Connect with us

International

UK election 2024: Nigel Farage could deliver another profound shock to the establishment

Published

10 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

With Nigel Farage and Reform U.K. from the right, and George Galloway and his Workers’ Party from the left, the populist element threatens to make the cheerless pantomime of British politics entertaining – and interesting – again.

The United Kingdom’s general election is days away. Thursday, July 4, a memorable date for American home rule, may see a degree of self-rule return to Britain as the liberal establishment is shaken in its heartland by populists from the right and left of the center of permanent government.

Last week current Conservative Foreign Secretary David Cameron said on video that British policy on Ukraine was “fixed” and that nothing would change if Labour won the election – as many expect they will.

Yet a rising tide of populism led by two charismatic figures has complicated the situation.

Despite attempts routinely seen in European nations to “lock out” populists from mainstream media, Nigel Farage’s Reform continues to surge. Mass rallies across the country combine with several polls showing his party now pushing the Conservatives into third place nationally in three polls.

When the first poll showed Reform a point ahead of the Tories, Farage claimed his party was now “the real opposition to Labour.”

Farage has complained that his party is not being given fair media coverage. Reform have cautioned against believing mainstream media polls, as their own claim to show far stronger support – such as this from July 1.

Almost all polls exclude Galloway’s Workers’ Party from their calculations, locking his voice out on screen. But it is his voice which has resonated with many who share his support of Gaza against Israel’s ongoing genocide.

Galloway claims that the established parties have “abandoned the working class.” He claims to stand against “the uniparty” of British politics, having denounced the “one-party state” of Britain in colorful terms in the past.

His recent sentiments on the merits of both the Labour and Conservative leaders will be shared by many.

With Galloway from the left, and Farage from the right, the populist element threatens to make the cheerless pantomime of British politics entertaining – and interesting – again.

Farage came to prominence as a leading figure in the “Brexit” movement, which following then Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum, saw the U.K. vote in it to leave the European Union.

Many British voters – known as “remainers” – sought to remain in and seek to rejoin the E.U., and hope that a vote for the Labour Party will realize this ambition.

British Christian commentator Peter Hitchens criticized the referendum at the time, saying that it introduced a conflict over sovereignty that replaced another. He said that the referendum made the popular vote sovereign at the expense of Parliament, and that the membership of the E.U. had also done the same. This, he said in 2023, had diluted the power of Parliament overall.

Hitchens concluded that the referendum really contested the supremacy of Parliament in determining the fate of the nation.

Election as referendum on Parliament?

This election can be seen as a sort of second referendum – on the legacy of that Parliament and how its determination to act against the nation should be judged by its population.

The Conservative Party has ruled Britain for the last 14 years. It has attacked Libya (in 2011), unleashing waves of mass migration, which saw the party then call for integration and diversity as scandals over child sexual abuse (2010-2014)  and the public execution of a British soldier (2013) by immigrant populations hit the press.

The Conservatives, as with many other parties of the liberal consensus in the West, strongly supported lockdowns and burdened the nation with record borrowing to fund the destruction of the high street businesses, community groups and the education and development of children and young people. They aggressively promoted the so-called “vaccines,” with conservative commentator Andrew Neil saying it was “time to punish the unvaccinated.”

With its “winner takes all” system of “first past the post,” the party with the most votes in each constituency wins. This means Reform may take millions of votes, but still end up with very few seats.

Elections are not only a matter of who counts the votes. They are also determined by who draws the boundaries – in reality and in the media.

Mass migration breaks the game

Yet it is mass migration – and its profound effects on the politics, policing, and practices established in Britain which is mainly driving support to Farage’s Reform. Why is that the case?

It is a reality which can no longer be ruled out of bounds by the politics and media of the establishment.

Mass migration has increased significantly under the Tories, as the Conservatives are known. So have laws against free speech, including a National Security Act which threatens to criminalize investigative journalism. Nigel Farage was himself “debanked” under measures permitted by Conservative rule. The party of law and order has marked the nation by the absence of both. 

READ: Press freedom under threat as UK National Security Act could put journalists in jail

Christians have been prosecuted and cautioned by police for praying, preaching the Gospel, and singing hymns. In May 2024, the Daily Telegraph reported that “Christians are the most despised minority in Britain” as a result.

The U.K. now has the highest tax burden in 70 years, and it is set to rise higher still. Taxes have risen in the U.K. more sharply than in the U.S. or the E.U. in the last five years.

For these reasons the most vociferous opponents of the Conservative Party are now its own former core voters.

This election will be lost by the Conservatives. It may finish them. But a massive Labour victory is not guaranteed, and the chaos created by Labour and the Tories in Britain is driving people towards populism to secure a meaningful change – from the politics of national suicide.

A guide for Christian voters

The U.K.’s Christian Institute has produced a guide to all the parties’ policies, showing where each faction stands on issues of concern to the near 60 percent of the population which identifies as Christian, per the most recent census in 2021.

Nigel Farage’s Reform is the only party to oppose the LGBTQI agenda in schools. Reform also supports marriage with a proposed raise in the marred couples’ tax allowance. It wishes to abolish “hate crimes,” including repressive measures on speech, and has pledged to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits most meaningful action against mass migration. 

The elephant in the room

The migration issue remains one which dominates ordinary life in Britain, but whose mention has been routinely and deliberately excluded from mainstream debate and media coverage for the decades during which it has taken place.

Nigel Farage has won one referendum – on Britain leaving the E.U. in 2016. Most polls said he would lose that one. One said “Leave” would lose by 10 points.

With the elephant of migration now dominating what little room is left in Britain, Farage may be on course to deliver another profound shock to a system designed to conduct business as usual – regardless of the interests and opinions of its people.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

RFK Jr. planning new restrictions on drug advertising: report

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration is reportedly weighing new restrictions on pharmaceutical ads—an effort long backed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Proposals include stricter disclosure rules and ending tax breaks.

Key Details:

  • Two key proposals under review: requiring longer side-effect disclosures in TV ads and removing pharma’s tax deduction for ad spending.

  • In 2024, drug companies spent $10.8 billion on direct-to-consumer ads, with AbbVie and Pfizer among the top spenders.

  • RFK Jr. and HHS officials say the goal is to restore “rigorous oversight” over drug promotions, though no final decision has been made.

Diving Deeper:

According to a Bloomberg report, the Trump administration is advancing plans to rein in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising—a practice legal only in the U.S. and New Zealand. Rather than banning the ads outright, which could lead to lawsuits, officials are eyeing legal and financial hurdles to limit their spread. These include mandating extended disclosures of side effects and ending tax deductions for ad spending—two measures that could severely limit ad volume, especially on TV.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long called for tougher restrictions on drug marketing, is closely aligned with the effort. “We are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers,” said HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon in a written statement. Kennedy himself told Sen. Josh Hawley in May that an announcement on tax policy changes could come “within the next few weeks.”

The ad market at stake is enormous. Drugmakers spent $10.8 billion last year promoting treatments directly to consumers, per data from MediaRadar. AbbVie led the pack, shelling out $2 billion—largely to market its anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq, which alone earned the company over $5 billion in Q1 of 2025.

AbbVie’s chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart admitted during a May conference that new restrictions could force the company to “pivot,” possibly by shifting marketing toward disease awareness campaigns or digital platforms.

Pharma’s deep roots in broadcast advertising—making up 59% of its ad spend in 2024—suggest the impact could be dramatic. That shift would mark a reversal of policy changes made in 1997, when the FDA relaxed requirements for side-effect disclosures, opening the floodgates for modern TV drug commercials.

Supporters of stricter oversight argue that U.S. drug consumption is inflated because of these ads, while critics warn of economic consequences. Jim Potter of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication noted that reinstating tougher ad rules could make broadcast placements “impractical.” Harvard professor Meredith Rosenthal agreed, adding that while ads sometimes encourage patients to seek care, they can also push costly brand-name drugs over generics.

Beyond disclosure rules, the administration is considering changes to the tax code—specifically eliminating the industry’s ability to write off advertising as a business expense. This idea was floated during talks over Trump’s original tax reform but was ultimately dropped from the final bill.

Continue Reading

International

Judiciary explores accountability options over Biden decline ‘coverup’

Published on

Former President Joe Biden salutes the departure party before boarding Special Air Mission 46 at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Jan. 20, 2025. 

From The Center Square

By

No obvious solutions emerged during a congressional hearing Wednesday on how to hold those accountable for the alleged cover-up of President Joe Biden’s mental and cognitive decline, but witnesses had some suggestions for how to prevent similar situations in the future.

Republicans have been adamant for some time that Democratic lawmakers, the prior administration, the legacy media and those closest to Biden conspired to hide the former president’s mental and cognitive decline from the American people. More recently, allegations have surfaced that some of Biden’s staff or potentially others may have used an autopen – a machine that can replicate signatures – to sign official documents for Biden without his knowledge or consent.

From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18th, 2025

Wednesday’s witnesses agreed that further investigation needs to be done into these questions. Republicans also explored what can be done after the fact and how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing into those questions Wednesday’s boycotted by all but one Democrat.

Republicans didn’t miss the opportunity to call them out for it. U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-MO, said Democrats’ absence and their failure to call any witnesses to testify was “deeply disappointing” but “not surprising.”

“Their absence speaks volumes – an implicit admission that the truth is too inconvenient to face,” Schmitt said. “This de facto boycott is not just a refusal to participate. It’s a refusal to serve the American people who deserve answers about who was truly leading their government.”

From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18th, 2025

Much of the hearing’s discussion revolved around proper uses of the autopen, which witnesses testified can only be rightfully used when the president specifically delegates its use to the user. The committee also discussed Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which talks about succession in the case of a president becoming unfit or unable to fulfill the role. The amendment authorizes the vice president and a majority of the president’s cabinet to declare the president unfit, though that declaration has to be validated by a vote from Congress in order to have any effect.

What’s missing, however, is a clear manner of recourse for lawmakers or the public if those around the president fail to act despite plain signs he is incapable of holding office. Republicans wanted to know what they could do to prevent the alleged conspiracy from simply fading into history without consequences for any involved.

“As a government, it is imperative that we have clear contingency plans when emergency strikes, and yes, it is an emergency when we have a sitting president who is unable to discharge the duties of that office,” said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX.

He asked witness Theo Wold, a visiting fellow for law and technology policy with The Heritage Foundation and who worked in the previous Trump administration, if any criminal statutes could be applied to those who are found to have participated in the alleged cover-up.

“In this case, some have suggested that there may be potential crimes committed by members of the Cabinet for failing to act basically, suborning perjury, forging, forging government documents, impersonating a federal officer, making false statements, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of justice, wire or mail fraud…  Do you think there’s any application of any of those criminal statutes to the circumstances of the Biden presidency?” Cornyn asked.

“There very well could be,” Wold said, but he added that it would be “a question for a prosecutor to take up in their discretion.”

While witnesses agreed that anyone participating in a cover-up should be held accountable, the solutions for doing so weren’t as clear as recommendations for how to prevent similar situations in the future.

John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, didn’t see an obvious method of redress for what already happened but suggested that Congress perhaps require greater documentation of presidential actions going forward.

Wold provided additional suggestions, such as a revival of discussion around “other guardrails” that can be imposed on the 25th Amendment. There was lively debate toward the end of Ronald Reagan’s presidency about adding a mental health professional to the White House medical team or “whether the surgeon general should oversee the inclusion of medical reporting as part of… the 25th Amendment,” according to Wold. But he said there hadn’t been serious discussion since on how to improve the amendment. He also agreed with Sen. Katie Britt, R-AL, that some of the terms in the amendment, like “unable,” should be more clearly defined.

Continue Reading

Trending

X