The Guardian notes this morning that:

Nigel Farage has turned on broadcasters for questioning him about his alleged teenage racism and antisemitism as the number of school contemporaries who recalled such behaviour to the Guardian reached 28.

In an angry performance at a press conference in London, the Reform leader suggested he would boycott the BBC and said ITV had its own case to answer, as he repeatedly shouted “Bernard Manning”.

They added:

Manning, a comedian from Manchester who died in 2007, was a regular face on British television in the 1970s but he drifted from the public eye after claims that his material was racist and misogynistic.

There are, I suggest, three things to note.

Firstly, and not insignificantly, Farage's claims about the platforming of Bernard Manning by the BBC and ITV in the 1970s and 80s really is something on which he should not rely. The whole point about Manning is that he faded from view precisely because he had been racist and misogynistic, and when the unacceptability of this was appreciated, the only appropriate reaction was to take his platform away. By citing him as evidence in support of his claim that media channels are being hypocritical, Farage is doing two things. First, he is admitting the charges made against him. Secondly, he is saying that despite their truth, for which the evidence is mounting by the day, he should still have a platform. All he makes clear is, firstly, his own true nature, and secondly, his incomprehension of the world's reaction to what people like him think and say.

Secondly, these allegations are sticking. When 28 people have come forward to suggest that Farage was profoundly offensive, racist, and possibly misogynistic when at school, the likelihood that every one of them is wrong and Farage is right is remote in the extreme. That said, I am, of course, aware that youthful indiscretion exists, and mistakes happen. The problem for Farage is that he appears to have maintained his views. He is, in fact, not just admitting that he did have these opinions, but confirms through his actions now that he does still hold them. The classic James Baldwin test applies. We can hear his denial, but the reality is that we need to look at his actions, and when we do, they justify the allegations.

Thirdly, it is notable that the BBC has turned on Farage. I could, of course, say, "At last", and that would be justified. But it does seem as though something significant is happening here. The BBC has it back against a wall. There is little space for it right now between a rock and a hard place. Its enemies are lining up. The critics, including Farage, would like to come in for the kill. And, maybe, just maybe, it realises that there is now only one line of defence left to it, which is to fight back.

I have, this morning, already praised the newspaper for which I write, The National, in Scotland, for speaking truth to power, which is precisely what the press should do. Perhaps, and I can only hope, but I can also pray, that the media has now realised that this is also true with Faragae.

There is only one way to beat the vile politics of this man and his political party, based as it is on both racism and misogyny, coupled with exploitation and hate.

They have to call it out.

They have to name it for what it is.

They have to make clear that this is not just a possibility, but is the reality.

They have to say on their platforms that he is promoting these behaviours, and the evidence is that he has not changed since he was a teenager, and the fact that he is still platformed as a cause of offence to the moral majority in this country, even if he can attract racist support from some, as he undoubtedly does.

I was speaking to well over 300 people in Keele last night to a group called Keele World Affairs. It is an extraordinary organisation that runs twenty public lectures a year with very large audiences. I was talking mainly about modern monetary theory, but the question of how I would deal with Farage came up, and I was asked how I would deal with him. My response was to say we should call him what he is: a racist.

My relationship with racism is personal. The clue is in my name. My father spent his life living in fear, being outed in this country for being Irish at the time when the signs in the pubs said "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish", and in that order. We were at the bottom of the pile. I have every reason to loathe racism. I might look as though I enjoy white male privilege - and of course, to some degree, I do - but I also know from lived experience what racism feels like. I notice it both in its conscious and unconscious forms, with the latter potentially being even worse than the former. And what I know is that unless the media calls it out, as it is finally beginning to do with Farage, we cannot beat it.

I am, therefore, truly grateful to those who have come forward to evidence precisely, based upon their lived experience, just what Farage has been so for so long that he hardly knows any other form of behaviour, and that everything about him is, in fact, based upon a deep-seated hatred of the "other".

My wish is that the media will use this newfound evidence to continue to speak the truth to challenge his attempt to secure power. It is the way to beat him.

Comments 

When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.