and operational energy in Zia Yusuf makes it a compelling and increasingly plausible scenario.
RELATED: Cry ‘God for England’
Although the Tories are polling poorly and have had their reputations battered by their substandard record in government over the past decade, they nonetheless merit American engagement.
America’s role here is not to endorse, and still less to select, new leadership for Britain, which would be both an impossibility and an impropriety. However, we should equip our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with the lessons of the new right’s ascendancy and of a nation-first government in America.
In the fraught summer of 1940, the American poet Alice Duer Miller wrote, “In a world where England is finished and dead, I do not wish to live.” The island nation has not feared its own end at foreign arms for a thousand years. But its crisis today is from within, carrying existential stakes.
The current British regime is nearing its end, and the last election is coming. So too is our decision on how to engage it in the years ahead.
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.
Farage Warns U.K. Censorship ‘Sledgehammer’ Could Come For Americans Next
'You can say what you like. I don't care, because that's what free speech is, isn’t it?' Nigel Farage responded to rude Rep. Jamie Raskin.
What’s Next For The U.K. After Labour Hands Tories Worst Defeat In Nearly 200 Years?
Despite Labour handing the Tories their worst election result in history, things aren't as bad as they seem for U.K. conservatives.Democratic Sen. Mark Warner is reviving the Russian collusion narrative just in time for another election
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), was one of the leading exponents of the Russian collusion hoax. In 2019, for instance, he claimed, "There's no one that could factually say there's not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians."
Special counsels Robert Mueller and John Durham ultimately proved him wrong, revealing there was no substantive evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
Subsequent analysis revealed that to the extent there was foreign interference, it was likely inconsequential — not including the foreign-sourced Steele dossier collected for the Clinton campaign, which Democrats used to great effect. For instance, the Washington Post, whose journalists were awarded for peddling the debunked "Russia hoax" narrative, admitted that so-called Russian trolls "had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior" ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Before Durham could take some of the wind out of Warner's sails, the senator claimed ahead of the 2020 election, "the Russians who attacked us in 2016 are still attacking us."
The Virginia senator is apparently at it again, pre-emptively characterizing Nigel Farage's gains in Britain's July 4 election as the Kremlin's preferred outcome. According to Politico, Farage's Reform U.K. party could pick up as many as 17 seats in the British Parliament, including five from the Conservatives.
The Telegraph reported Tuesday that while Warner admitted that U.S. intelligence agencies "have not seen much [Russian] activity" around the British election, he has suggested "the chances are, as we saw in the past, this activity ramps up dramatically the closer it gets to the election."
According to the Telegraph, Warner "singled out Nigel Farage as he described Vladimir Putin's potential efforts to exploit different attitudes among British politicians towards defending Kyiv's frontlines."
Conservative party establishmentarians like Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss are reportedly in agreement that Ukraine can succeed militarily so long as it keeps receiving weapons and funding.
Farage, alternatively, recently said, "I'm not saying we shouldn't support Ukraine at all. Not for one minute. But at the end of the day most wars end in negotiation and I fear, if we don't find some way of at least sitting down and talking, that we're going to finish up with a war that goes on for year after year after year."
Warner apparently regards a difference of opinion amongst British politicians on the country's foreign policy — in this case, regarding a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine — as position capture by Russia.
"Clearly, Russia does not like the fact that the UK has been as stalwart as they have been in terms of defense on Ukraine," said Warner. "It clearly meets Putin's plans if he can lessen the British or the Americans' resolve for supporting Ukraine, he can save some money on his tanks, guns, ships and planes if he can diminish support."
In a recent BBC interview, which has been grossly mischaracterized by the English press, Farage noted that Putin has "gone from prime minister, to president, he's a clever political operator. He kills journalists. I don't like him as a human being in any way at all."
"You can recognize the fact that some people are good at what they do even if they have evil intent," continued Farage.
When asked what he'd say to Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy if in a position of influence, Farage said, "I'd say to Zelensky, 'Look, the West have been supporting you, they will go on supporting you, but the percentage of your young manhood that you're losing is so bad, isn't it time we at least tried to have a negotiation?' He couldn’t say no."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com