I see from the comments here many Americans especially are confused by this situation. Some background might make help.
Farage seems to have broken Parliamentary Rules (laid down after the cash for questions scandal in the 1990s) by accepting large sums of money as gifts - but without declaring them, something all MPs are required to do for any gift. But worse, one of these gifts came from a convicted crypto felon.
The Parliamentary standards committee seemed likely to suspend him or order a recall by-election as a result.
Nigel's aim in preempting this near-inevitability was apparently to use the media spotlight the by-election would give him to dominate the summer headlines and present himself as a man-of-the-peeps martyr-rebel under mean & outrageous establishment persecution (rather than just the rich little chancer he is, on the make, with the murkiest of murky connections). If he could hammer this impression into the public imagination, they'd then be deaf to any subsequent findings from the Parliamentary Standards Committee.
In other words he thought this little manoeuvre could turn a damaging problem and weakness into a strength. Unfortunately for Nige, the other parties understood this, & instead have left him to play all summer long with the jokers and silly parties, looking like a laughingstock.
So as you see, there's nothing anti-democratic about it. If he wins, he will still face the suspension and recall election that was coming anyway. But as part of procedure - not on the terms he's trying to set with this little stunt.
And we know what you all are thinking: only £5m, how pathetic.
I get you. Farage is still learning, on his frequent visits to the US. Give him time.
We definitely are the weaker and more pathetic side of the Atlantic when it comes to corruption in our politics at the moment. We do bow to your superiority in this area.
"Harvey previously stood as a similar character, Lord Buckethead, but was forced to create a new character due to a dispute with the filmmaker Todd Durham, who owns the Buckethead character" [1].
(The videos on this website are worth the watch. Hilarious, of course. But also...Binface conjugates Latin to Sky News, and not just as a bit. I don't know how I feel about the British comedy candidate outclassing half of the American elected leadership–and a good fraction of its industrial leadership–on IQ.)
> I came to Earth in 2017 and stood against Prime Minister Theresa May (as ‘Lord Buckethead’). Then in 2018, after an unfortunate battle on the planet Copyright, I rewspawned in my true form as Count Binface.
> I don't know how I feel about the British comedy candidate outclassing half of the American elected leadership–and a good fraction of its industrial leadership–on IQ.)
Your entire political system has flirted with anti-intellectualism for over a century; it used to pretend to be uneducated simpletons to appeal to the electorate (witness, e.g. the folksy “ahhm just a simple mayynn” gurning schtick of Senator John Kennedy, who literally fakes his accent and demeanour despite having a sharp legal mind and Oxford degree, and who could likely conjugate latin; he is following a path trodden by Bill Clinton) and now it has refined the concept such that politicians can actually be simpletons for real: Tommy Tuberville isn’t faking being thick and neither is Markwayne Mullin.
I don’t know about conjugating latin specifically (I used to be able to do this but the memory has faded) but the standard of literacy in the UK was excellent.
We do now have a fairly similar literacy skills profile in the young as the USA and Canada, but unlike in the USA, older adults outperform them, partly because more of us were exposed to the (now essentially eliminated) selective education (grammar school) system that favoured advanced literacy.
We are thus as I understand it unique in having (ETA: or having had) declining literacy; it is declining to the US/Canada level rather than below it but it is rather sad.
Binface went to good schools and has an Oxford classics degree, I think. Much of our political class did. More recently they will have done the PPE degree (which is more or less training to be a politician). He is in that sense as “establishment” as Farage, but more importantly he is a product of that fading system. So it is this you are observing; writers, politicians, actors often come from that declining tradition.
Side note: even many politicians from a non-traditional background have gone through this path at some level; the famously working-class deputy prime minister John Prescott studied at Ruskin College, which was a college associated with the trade union movement based in and sort of orbiting Oxford University that specialised in providing PPE-type education to aspiring politicians from working class backgrounds (originally founded, incidentally, by two Americans)
There has apparently been a little bounce in the last few years, a sort of long term consequence of changes made to education policy by New Labour and the consequent movement of teachers from selective education into comprehensive education, but for example here is an article from twelve years ago:
We were, for decades, a country in considerable literacy decline, and the only one of its kind. Some of this might have been a consequence of scrapping the grammar school system without giving the comprehensive system access to the same resources.
I tend to think that when Americans observe that British politicians and actors speak with a larger vocabulary or more eloquently, the people they are observing are products of the tail end of the grammar school system and the growth of a bias towards private education that emerged in its wake; the school system that turned out men and women of letters used to be available to all and now is available only to those with money.
Again, I think, citation needed, since conservative media does like to bang on about this a lot, but I’ve not seen actual proof that education standards are falling, or worse than they were when I was at school.
What I think has happened since the close of grammar schools is that the gap between most educated and least educated has closed significantly. This government report from 2023 shows that gap closing, while also showing an improvement from previous years.
The guardian article cites the OECD study that asserted this.
I do think that it took a generation to figure out how to put into the comprehensive school system the same deep focus on “maths and english” that was always the grammar school advantage.
My own feelings about having been through grammar school education are complex (I can see, in retrospect, what I lost as well as what I gained) but I do think that in a world where success might come from communicating with considerable nuance with a computer in written form, more of the grammar school model may need to come to general education: perhaps nothing matters more now than a facility with language and semantics.
That's because dofm is conflating general literacy with the political class'. There are still very smart people around, but they're no longer the face of elections. As they said, decades of glorifying dimwits will do that.
That's because dofm is conflating general literacy with the political class'. There are still very smart people around, but they're no longer the face of elections.
Isn’t it the democratic ideal though? Of the people, for the people. If a representative democracy is to truly be representative then the elected representatives should be… representative? Tuberville and Mullin I wouldn’t say were thick so much as they’re pretty average.
The challenge is that politics is its own profession, just like management. Even though there are people that have the theoretical knowledge on how a country should be run / what policies would work best, working it out into something legalese or balancing the books is where politicians come in. In theory.
Goodness, if Tuberville is average then the USA is in much worse shape than it realises.
Mullin, like MTG, has some political instincts and some facility with the parliamentary process, as it turns out, and I almost feel bad about putting him in the same category as Tuberville, but he is not a smart guy.
Don’t get me wrong, we have many mediocre politicians in the UK, but few like these guys at the parliamentary level.
The difference is this whole flirting with anti-intellectualism thing. Pretending to be less educated or intellectual than you are has just not been a big part of our wider culture.
But we are importing this model now in Boris Johnson and Farage. As far as I can see Farage is doing exactly (a British spin on) the GWB strategy: despite having a pretty classical private-school upbringing he's created a ‘bloke from the pub’ character that is much more relatable to the lower classes, and it seems to be working pretty well.
It was really interesting to me to see BoJo's take on it, which was similar but with aristocratic mannerisms (and stereotypes!) mixed in. I guess it was aimed at the middle class, for whom upper-class dogwhistles have typically landed well.
I don't know if Boris ever faked being unintelligent or faked being a man of the people. Or being a bloke from the pub, actually.
He did fake being a buffoon, of course, but he was doing that long, long, long before Trump. He is terrifically intelligent and obviously absurdly well-educated, he's just a liar and a sociopath.
Indeed his chosen buffoonish, winging-it character hints at that, because buffoon is the easiest comic role to play if you have very little empathy. It blunts all the qualities that would make him unbearable. His buffoon routine was helped by him being very authentically clumsy across all domains both physical and intellectual, and it helped him manage that too. The upper-class twit aspect couldn't be avoided so he doubled down on it from early on.
(He has his brother and sister to thank for humanising him, and his father to blame for his worst impulses)
Farage is definitely playing at Trumpism, and he has the cruelty aspect nailed down, but he lacks the ability to clown, doesn't he? He's fundamentally sour-faced and nasty.
The remarkable one is Kemi Badenoch, who would be in more trouble if anyone was actually paying attention to the unhinged things she's saying as leader of the Conservative party.
If Farage survives the crypto donation scandal (and is therefore free to take more dodgy money), there's a real risk that the default rightwing party becomes Reform and the Conservatives become irrelevant, which would be a bizarre act of self-destruction.
She apparently can say whatever she likes now! I have noticed recently a considerable shift in the press to asking Ed Davey what he thinks.
Whatever happens re: Farage, the rules around donations will change, I think. We need to keep money out of our politics and make large donations seem intrinsically shady (because they always are)
Probably not philosophically. But it’s why pure democracies don’t work. And America has a weird problem of not enough electoral representation at some levels combined with electoral fetishisation at many others.
FWIW I don’t at all think it’s wrong for people to pick up on whether this would make him a good representative of Clacton were he to win (which isn’t going to happen and he surely thinks it is not).
Part of Clacton is relatively well off; part of the wider constituency (Jaywick) is genuinely deprived on a national scale, and they really do need an MP that bothers to understand them and that they can relate to.
Farage is absolutely manipulating and exploiting them for his own benefit; he uses their concerns to give himself a way to play on the national stage but he is a pretty terrible MP (though he’s not the only politician to forget they have a local constituency).
But if Binface could win, I don’t think it’s at all wrong to question whether the man under the bin is going to be good for them.
His job, I think, is to expose Farage’s lies and insecurities.
Why would Todd Durham have issues with a Lord Buckethead doing his thing in another country and continent, but apparently not with a guitar player named Buckethead in the United States?
Note that the ability to conjugate Latin does not correlate with good character, despite what the English public school system would have you think. Most famous example of that is of course Enoch Powell.
It is however true that you're only allowed to say true, intelligent things in British politics if you're a joke candidate. Jester's privilege. Binface has driven the rightwing press mad because he's the last threat to their darling candidate, so they're now trying to smear him as if he were a serious candidate. Which he is not. The end result is very funny.
Enoch Powell was gifted linguistically, despite his notoriety elsewhere (and his Brummie accent?). I heard he was fluent in Urdu of all things, and was even seen speaking to Pakistanis in it when he was out campaigning. He could speak Welsh too. I was reading some academic paper on Greek literature once, I forget which, only to notice that it was written by one J. Enoch Powell.
For real. I looked it up online to see if it's really as bad as Binface makes it out to be, but he's absolutely right. That hand dryer should be moved forthwith.
I wonder how the legalities of this work. If people write in "Count Binface" or if that's the name on the ballot, then if he wins, does that mean Jonathan David Harvey (the actual name of the guy who plays him) is elected? Does Count Binface count as an alias? If not, he required to use that name while in office - or more precisely, is he not considered a member if he goes by his own name?
If he goes into the parliament building without his costume, it would be a bit awkward if, say, they were required to address him by his Count Binface alias.
Or, perhaps they wouldn't care too precisely about the naming aspect, since everyone knows who he is, but politics is vicious and I'm sure there are plenty who would use any possible legal maneuver to keep him out of parliament. Surely there are laws to handle these kinds of discrepancies around someone's identity... right? Laws that could get him kicked out?
If he actually wins, would he try to do some serious good or would he keep the joke going? Should he actually prepare a serious "if I actually win the election" policy list? It would conflict with his joke list since he would be asked more questions about the real one. Or would he just have one big mixed list split 50/50 between jokes and serious ideas?
In my experience in the UK aliases and names are used in a rather flexible way compared to other countries. Anybody can decide on a name and start using it. It's not illegal unless it is done for the purpose of deceiving people.
If people commonly use it to refer to them it makes it that person's name for most purposes. Changing the name officially also requires only an affirmation or an oath at a court, although I don't think this would be the case here.
I think nobody would care much and the majority of politicians would go along with Count Binface as the proper way of address, because it'd be rude to do otherwise. Not the least because picking a fight with Count Binface would be seen as getting themselves dirty in non-serious politics. Not a very attractive proposition to be perceived as such for most political parties no matter how ridiculous their actions might be otherwise.
In Parliament, members are referred to by the place they represent, eg "The Right Honourable Member for Harry Pottershire" rather than their names. It's a way to make things less personal.
In fact, "naming" an MP is mark of having broken the rules:
I like it as a reminder that they're there to represent their constituents, and it means lesser known places are regularly mentioned in parliament (what with it being in London)
The indirect debate strategy has always baffled me (people addressing the speaker instead of the person across the aisle), but it's a really interesting way to frame a debate and to - theoretically - avoid ad hominems. Of course in UK politics they can still say stuff like "Mr. Speaker, I believe the right honourable lord of whatsit is being rather silly".
>If he goes into the parliament building without his costume, it would be a bit awkward if, say, they were required to address him by his Count Binface alias.
Members of Parliament aren't allowed to address each other by name in the Commons chamber.
All debate must be addressed to the Speaker (or Deputy Speaker if one of them are chairing the debate).
References to other members are made in the form of "the X member for Y constituency", where X is:
- "honourable" (the default);
- "right honourable" if they are sworn of the Privy Council (i.e. they've been a minister in the past);
- "learned and honourable member" (a qualified lawyer); or
- "gallant and honourable member" (somebody who has served in the armed forces).
Huh that's new. I knew you guys don't have any official government ID (and that it was an issue in Blair era) but I didn't knew you don't even have legal names.
We have official government ID (the national insurance number, roughly equivalent to a USian SSN), but names aren't expected to reliably link it in one hop, and we're politically averse to laws that require citizens to produce it in various circumstances, e.g. carrying ID cards, even though in practice most people do carry some form of government-sanctioned ID. Name changing is mostly limited by the fact that it becomes the duty of the person using a different name to laboriously link the new name to any previous names they've used wherever you need some paperwork in a different name. E.g. you need to provide your NI number to be employed, which typically means you need to have a paper trail back to it across any renames you might have had.
Your legal name is whatever you want it to be at any given time, you can just order a new passport or drivers license with ~whatever name you want written on it.
For a passport, the only real requirement is vague evidence that you actually use the name.
You can also have multiple names listed on your passport: for example, if you have a public and private name, or if you're a noble. I've found that the "vague evidence" requirement is actually quite strict, though: even if you use a name in 95% of everyday contexts, the passport office only counts bureaucratic evidence, and there are circular dependencies with most bureaucracies unless you produce a deed poll (which requires you to attest that you only have one name, for some reason: I'm not familiar enough with the law to know whether this is a real requirement, or just ceremonial language like the "I promise that a Catholic will never succeed to the throne" bit in the coronation ceremony). So the de facto rules about passport names are stricter than names in general.
This is gradually getting tightened by the database state for all the usual reasons (hostility to immigrants and trans people); you can get away without ID as long as you don't want to work, claim benefits, rent a house, buy one, or have a bank account. Other than that, you're fine.
The first name component of the name "Boris Johnson" is Boris. It's just as valid a name as any other name he goes by, for both social and legal purposes.
His birth name, and I believe still his legal name, is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. But he is "commonly known as" Boris Johnson, so that's what can go on the ballot paper, although his full name must still go on the registration documents. Count Binface is in the same situation.
Since he gave up his US citizenship in 2016, I don't think he's subject to a jurisdiction where "legal name" is a meaningful notion. Ultimately, this means his first name is whatever he says it is (provided that he isn't lying): you'd have to ask him. Supposing that his answer changes depending on the social context, then both "Alexander" and "Boris" would be valid answers for "what is this person's first name?".
Count Binface is in a different situation, because "Count Binface" is a stage name, which he (presumably) doesn't go as in his real life. However, stage names are still considered legal enough to go on your UK passport. Ultimately, whether he would be allowed to write "Count Binface" as his name on the registration documents would depend on what the Electoral Commission decides. I had a look last week, but couldn't find their rules.
>Ultimately, whether he would be allowed to write "Count Binface" as his name on the registration documents would depend on what the Electoral Commission decides. I had a look last week, but couldn't find their rules.
One can stand for election using any name that one is "commonly known by".
The first word in the two word phrase "Boris Johnson" is indeed Boris.
The full birth certificate name of the former "born American" PM is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, so arguably that person's "first name component" isn't Boris alone.
> If he goes into the parliament building without his costume
If the people vote for a man in a bin costume then he should have the right to represent them in that very same costume. On the other hand, to satisfy both his desire for a costumes as well as parliament's rules that basically allow its members to look at each other eye to eye, he might switch to a transparent bin. Something that would benefit the whole country as transparent bins allow its users as well as the bin (wo)men to identify bins that have been filled with the wrong waste.
We're super flexible on name law in the UK. I could change my name right now and just use it, I dont need any formal approval or anything to do so. It only becomes a legal issue if you do it for legally questionable reasons.
The British constitution is unwritten and based on centuries of convention which are so old they are considered law... Sort of.
From what I can tell there isn't anything about identity in the way you're suggesting. However there are conventions and regulations around dress in the Commons which preclude wearing hats.
As for what he'd do if he won, he hasn't said so far. However he does have a policy list which includes nationalising Adel and building 1 affordable home. As an MP he could campaign for those and attempt to table a private members bill.
I think the answer to a lot of these questions is "we don't know". He's been running in various campaigns for years, this is just the first time he's the only other candidate in a potentially high profile campaign.
I hope some Oxfoed PPE students will be using this for their dissertations.
The biggest practical obstacle, other than getting elected, is the dress code for the house of commons which disallows military uniform, disallows face covering (while voting), and requires smart business attire. You could argue that he might be in violation of all three!
I know you are explaining in earnest but the way you ended and formatted it is sooo (un?)intentionally funny. Like, of all the stunts Binface is pulling, the name is the least legitimate of concerns.
Kinda like what they say about the poor people of Clacton having to choose between a joke trash candidate and Count Binface.
What's this type of makes-you-do-double-take, got-me-in-the-first-half-ngl humor called other than just British?
There's slightly more controversy about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Manivannan , who is perfectly calibrated to annoy the maximum number of rightwingers: nonbinary immigrant on a temporary visa with a one-letter chosen name.
There are (fortunately) very few rules on who's allowed to be an MP. The public are supposed to be the ultimate arbiter. The rule against being elected while in prison was only introduced after Bobby Sands MP, for example. Otherwise the rules seem mainly concerned that you're not bankrupt or holding an ineligible state office.
Also, parliament has a rule against wearing costumes like this. But Count Binface called that rule "binist" and claimed there was some wiggle room in the way the rule was worded :)
I think leaving the seat empty if he wins is the only possible choice, both legally and democratically. He should make it clear that this is what would happen if he gets elected so the people of Clacton know what they are voting for.
I think Erskine May just says "Members should dress in business-like attire" - so maybe if he had a special 'business bin' as opposed to a 'smart-casual bin' he could argue the point.
He would though have to remove the bin for votes at the least
I'd say standards have dropped so low, we may as well let in fancy dress. Lots of people in cheap thin dresses with no jacket [0] (some show knee when sat, even half an upper leg! [1]), boat shoes, white suits etc. They look like a collection of wedding guests.
Let's not get started on the sexism against men with Hoyle wanting them to wear ties and a jacket but for women just 'business-like' is expected.
I think Binface is going to smash his own records and get to like 20%. Farage will get enough that Farage is going to claim the result as a decisive victory while at the same time the result is actually deeply embarrassing for Farage.
That's just the thing: Farage tried to create an "underdog vs the establishment" scenario where his corruption charged could be ignored because of "the voice of the people", but right now the absolute best he could hope for is winning from a garbage can.
There's just no way to claim that as a decisive victory with a straight face. It'll always come with the caveat "... against a bin" - which means Farage has already lost.
It's the 10% chance they are worried about. Reform is very much the Farage party, and him losing to a bin in their heartland would be catastrophic; he would go from being the presumptive next Prime Minister to a national joke.
Binface, ridiculous though it may seem, is going to be the unity candidate for tactical voting, and that's deadly serious from the point of view of those who wish to get Farage out.
Even if Farage wins, but with a reduced majority, in an election where the alternatives are fringe or novelty candidates, it will be hard for his dignity to recover.
He'll likely win alright, but at the last GE, he only received 21,225 out of 45,648 votes cast, (so got 47% of the votes on 58% turnout).
I think you'll get a non-trivial amount of people voting for Binface either a) because you don't care about politics & think it's funny b) as "anyone but Farage" c) to treat it as a by-election because they think Binface won't take his seat and it'll trigger the 'real byelection' with their preferred party instead.
There was an interview with him the other day on LBC in which they asked if he wasn’t worried he might have his vote split with the MRLP - Monster Raving Looney Party - but he pointed out quite adroitly that they are just as likely to split reform’s vote, so the more the merrier.
Novelty candidates sometimes get elected, e.g. Stuart Drummond.
> Drummond immediately decided to concentrate on politics and ceased being H'Angus; he was quoted as saying, "I am Stuart Drummond, I am the Mayor of Hartlepool, not the monkey." Drummond was re-elected in 2005, more than doubling his vote (up to over 16,000)
He was re-elected once more in 2009 and because the English have a really weird political system, the direct election of mayor was abolished by a vote in 2012 making him the first, last and only directly elected mayor the town ever had.
Don't think they intended to be a novelty or parody candidate though. Just someone famous for something else turning to politics, just like Schwarzenegger.
The difference in this instance is that all of the major parties have stood aside, leaving the Clacton by-election as a race between Nigel Farage and Count Binface. Essentially it's turned into an election between Farage and anyone-but-Farage.
I don't understand what this is, can someone explain? Clacton seems to be a town in the UK, are they campaigning for mayor? What's the relevance, why is Farage even involved?
Farage received a "gift" of £5M. He didn't tell parliament about the gift, which breaks the rules. MPs or campaigning MPs need to declare gifts and donations, as there are strict rules on who you can receive money from. The media found out about the "gift", and Farage was going to be investigated. He resigned as MP for Clacton, which stops the investigation and triggers an election. I think his plan was for him to win again, and then be able to turn around and say "the people have decided, they don't care about gifts I get." However, all the other parties refused to stand candidates in the upcoming election. If Farage wins, then the investigation will start again. However, we have numerous comedic parties that will run in elections in the UK. Count Binface will challenge Farage. Farage won with something like 46% of the vote last time. With the negative coverage he's been receiving, and the option of sticking it to reform by voting for Count Binface, the people of Clacton might end up delivering a very embarrassing defeat for Farage. This is the country that voted to name a research vessel Boaty McBoatFace.
Thank you for the explanation, so this is basically for the election as MP. Does this mean that Farage's party also can't win in the next general election (and make him PM)? AFAIK him becoming PM was a worry.
To be prime minister you have to have support of 50%+1 of the MPs. This means either having them in your party, or having a deal with another party.
You also have to be an MP.
Currently Kier Starmer is a Labour mp in an area of London. He’s resigning and is being replaced by someone (Burnham) who was Labour Mayor for Manchester, but stood as MP in an area of Manchester last month after another Labour MP resigned.
Burnham beat reform in that election, and Count Binface. There was a discussion thy given how unpopular Labour is, that reform might win. In the end everyone who was anti reform (Farage’s party) voted Burnham and he got 55% of the vote.
While the sentiment in the U.K. is that if a general election were held tomorrow, Farage would win his seat, and reform would win a large number of votes. In reality polling puts Farage’s party around 25%, with four other parties on 10-20%. As the election isn’t proportional though it’s possible reform could get 55% of the seats with 25% of the vote, however last time they got 1% of the seats with 12% of the votes.
I don't think that's strictly true. You definitely don't have to be an MP in order to hold a cabinet office. I think that extends to the PM as well. It's never been tried obviously.
It's not strictly law, but at this point it might as well be. The last PM to be appointed without being an MP was Sir Alec Douglas-Home in the 1960s, and he immediately resigned his peerage and won a by-election to remedy that...
Any party can win if it gets the majority of candidates across all parliamentary constituencies. However, a Prime Minister must be elected as an MP somewhere. If Reform got a majority without Farage being elected, they would be in a strange situation where the leader of the party couldn't become the PM. It's amusing to think about, in a schadenfreudish way, but the chances of that are slim. He would certainly stand in a general election for the same seat, other major parties would contest it, and it seems that Clacton-on-Sea supports him over the others. This by-election is special because the major parties are boycotting it for being a self-serving stunt that it is.
I imagine they would do what Labour have had to do with Andy Burnham, and get some no-name MP in a safe seat to resign in exchange for a promise to get in the House of Lords later or some other reward.
> Does this mean that Farage's party also can't win in the next general election (and make him PM)?
Firstly, that election is three years away; it's a separate political event.
Secondly, that depends on the outcome of at least three hundred constituency elections, which would have to return Reform candidates. They did OK for a minor party at the last council elections, but they have a very high attrition rate as candidates are discovered to be above the acceptable racism threshold, bent, mad, or simply never intended to do the job in the first place.
There are very few ways of becoming PM without also being an MP. The PM must be able to sit in the parliament, so he must either be an MP or a member of the Lords. In theory, the current PM or even the King could make him a Peer, and therefore a member of the Lords, but neither is likely :)
The last time a PM wasn’t in the commons properly was 1902, although technically Douglas Holme became PM before getting a seat, however Parliament didn’t resume until after he became an MP
A Lord can’t address the commons, which was most recently an issue when ex PM David Cameron was made foreign secretary in the dying days of the last Tory governemt.
Farage can't realistically be PM in the current parliamentary session anyway. His party needs to win, or do very well in, the next general election instead. At a national level this election is purely symbolic and dictates whether Reform will have 7 or 8 seats out of the 650.
I suppose that in theory if Reform could form a government after the next election, but Farage still didn't get a seat, a party colleague could become PM and appoint him as a peer. There's a rich history of politicians losing elections and getting appointed this way instead, though as far as I know none of them subsequently became PM.
> Farage said the funds are required for his personal security
Nope. If he had declared that then there would be no issue what so ever.
There is no restriction on gifted money, no requirement on what to use it for - simply a common code of conduct that requires gifts to be declared.
Farage could of declared it, but didn't - now he has been outed with his hand in cookie jar in a dark closet he's retconning a reason he simply could have fronted with and taken his cookies with the light on and everybody watching.
There are no qualitative judgements made about what one does with this money, just that it is declared. Looking at the Register of Members’ Interests, you find any number of politicians’ gifts, with varying degrees of information about what the gift was for. Farage could very simply have written “£5m; Christopher Harborne; Security”. If that was too intrusive, he may even have been able to write “£5m; Christopher Harborne; Gift”.
The problem with the Harborne donation, as it relates to the Code of Conduct, is not – and never has been – about what is what for. It is about whether it should have been declared.
"The Exemption Rule: Parliamentary ethics rules generally require MPs to register financial interests and "personal benefits" received in the 12 months before taking office. However, Farage and Reform UK have leaned on the exemption for strictly personal gifts "which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House" or his political activities"
Personal security would come under that.
I mean you may not agree, but it's an arguable case.
Are we really still going with the "personal security" story? I thought he had pivoted a couple of times to other, not necessarily more credible, stories.
I guess technically he never said it wasn't for security. Apparently the 5m was an unconditional gift for campaigning for brexit, and how he had spent the money was “not the public’s business”.
He can make that case to the investigating committee. If Farage finds that inconvenient then, well, the easiest way for him to avoid such scrutiny in future is to declare any large amounts of money he receives. Not that difficult, and surely in the public interest to do so.
The standards committee has not yet made any ruling. It would be one thing for Farage to object to a specific ruling by the committee, but to object to the entire concept of a large undeclared personal gift being investigated simply shows a contempt for Parliament.
Farage is the current MP for Clacton. He has resigned because he is being investigated for taking massive amounts of dodgy money and not declaring it. He thinks he claimed the upper hand by saying that the voters would decide if that was ok or not, but the other parties have declined to participate. Now, it is a battle between himself and an alien being with a bin for a face.
Notably, if he is re-elected, the Parliamentary Standards Committee will simply continue their investigation into his dodgy finances.
In addition to the other comments it’s worth pointing out that MPs are not allowed to resign. They’re elected by the people.
They can be moved into another public service role, and there are ceremonial roles designed to ‘shelve’ MPs, but other than that, criminal acts and incapacity, they can’t actually stand down. Starmer is resigning as Prime Minister, he is not resigning as an MP.
This is why the other parties see the whole thing as a farce. The chancellor approved the budget for the by-election by saying “if he wants to spend his summer talking to a bin, so be it” but it’s unclear if there’s any constitutional legality to it.
It's hardly unprecedented for an MP to resign. What is almost unprecedented is immediately standing for election again: it's not a revolving door, you're supposed to fuck off and stay out. Especially not to pre-empt an investigation into your conduct. It is indeed a farce.
Representatives in the UK parliament are elected to represent a constituency, mostly the size of a town. In this case the constituency of Clanton is having a by-election (special election), because the representative resigned. With reading up on why this happened.
Nigel Farage is the incumbent Member of Parliament for Clacton and the de-facto leader of Reform UK, a populist right-wing party that has only a handful of MPs but is currently leading the polls. He is being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Committee over personal donations he accepted prior to becoming an MP. In response to this investigation, Farage stood down as MP, triggering a by-election (a special election held when an MP resigns, dies or is otherwise removed from their seat mid-term).
Farage announced his intention to stand in this by-election (which he is entitled to do), arguing that only his constituents had the right to decide whether he was fit to be a Member of Parliament. He argues that the Standards Committee is fundamentally illegitimate because he would be judged by his political rivals; in any case, the greatest sanction the committee could impose would be his expulsion from parliament, which would trigger a by-election that he would be entitled to stand in. The other major parties have all decided not to stand candidates against Farage in the Clacton by-election, creating this slightly farcical contest between the incumbent and a joke candidate.
Clacton is a town in the UK. The election was triggered by Nigel Farage, the right-wing leader of the Reform UK party, resigning his parliamentary seat in early July amid a parliamentary investigation into an allegedly undeclared £5 million financial gift.
Instead of waiting out the inquiry, Farage decided to immediately run for his own vacant seat again, framing the sudden election as a "people versus the establishment" referendum to clear his name. All Britain's major political parties, including the governing Labour Party and the opposition Conservatives, are boycotting the race entirely.
Farage’s primary opponent is a man wearing a trash can on his head who goes by the name "Count Binface", a "beloved" staple of modern British democracy who regularly runs against prime ministers and prominent politicians as a satirical protest vote, armed with policies like capping the price of croissants and mandating functioning Wi-Fi on trains.
Basically Nigel Farage won the seat to become a member of parliament representing the Clacton district. Then, there was an ethics scandal, so Nigel Farage resigned his seat, but is running in the special election to fill the vacancy. All the other serious political parties (Greens, Labour, Conservatives, Restore) think this is a stunt and a waste of time, so they aren't running any candidates. So, Nigel Farage is the only "real" politician in the race, and the "silly" candidate with the most support is Count Binface. So the special election ends up being between Farage and Count Binface.
Imagine a senator decided to resign to avoid scrutiny into being bribed, there’s then a specialty election to replace them
However the senator decided to stand in that special election. If they win the bribery investigation resumes.
Add in that under the U.K. system it’s not just red va blue, it’s a multi party election. In 2024 Farage got 45% of the vote. Since then he came out pro Trump and pro Iran war, then went quiet as he realised nobody wanted that and he’s taken millions in “personal gifts”, he avoided tax by giving money to his floozy to buy a house for him (in cash), and he’s spent about zero days in the constituency he represents and about 6 days in parliament, and most of the time in the us furthering his media career.
Now imagine the only other candidate was a man dressed as a bin.
Nigel Farage is (was) the MP (Member of Parliament) for the Clacton area. He is currently under investigation by the parliament's standards watchdog after reports that he failed to declare some donations and benefits.
If he’s found to have broken the rules, it’s possible he’d be suspended from parliament and subject to a recall election. However, he has resigned from this position himself instead, which means there will be a by-election for that seat.
It’s widely perceived that he has done this to distract from the investigation, with the view being that if he runs, then wins, a parliamentary suspension looks like a coordinated attack on someone who has just proven he has local support.
The major UK parties have decided not to field candidates in this election, claiming it is a distraction tactic and a waste of resources. This will leave Farage campaigning head-to-head with a man dressed as a bin, neutering any claims that this is a “real” election win (as well as generating plenty of entertaining news footage over the next few weeks).
Nigel Farage was subject to at least two parliamentary standards enquiries about big, undisclosed personal payments he received from crypto-bros around the time he decided to stand to be the Member of Parliament (MP) for Clacton. Because he then lobbied the Bank of England as the leader of one of the parliamentary parties to drop their digital pound plans (which would undermine Tether's value proposition, and one of the donations, £5m/$6.75m, came from a Tether cofounder), the press were suggesting he is guilty of outright corruption.
By standing down as an MP, rather than letting the enquiry proceed, he hopes he has removed the parliamentary authorities' powers to look into his affairs too closely, but to avoid embarrassment, he's asserted in public that he stood down (and then immediately put himself forward as a candidate to stand in the special election that results) as a way to thwart the deep state's efforts to tarnish his reputation and to take away the power of the establishment to try him unfairly, and handed the power to determine his fate to the good people of Clacton (who now won't get the chance to find out if their local MP is corrupt, thanks to the parliamentary enquiry being halted).
In all honesty, it doesn't look like he knows what he's doing, but there was some suspicion that he was planning to drop out of the special election for personal reasons in due course, avoiding a return to parliament and the related scrutiny, and letting his seat fall to the Conservatives or Restore UK - but all the other parties refused to put up candidates, so now he's up against one comedy candidate and is probably going to win the seat regardless, unless he drops out and leaves the poor people of Clacton with a fiasco of some sort on their hands.
Nigel Farage is basically like the UK's Trump: he was the head of the UKIP party, which championed Brexit, and then became the dog that caught the car when Brexit actually happened. Since then, the Reform UK party has taken up the position of far-right-practically-Nazis in UK politics, and Farage is the head of that.
Farage is also an MP (Member of Parliament) for Clacton. Recently, he was embroiled in a scandal where he clearly took foreign bribe money. As an MP, Parliament can run an investigation of him for it. So he stepped down—pre-empting that investigation...but immediately stood in the by-election that was triggered. This way, either he loses the by-election to one of the other major parties—Labour or the Tories, which these days roughly count as "somewhat right of the US Democrats and a tiny bit left of the US Republicans", respectively—or he is returned to Parliament with a strong mandate, having defeated whatever candidates those parties sent to oppose him.
Except...they didn't send anyone to oppose him.
This means that he's basically a shoo-in to return to Parliament unopposed—meaning he has no mandate—to face his investigation.
...Enter Count Binface.
Now the options for him are "return to Parliament having faced no serious candidates, right into an official investigation", or "lose to the man with a bin on his head".
Neither of these are good options for Nigel Farage.
It is a disaster for Farage. He looks like ridiculous with almost every outcome. Last by-election he (Reform UK) won with about 45% of the vote. This is a big win in UK elections as there are typically about 4 parties with a decent number of votes - MPs often win with a lot lower figure than that. This was in the context of a General Election with huge publicity and was probably at the peak of Reform's popularity (they have slipped a fair way since then). Even then, almost 55% of the people didn't vote for him. That leaves a huge number of voters swilling around with nobody to vote for. Maybe they won't bother voting, but on the other hand, maybe they will. Recent elections have shown a lot of tactical voting (i.e. people voting for the party most likely to beat an unwanted candidate) - if people are motivated enough to do that, then they may well be motivated enough to vote for a Bin. There's a lot of publicity and the election is taking place August when all sorts of random things can happen (it's referred to as the Silly Season because there's a typically a bit of a new vacuum). That said, Farage will probably win, but unless he wins by an absolutely overwhelming marging (i.e. Binface only gets a few hundred votes) he is hugely diminished.
That's also before you consider who Binface actually is - he graduated in Classics from Oxford University, has been a script writer for the Thick of It and Have I got News for You (both popular political satires) and has a Podcast that gets some big names on it. Every interview he does, he comes across as extremely smart, sharp and articulate. If there is ever a face-to-face discussion between him and Farage, it will generate endless clips of Farage's humiliation.
Policital affiliation aside, it is good to see somebody arogant and entitled brought down to size.
As an American, I'm mildly jealous of the Brits' usage of "bin" for garbage cans. It's so succinct as to be appropriately dismissive, while we seemingly sanctify the idea with complex terms like "Wastebasket," "Trash/Garbage Can," or (worst of all) "Trash Receptacle."
"Binface" wouldn't be nearly as funny using an American term.
This person is hilarious, for non-UK people who are wondering what this is, this is a joke candidate for an MP who is getting a lot of attention because of the political system in the UK not working very well. This YouTube video has sort of started this off recently and made him go viral
> This person is hilarious, for non-UK people who are wondering what this is, this is a joke candidate for an MP who is getting a lot of attention because of the political system in the UK not working very well.
What I find interesting is that he seems to be the only candidate? Aren’t there actual political parties that could have produced legitimate candidates?
The election was triggered because a populist politician being investigated for corruption decided to step down, triggering an election so that he could run again to theoretically prove that he was who the people wanted regardless of the corruption investigation. This backfired when every other party refused to field a candidate (that is, to go along with his plan), apart from Binface. So Farage’s “me vs the establishment” commentary is not going as he expected.
It's also worth noting that he's being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Committee. Now that he has stepped down as an MP, that investigation would ordinarily be paused (and is from what I can tell). It would be resumed if he won but he gets a while to organise things before he has to face them again.
And if the Standards Committee find sufficient wrong-doing to suspend an MP for 10 days or more, the suspension automatically triggers a recall-petition.
If the recall-petition is signed by 10% or more of voters in that MP's constituency, this triggers a by-election.
So there's a reasonable possibility that once the investigation concludes, there will be another by-election in Clacton.
The election is a re-election vote triggered by the MP already in the very safe seat, as a distraction from "where did all this money come from" investigations around him (which are also conveniently paused by this byelection).
He's arguing that if he gets reelected then the investigation doesn't matter. The other parties are arguing it's a stunt, and so are fielding no candidates.
Binface's candidacy accurately represents the absurdity of the whole thing.
Those other parties all declined to compete in this by-election. They want Farage to stand to the rule of law on his corruption, and not endorse this procedural manoeuvre.
The timing of this by-election is also such that, were there an actual race, Farage would likely get his propaganda on the front of the newspapers throughout the summer months while everyone else in politics is on holiday.
Other interested candidates can submit their nomination from tomorrow to Friday and I think one needs the support of only 10 constituents and a hundred quid
Investigating Farage for failing to declare donations and gifts is neither “lawfare” nor a plausible means of removing him as an MP. It’s just the Parliamentary Standards Comittee doing its job. No legal penalty is on the cards. The worst the committee can do (and they might not even do it) is make him fight another by election, at which point the decision as to whether or not he remains an MP is entirely up to voters in his constituency. Odds are that Farage would win again, so if this is all part of a grand scheme to oust him, it’s a pretty stupid scheme.
Currently, the person working hardest to ensure that Farage ceases to be an MP is Farage himself, having made the strategic error of trying to pre-empt what he presumes to be the eventual outcome of the committee investigation by calling this farcical by election.
> Investigating Farage for failing to declare donations and gifts is neither “lawfare” nor a plausible means of removing him as an MP. It’s just the Parliamentary Standards Comittee doing its job. No legal penalty is on the cards.
All true, but I would caveat it, "no legal penalty is on the cards from the Parliamentary Standards Comittee"
We know that there are multiple dodgy dealings, and at least one SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) has been filed. We cannot rule out actual legal penalties in general, nor should we. Seeking a popular mandate should not be used as an get-out of legal accountability.
Yeah no, if thats your takeaway then you've severely misunderstood the situation. They dont expect, nor want to win that seat. They want Nige to win it back so he's held accountable as thats in their interest. And then when he's likely ousted later this year they'll all run when theres another election.
The system has proved to be quite dynamic, really. The electorate have had real choices over the past 10-15 years. Stay in the EU or don’t. Elect a genuine socialist or a centre-right conservative as Prime Minister. And unpopular or incompetent Prime Ministers have been removed quite promptly.
It’s time to get rid of FPTP, but the real problem seems to be that people just keep voting for the wrong policies.
I don't understand why the mainstream is celebrating the total collapse of any meaningful political opposition to populists. This kind of fluffed-up 2010's style optimism campaign is exactly how the establishment lost control in 2016 in both the US and the UK.
I think it's sad that Binface is the only one even attempting to engage in democracy at this point. He's a satire but he's also, seemingly, the only legitimate opposition that populists face. That should be concerning and embarrassing, but no one has learned anything over the past 10 years.
So, what happens when Binface loses? Are they just going to try to put Farage in prison like they're doing with the other populists? That'll surely help.
And if he does somehow win, what then? Doesn't that also prove that populism is the only viable strategy? Either way people are celebrating their own defeat.
The other parties aren't standing in this particular byelection because they (correctly) realise that it's just a media stunt by Farage, who is attempting to paint himself as a victim of establishment harassment (while being the epitome of 'the establishment' himself). By not standing, and forcing Farage to run against joke candidates, they've made a fool of him (which generally harms populists more than anything else you can throw at them).
The other parties have all said that they will run candidates against Farage in the almost inevitable second byelection that will by triggered later when parliament finishes its investigation into his corruption and punishes him for it.
This doesn't make a fool of Farage though! It clarifies to anyone already skeptical of the establishment that when pushed, they'd rather not play than risk losing. This is literally self-defeating!
You claim that this kind of thing "generally harms populists more than anything else," but I can't think of a single time that it actually has at the scale that matters. What would harm populists would be a viable alternative that takes the concerns of the population seriously.
If Farage wins he is still subject to an investigation that could eject him from Parliament, over a 5m crypto gift/loan he received from an ex-pat donor that he did not declare.
Farage is looking to get a popular mandate to try and both draw attention away from that investigation, and justify keeping his position because "the people have spoken". The other parties don't want to undermine the investigation by taking part in an election which would be moot if he were found guilty anyway.
Farage is therefore punching on air, and has been reduced to arguing that a joke candidate with a bin on his head who claims to be from outer space is an "establishment" (aka "deep state") plant.
It's actually a smart move from the other parties. Without a serious "enemy" to fight, populists look foolish as their usual rhetorical moves have no bite.
> If Farage wins he is still subject to an investigation that could eject him from Parliament
He will win, of course.
But Parliament can't actually eject him. All they can do is enable the one mechanism that could: a constituency recall petition that needs 10% of his electorate to sign it, that triggers… a by-election he could lose.
If he runs and his constituency vote for him in that, he's their MP.
That is true, but while he is popular in his home turf, 10% is a low threshold for a figure as divisive as Farage, so seems pretty much inevitable, unless this pre-investigation-results by election kills the motivation.
Now would he win the second by election even with a finding of misconduct against him? He might very well. But the establishment parties (especially the Tories) will feel much better placed to challenge him if they have him being found to have conducted in dodgy behaviour.
I lived in London for six years starting just before Brexit, so I watched this exact confidence up close. The British public "knowing" Farage is damaged is not new, it's not justified, and it doesn't do anything except make people feel better on social media.
I'm pretty sure that just like every other backhanded attempt to squash the populists, this will backfire. I can't know that of course, but I'm pattern-matching against years of this kind of stuff happening in like 5-6 different countries in Europe already.
He is noticeably more damaged now, believe me. Everyone thinks this election was at least a stupid idea and it is his stupid idea designed for his personal benefit.
You are right that it could backfire, but to give you a much longer and more analytical answer, here is the picture as Farage understands it and why he did what he did:
- Farage is the leader of an insurgent party with the ability to command national media attention. He can make the main news channels attend.
- He was already MP with a large majority off a pretty good, recent turnout.
- There is no local media at all to speak of — no local newspaper worth a damn, no local TV, no other earned media
- The election is five or six weeks away.
- No national party can stand up an adequate candidate in a parliamentary constituency election in that time. It will be novices, first-time candidates with poor name recognition.
So the above is the election he wanted to fight, right?
If any of the main parties stand up candidates, they will all feel they have to contest it so as not to lose vote share to Farage, and Farage wins.
If nobody stands up, Farage wins.
And if a novelty candidate stands up, Farage wins.
Whichever way, the outcome after the by-election is the same as the one before: Farage is going to be the MP for Clacton. So given that this happens regardless — it cannot be stopped even though he started it for his own benefit — what is the best outcome for people who wish to see Farage politically damaged?
It is not the first one, because that is the specific outcome Farage wanted.
This way he now has to campaign around the simple story: he is fighting for his political skin, and his main campaign position to the people of Clacton (and deprived Jaywick) is that it's OK he's been given money and gifts by crypto billionaires and convicted fraudsters and that it's unfair for that to be investigated.
This is not at all a backhanded thing; it's open party politics. The last time this was done it was done to a fully establishment Tory (David Davis) who resigned to fight a by-election on a single issue.
He'll still be under investigation(s) when he comes back, and he won't be able to blunt the impact of those investigations by claiming that he has beaten all the establishment candidates. This is the best path forward.
This is all from the perspective of people who already oppose Farage, though. Supporters will zealously reframe everything as illegitimate attack. Soft skeptics will notice the establishment's overreach.
I agree this might be a normal political tactic on paper, but that's irrelevant when you're dealing with populism. The entire game is tribal framing. To anyone outside the anti-Farage coalition, this just looks like the establishment closing ranks, and that's more recruiting material for him.
What I can see happening here, at best, is maybe Farage stepping away if the pressure gets too much. But then you risk him getting replaced by a more angry figurehead who will use Farage's downfall as evidence of the "hatred and dirty politics" of the establishment.
> This is all from the perspective of people who already oppose Farage, though
Actually, you seem to be the one ignoring data out of partisan prejudice. The polls are quite clear Farage's shady finances are damaging both him and Reform.
OK but what I am telling you is that this has actually damaged Farage's standing in his own party and among his own supporters. There's actual evidence for this.
And I presented that scenario in the form Farage understands it. Remember: he literally started this.
If Farage steps down — he's done it before, and I agree that there is a very good chance he does so before the election — then Reform is finished. There is nobody else, even though a few Reform people like to excitedly tell you that Zia Yusuf could do it.
It's the same with Trump: who is going to take Trump's mantle with the same authority when he goes? Nobody.
But in the UK, the chances of a populist party appearing at the fringes and seizing real power is very much held back by the way our system works. Farage is a unicorn; incredibly rare. Even the Tory party would have difficulty seizing back populism for the next decade or two.
And there is no establishment "overreach" here at all. Farage is a democratically elected MP who is being investigated by the parliament he joined for things any other MP would be investigated for. He could just sit and wait for that to be done, because he's an MP regardless and the people who ultimately judge whether he keeps his job are his own constituents anyway. If political parties choose not to play his game on his own terms and timescales, that is a decision for each of them.
His zealots are already seen asking where the Count is "getting his money from", and implying that he is an "establishment deep-state plant".
But he's a bin, and it's his seventh election. You can't exactly ask questions like "where is a man pretending to be a garbage can getting the £100 filing fee from" without making yourself look incredibly silly. Everyone but the most extreme cultists can see that, even his own regular supporters.
You can't fight a bin. It's like wrestling with a pig: you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. The real question is: is Farage's support strong enough to secure an overwhelming victory against the get-rid-of-Farage candidate without actually campaigning?
I think you are right that the issue is tribal framing.
The question is whether satire will puncture that.
Farage's supporters will be trying as hard as possible to paint Binface as a lefty establishment figure- but satire gives you an oportunity to reframe the debate.
Take the 5 million quid - the defence is it's a gift and who wouldn't take it if offered?
Binface can lean into that - rather than say it's terrible etc - he can say - yes I'd like a bit of that - and ask Farage how he can also get such a donation?
Such a question is in effect asking 'what do I need to do to get a 5 million donation' - which is the same as asking what Nigel did for it.
But it's more difficult to answer with 'none of your business' or I did nothing - implying Binface is equally likely to get it.
If Farage wins, things continue exactly as they were: Farage the MP of Clacton, being investigated for undeclared financial gifts. With no serious counter-candidates, even getting 99% of the votes would be completely meaningless.
If Farage loses, well, he'll have lost to a bin, meaning his political career would be finished.
And anything besides a massive victory would only hurt Farage. Prior to this he was seen as a likely future Prime Minister. If he gets a 55/45 victory against a bin in a constituency which heavily favors his party, who would ever take him serious?
If the other parties contested the election, they would've legitimized his stupid "I'm getting a mandate from the people" move, automatically making it way more of a mess if his undeclared financial gifts turned into being expelled from the House.
The only winning move is not to play. The other parties know this, and by treating the Count as a completely legitimate candidate the media are guaranteeing this.
It's not a collapse of political opposition. The political opposition are simply not allowing Farrage to dictate the narrative here.
Whilst under investigation for undeclared funding, Farrage is trying to legitimise himself by resigning and having an electorate re-elect him at the expense of the tax payer. The mainstream parties have, understandably refused to play ball, leaving him to regain his existing position uncontested.
But, and this is the bit we are celebrating, Count Binface, a satirical figure, is standing against him, ridiculing him and highlighting in the media the whole selfish situation. This is a backfire for Farrage, as it has nationally pissed on his selfish legitimisation parade.
It's not that populists aren't facing opposition - it's that Farage resigned and said he'd be running in the by-election his resignation caused. He is using the by-election as a political stunt to try and get ahead of an incoming scandal - but by the opposition not running against him, he can't say that his mandate from the electorate is clear, and his only actual opponent is a (well spoken) bin.
Any amount of votes Binface gets is a deep embarrassment to Farage! Binface is just pointing at the farce that Farage has created, and undermining him in a particularly British way.
I think the strategy in leaving Farage to only face Binface is that win or loose it makes Farage look like an idiot. He wanted to get credibility back by getting re-elected after the recent scandal and this binface thing robs him of that.
I think the special case of the totally unnecessary by-election is important here. I would not expect the other parties not to contest the general election. I don't like the "X is an attempt to distract from Y" framing, but this really is a distraction from the "sudden revelation" that Farage has really dodgy financing.
Also, Farage is the ultimate "establishment" candidate. He would be the same level of obscurity as Tommy Robinson or Restore if he didn't have a regular seat on BBC Question Time. All of his money comes from a small number of rich donors. He's appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment in a constituency that has hardly any immigrants.
There is no opposition in this round because it is a total farce initiated by Farage. It takes two to tango and no one else (other than Count Binface) is dancing Farage's Doofus Dance.
If Farage wins, he will face the inquiry he is attempting to escape by pulling this stunt (in a summer where the WC is happening, Farage managed to score the biggest and most protracted own-goal in the history of own-goals). An effect of the inquiry is that it will trigger _another_ election in which the other parties are expected to field a candidate.
I'm not from the UK so I don't know the proper terms/political procedure but if you read up on the whole situation beyond the jokes, what I said above is a good rough outline. This is hardly the death of opposition to populists.
Specifically in this case, Farage is a celebrity populist; he is not likely to lose, and the political system (and the wider British public who oppose him) are conscious of not dancing to his tune.
He wanted this election on his own terms; he called it, to give himself a chance to bloviate and to claim that the very serious allegations against him are an establishment fit-up (when they are not).
The reality is that the outcome of those investigations has the potential to lead to another by-election (because only 10% of constituents need to sign a recall petition). Farage’s calculation is that if he triggers the by-election and wins before those investigations conclude, he can blunt the chance of a recall petition succeeding (and build some national case for Reform)
The response of the major parties to just decide not to play his game on his terms has some precedent. This is not an abdication of their responsibility, it is exercise of it.
More importantly this outcome is funny, broadly understood as a fair response, and is utterly humiliating to Farage, who is thin-skinned and easily enraged. He would have won against any candidate any party could rustle up at short notice and he knows it. He will still have his victory but nothing changes except that he is diminished.
The Ipsos poll cited in the first image was a survey of 1,000 uk citizens 18+. It wasn't a poll of 1,000 people in Clacton. It's meaningless and I'm surprised they used it.
It isn't meaningless, it gives a (very) rough estimate of how the general population feels about it. Coming in third in a two-person poll is... quite rough.
You also have to keep in mind that it isn't about Clacton. It is a city of no importance. Farage chose to run there in 2024 because he expected it'd be a slam-dunk for him - and it was. He does literally nothing for the people of Clacton, it is just his entry into the House.
On the other hand, Farage is trying to establish himself as the major right-wing option. If he wants to become Prime Minister he'll need to have nationwide support - and the Ipsos poll is a pretty decent indication of how the nation feels about Farage right now.
In case you're wondering why there's so much interest in the Count, the reason is his opponent.
Nigel Farage is a populist gobshite. He's in trouble because he refused to declare a £5 million donation from a crypto billionaire, Christopher Harborne. MPs are expected to declare any "gifts" that might sway them.
After Farage took that "gift", he became an MP and lobbied the Bank of England to adopt a stablecoin that Christopher Harborne was heavily invested in.
Recently, the press found years and years of undeclared dodgy donations to Farage and his party, many from convicted fraudster "Posh" George Cottrell, author of book How to Launder Money.
Sleazy MPs who take bribes are investigated, can be reprimanded, can be recalled by their constituents.
Farage is trying to get ahead of the curve by resigning now, then competing in the election for his successor. He's hoping to pause the investigation into his finances, and wants to pull the populist move of "The People support me!"
Every major party sees this trap and have boycotted Nigel's self-election. They'll fight him in the next election, after he's recalled for sleaze.
Effectively he is standing unopposed... except for the joke candidates. And who better a joke candidate than a quick-witted comedian in a ridiculous outfit? £500 to rip the piss out of Farage for a month is a bargain.
The thing populists hate most is being ridiculed and not taken seriously. It really pricks their ego. Will Nigel spend summer arguing with a bin? Will Nigel lose to a bin? That's for the people of Clacton to decide.
£3-6 croissants are a travesty and £1.10 price capping is the most sensible thing I've heard for decades. And that hand dryer is in an AWFUL position
More seriously, he actually seems like a decent guy. This is a really touching and personal history which gets into his motivations and his life https://archive.ph/61Ecw
Yes but in the USA a "bin" usually refers to a generic category of containers, often rectangular. A "recycling bin" is a specific kind of bin, and it's almost always qualified as such. If you called it a "bin" out of context people would be confused or think you're trying to be British or something.
Yeah, I'd say it exists in a linguistic grey-zone where understanding is a lot more common than usage.
Practically no American ever calls a garbage can a "bin" (though like you say we do have a concept of generic 'bins') but a lot of Americans will immediately know what you mean if you say it, sort of like "flat" and "apartment" (nobody calls them flats in the US, but many people know what you're talking about if you say it).
Count Binface went to Oxbridge apparently, so if he gets in, he'll still be part of the establishment. Not really sure he's any wiser about working class life than Nigel Farage (being part of the Galactic aristocracy doesn't help much either.)
However, I did like his suggestions to build at least one affordable home and rename HS2, the FFS1.
I mean better Oxbridge than being just a high-school graduate like Farage is, who got his first job as a trader thanks to daddy's connections in the City.
Farage is polarising. I think there is a genuine chance that tactical voters can rally behind a candidate who feasibly can get the votes. However, you have to remember this is an election for a representative of a constituency. The people in Clacton are voting for a candidate that will represent their needs in parliament. I don't think the left are going to vote for Binface as although it would be the biggest FU in history, the antidote to Farage-ism, it won't offer them change in their area - and won't give them a voice in parliament, which Farage has done.
Farage has not given them a voice in parliament. He’s barely been in the country.
He’s spoken 41 times in parliament in 2 years, almost entirely on national issues.
My own back bench opposition MP (lib dem) has spoken over 400 times. The next constituency over (Tory) has spoken 1000 times, both raising local issues.
Binface would give Clacton a far higher profile. A literal bin would.
There’s no other candidate those anti Farage could vote for.
I just want to preface this by saying he's a repugnant, awful human being and potentially is going to be one of the worst things that ever happens to the UK.
But... that's exactly what people in Clacton voted him in for. He was never going to represent their local interests - I think a lot of the locals realise that now. They care more about "immigration" and race-baiting than they care about the pot holes on their roads. This is the reality of modern politics.
My comment was more about the people who will never vote Reform, than the people that did.
Actually the prior art is Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Looney Party[1] who started in 1963.
As a former Monster Raving Looney I have decided to defect to the Binface Party based on their sensible policies on the hand dryer in the Uxbridge Crown & Treaty pub.
Neither Binface nor Farage have any answers for the problems the UK appears to be facing; this election feels like something specifically designed to create material for viewers of Have I Got News For You[0] to laugh at.
From The Atlantic: "The [UK's] output per person is now only just above that of Mississippi, America’s poorest state - and that slight lead is only achieved thanks to London. Outside the capital, in places where tourists do not visit, living standards fall well below Mississippi’s"[1]
According to the IEA, the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices of the 25 IEA countries reporting data.[2]
Hinkley Point C is routinely described as the most expensive nuclear power station ever built, four times the average for South Korean plants. Guaranteed pricing originally £92.50/MWh (2012 prices), now equivalent to around £133/MWh (2025 prices), inflation-linked for 35 years...[3]
HS2 is consistently ranked as the most expensive high-speed rail on the planet.[4]
I think you make some good points, but as a UK citizen, there probably some extra context 'd want people to know.
Firstly, the Farage/Binface byelection is a result of Farage being investigated for breaking laws designed to stop political corruption. He's called an early local election to "let the people decide". Even if voted in, if he's found accountable for those charges, he'll have to call another election. So all major parties are staying out of this one, but would likely stand in a second. Essentially what I'm saying is, this isn't a normal local election by any means so I wouldn't use it to talk generally about political parties offering to the UK.
I would also urge against using HS2/electricity-prices/Hinkley to make a " therefore the UK is in dire trou me". There all quite different: Hinkely and HS2 are certainly managed and unpopular, but they're individual projects - a lot of the UK issues are caused by much more complex, larger economic problems than government projects being mismanaged.
And then on the energy price, the UK has really expensive energy. One reason for that is because there's a huge amount of invesent in renewables right now, and the investment is paid for by the consumer. I'm not arguing this is necessarily good, but it's a political choice to prioritise more expensive electricity today, with the goal of cheaper / more secure energy tomorrow. It's a lot more complex than just "the UK is cooked because it has expensive energy".
Sorry for the minor essay! I think the UK's economic situation is serious, but also very interesting (it's possibly the most extreme global example of financialisation backfiring), complex and worth understanding!
> Outside the capital, in places where tourists do not visit, living standards fall well below Mississippi’s
The article appears to treat nominal GDP per capita as a measure of living standards, which is obviously nonsense. Rather than looking at things like the Human Development Index or World Happiness Report, in both of which the UK outranks the US (incl. all the non-Mississippi states).
Residents consistently reporting higher life satisfaction and happiness likely speaks more to their living standards than non-purchasing power parity adjusted GDP per capita.
It is baffling how a sentence this uninformed made it into the article.
Same way that any candidate would I guess. It's how the Westminster system works; members advocate for their constituency within a broader parliamentary system.
I don't know what specifically is wrong with the US-centric numbers you are citing, but I know they don't match the lived reality of the UK, which compares favourably with not only Mississippi but with the US as a whole.
While I haven't been to Mississippi I have spent the last 6 months driving around the UK on a working holiday, and this sounds like a massive stretch. Free healthcare might be helping.
I don’t even have the energy to get into how cherry-picked this entire post is. Bad and inaccurate comparisons, false tourism claims, lame tropes, ignoring extreme and amazing progress while pointing at why some numbers may appear how they appear.
This election was designed to distract from investigations into Nigel Farage’s funding. The reason Binface is getting a lot of attention is because none of the major parties are standing, as a ‘fuck you’ to Farage, to make his distraction look all the more ludicrous.
So no, neither of them has a plan, but that doesn’t really matter because neither of them will be running the country after the election either. It’s a bielection for a single seat. Running the country will be down to the new Labour PM and his team. As such the rest of your post is fairly irrelevant.
I think Farage and Reform/Restore have a solution to this:
From The Atlantic: "The [UK's] output per person is now only just above that of Mississippi, America’s poorest state - and that slight lead is only achieved thanks to London. Outside the capital, in places where tourists do not visit, living standards fall well below Mississippi’s"
This is what happens when you import low-skilled migrants (and their extended families) who are a net drain on the economy.
I think they're also against Net Zero, which is causing all the high energy costs.
Net Zero is not the cause of high energy costs in the UK. The cause is international al energy costs, a way of setting the benchmark price per unit against the most expensive power, and tax.
"What costs make up an electricity bill?" from the House of Commons Library is worth a read[0], it reveals the typical breakdown of a household electricity bill in the UK:
Wholesale electricity costs make up 28.7% of the bill
"While gas accounts for 93% of wholesale electricity prices, those wholesale prices are only around 40% of bills. Ofgem’s breakdown of bills includes the costs of the Capacity Market (“CM”) and Contracts for Difference (“CfD”) within wholesale costs and not policy costs. Policy costs include the Renewables Obligation (“RO”), Feed in Tariffs (“FiT”), Energy Company Obligation (“ECO”), Warm Homes Discount (“WHD”), Green Gas Levy (“GGL”), Network Charging Compensation Scheme (“NCCS”) and Assistance for Areas with High Electricity Distribution Costs (“AAHEDC”). Moving CM and CfD costs from wholesale to policy costs would reduce the share of wholesale costs in the final bill to 42% and increase policy costs to 14%."
"Prior to 2006, the margin between retail and wholesale electricity prices was broadly stable at 3.88 – 4.79 p/kWh with an average of 4.23 p/kWh (2006 money). Had this margin been maintained in the subsequent years ie the costs of the energy transition not been added to bills, households would have saved £130 billion in 2006 money (£218 billion in today’s money). In contrast, some estimates suggest that the UK spent an additional £75 billion as a result of the 2021-23 gas crisis.
So despite what people say about high gas prices being responsible for high electricity prices, this was only true for late 2021-23 – for most of the past 25 years, something other than gas prices has been driving electricity prices higher."
> How do international high energy costs single out the UK and make our energy costs the highest?
Because of the marginal energy pricing scheme in use, which pays for all generation as if it were the most expensive. That and taxes etc. The UK energy market needs reform, blaming the Net Zero effort is ... well it's just wrong.
He's better described as a self serving political populist with this being one of several interesting chapters:
After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was formally accused of scientific dishonesty by a group of environmental scientists, who brought a total of three complaints against him to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI).
In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.
You’re not allowed to celebrate how prepared for the future the UK is over nearly every other country in the world. You must get angry about current high energy costs due to the investments and war that are happening, just ignore anything positive.
In fairness, it is very difficult to look at the last 16 years of British governments and hold the belief "these people have well prepared the UK for the future".
I agree there’s no shortage of misses and embarrassments, though I would argue there’s still a lot to be proud of. A lot of progress has been made - especially when you zoom out and compare to peers. The HN crowd these days seems to have it out for Europe, and only sees headlines about doom and gloom in policy.
If anything, the past 16 years has taught me personally that everyone in the UK wants change - too much change possibly.
The UK was the first G7/G20 to cut carbon emissions by 50%, we just ranked [0] 3rd globally large in part to setting up for the future with green energy.
They probably couldn't. Farage is in very safe seat. He wouldn't have called the election otherwise.
You don't vote for a comedy character to win an election in a safe seat, because they won't.
You vote for Binface because you think Nige is wasting money on a pointless box ticking distraction instead of spending the money locally to fix things.
Farage hasn't got much of a sense of humour but if massive majority gets smaller he might spend more time in the area and less time in America on speaking engagements.
A joke candidate with a bincan head has about 15-20% odds of winning this election. A serious candidate from a real party could have a real chance of defeating Farage but seems noone was brave enough. Better play it safe, take no risks and run away from fights. Thats the way forward for UK.
I see from the comments here many Americans especially are confused by this situation. Some background might make help.
Farage seems to have broken Parliamentary Rules (laid down after the cash for questions scandal in the 1990s) by accepting large sums of money as gifts - but without declaring them, something all MPs are required to do for any gift. But worse, one of these gifts came from a convicted crypto felon.
The Parliamentary standards committee seemed likely to suspend him or order a recall by-election as a result.
Nigel's aim in preempting this near-inevitability was apparently to use the media spotlight the by-election would give him to dominate the summer headlines and present himself as a man-of-the-peeps martyr-rebel under mean & outrageous establishment persecution (rather than just the rich little chancer he is, on the make, with the murkiest of murky connections). If he could hammer this impression into the public imagination, they'd then be deaf to any subsequent findings from the Parliamentary Standards Committee.
In other words he thought this little manoeuvre could turn a damaging problem and weakness into a strength. Unfortunately for Nige, the other parties understood this, & instead have left him to play all summer long with the jokers and silly parties, looking like a laughingstock.
So as you see, there's nothing anti-democratic about it. If he wins, he will still face the suspension and recall election that was coming anyway. But as part of procedure - not on the terms he's trying to set with this little stunt.
And we know what you all are thinking: only £5m, how pathetic.
I get you. Farage is still learning, on his frequent visits to the US. Give him time.
We definitely are the weaker and more pathetic side of the Atlantic when it comes to corruption in our politics at the moment. We do bow to your superiority in this area.
"Harvey previously stood as a similar character, Lord Buckethead, but was forced to create a new character due to a dispute with the filmmaker Todd Durham, who owns the Buckethead character" [1].
(The videos on this website are worth the watch. Hilarious, of course. But also...Binface conjugates Latin to Sky News, and not just as a bit. I don't know how I feel about the British comedy candidate outclassing half of the American elected leadership–and a good fraction of its industrial leadership–on IQ.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Binface
Excerpt from linked page:
> I came to Earth in 2017 and stood against Prime Minister Theresa May (as ‘Lord Buckethead’). Then in 2018, after an unfortunate battle on the planet Copyright, I rewspawned in my true form as Count Binface.
> I don't know how I feel about the British comedy candidate outclassing half of the American elected leadership–and a good fraction of its industrial leadership–on IQ.)
Your entire political system has flirted with anti-intellectualism for over a century; it used to pretend to be uneducated simpletons to appeal to the electorate (witness, e.g. the folksy “ahhm just a simple mayynn” gurning schtick of Senator John Kennedy, who literally fakes his accent and demeanour despite having a sharp legal mind and Oxford degree, and who could likely conjugate latin; he is following a path trodden by Bill Clinton) and now it has refined the concept such that politicians can actually be simpletons for real: Tommy Tuberville isn’t faking being thick and neither is Markwayne Mullin.
I don’t know about conjugating latin specifically (I used to be able to do this but the memory has faded) but the standard of literacy in the UK was excellent.
We do now have a fairly similar literacy skills profile in the young as the USA and Canada, but unlike in the USA, older adults outperform them, partly because more of us were exposed to the (now essentially eliminated) selective education (grammar school) system that favoured advanced literacy.
We are thus as I understand it unique in having (ETA: or having had) declining literacy; it is declining to the US/Canada level rather than below it but it is rather sad.
Binface went to good schools and has an Oxford classics degree, I think. Much of our political class did. More recently they will have done the PPE degree (which is more or less training to be a politician). He is in that sense as “establishment” as Farage, but more importantly he is a product of that fading system. So it is this you are observing; writers, politicians, actors often come from that declining tradition.
Side note: even many politicians from a non-traditional background have gone through this path at some level; the famously working-class deputy prime minister John Prescott studied at Ruskin College, which was a college associated with the trade union movement based in and sort of orbiting Oxford University that specialised in providing PPE-type education to aspiring politicians from working class backgrounds (originally founded, incidentally, by two Americans)
I went looking for stats saying the UK has declining literacy rates but could only find ones that said that literacy was improving.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/explore-local-statistics/indicators/e...
There has apparently been a little bounce in the last few years, a sort of long term consequence of changes made to education policy by New Labour and the consequent movement of teachers from selective education into comprehensive education, but for example here is an article from twelve years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/08/england-yo...
We were, for decades, a country in considerable literacy decline, and the only one of its kind. Some of this might have been a consequence of scrapping the grammar school system without giving the comprehensive system access to the same resources.
I tend to think that when Americans observe that British politicians and actors speak with a larger vocabulary or more eloquently, the people they are observing are products of the tail end of the grammar school system and the growth of a bias towards private education that emerged in its wake; the school system that turned out men and women of letters used to be available to all and now is available only to those with money.
> considerable decline
Again, I think, citation needed, since conservative media does like to bang on about this a lot, but I’ve not seen actual proof that education standards are falling, or worse than they were when I was at school.
What I think has happened since the close of grammar schools is that the gap between most educated and least educated has closed significantly. This government report from 2023 shows that gap closing, while also showing an improvement from previous years.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675330e020bcf...
The guardian article cites the OECD study that asserted this.
I do think that it took a generation to figure out how to put into the comprehensive school system the same deep focus on “maths and english” that was always the grammar school advantage.
My own feelings about having been through grammar school education are complex (I can see, in retrospect, what I lost as well as what I gained) but I do think that in a world where success might come from communicating with considerable nuance with a computer in written form, more of the grammar school model may need to come to general education: perhaps nothing matters more now than a facility with language and semantics.
That's because dofm is conflating general literacy with the political class'. There are still very smart people around, but they're no longer the face of elections. As they said, decades of glorifying dimwits will do that.
That's because dofm is conflating general literacy with the political class'. There are still very smart people around, but they're no longer the face of elections.
>declining tradition
Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, and David Cameron went to Oxford and Starmer did a postgrad there.
So the current PM and previous five.
Maybe Binface can make PM after all?
Isn’t it the democratic ideal though? Of the people, for the people. If a representative democracy is to truly be representative then the elected representatives should be… representative? Tuberville and Mullin I wouldn’t say were thick so much as they’re pretty average.
Nah, you elect the person who best represents your interests, not the person who best represents you.
Look on it as a hiring process. Don't you want to select someone competent?
The challenge is that politics is its own profession, just like management. Even though there are people that have the theoretical knowledge on how a country should be run / what policies would work best, working it out into something legalese or balancing the books is where politicians come in. In theory.
That’s a very interesting game theory question: the answer is not always “yes”, especially when it comes to people’s secret motivations!
Well the analogy isn't perfect.
I realised I should have said "wishes". Not everyone votes based on self-interest.
(And in a FPTP system you are, IMO, better off voting against the person who least represents your wishes).
Goodness, if Tuberville is average then the USA is in much worse shape than it realises.
Mullin, like MTG, has some political instincts and some facility with the parliamentary process, as it turns out, and I almost feel bad about putting him in the same category as Tuberville, but he is not a smart guy.
Don’t get me wrong, we have many mediocre politicians in the UK, but few like these guys at the parliamentary level.
The difference is this whole flirting with anti-intellectualism thing. Pretending to be less educated or intellectual than you are has just not been a big part of our wider culture.
But we are importing this model now in Boris Johnson and Farage. As far as I can see Farage is doing exactly (a British spin on) the GWB strategy: despite having a pretty classical private-school upbringing he's created a ‘bloke from the pub’ character that is much more relatable to the lower classes, and it seems to be working pretty well.
It was really interesting to me to see BoJo's take on it, which was similar but with aristocratic mannerisms (and stereotypes!) mixed in. I guess it was aimed at the middle class, for whom upper-class dogwhistles have typically landed well.
I don't know if Boris ever faked being unintelligent or faked being a man of the people. Or being a bloke from the pub, actually.
He did fake being a buffoon, of course, but he was doing that long, long, long before Trump. He is terrifically intelligent and obviously absurdly well-educated, he's just a liar and a sociopath.
Indeed his chosen buffoonish, winging-it character hints at that, because buffoon is the easiest comic role to play if you have very little empathy. It blunts all the qualities that would make him unbearable. His buffoon routine was helped by him being very authentically clumsy across all domains both physical and intellectual, and it helped him manage that too. The upper-class twit aspect couldn't be avoided so he doubled down on it from early on.
(He has his brother and sister to thank for humanising him, and his father to blame for his worst impulses)
Farage is definitely playing at Trumpism, and he has the cruelty aspect nailed down, but he lacks the ability to clown, doesn't he? He's fundamentally sour-faced and nasty.
The remarkable one is Kemi Badenoch, who would be in more trouble if anyone was actually paying attention to the unhinged things she's saying as leader of the Conservative party.
If Farage survives the crypto donation scandal (and is therefore free to take more dodgy money), there's a real risk that the default rightwing party becomes Reform and the Conservatives become irrelevant, which would be a bizarre act of self-destruction.
That happened in Canada [1] and Farage has been quite open on picking the same party name to hopefully follow the same path.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Canada
She apparently can say whatever she likes now! I have noticed recently a considerable shift in the press to asking Ed Davey what he thinks.
Whatever happens re: Farage, the rules around donations will change, I think. We need to keep money out of our politics and make large donations seem intrinsically shady (because they always are)
> Isn’t it the democratic ideal though?
Probably not philosophically. But it’s why pure democracies don’t work. And America has a weird problem of not enough electoral representation at some levels combined with electoral fetishisation at many others.
I think it's so interesting he was a scriptwriter for "The Thick of It", a satirical comedy about British politics
FWIW I don’t at all think it’s wrong for people to pick up on whether this would make him a good representative of Clacton were he to win (which isn’t going to happen and he surely thinks it is not).
Part of Clacton is relatively well off; part of the wider constituency (Jaywick) is genuinely deprived on a national scale, and they really do need an MP that bothers to understand them and that they can relate to.
Farage is absolutely manipulating and exploiting them for his own benefit; he uses their concerns to give himself a way to play on the national stage but he is a pretty terrible MP (though he’s not the only politician to forget they have a local constituency).
But if Binface could win, I don’t think it’s at all wrong to question whether the man under the bin is going to be good for them.
His job, I think, is to expose Farage’s lies and insecurities.
That is excellent, and explains much!
>>But also...Binface conjugates Latin to Sky News
He studied Classics at Oxford. He'd be in trouble if he couldn't.
Why would Todd Durham have issues with a Lord Buckethead doing his thing in another country and continent, but apparently not with a guitar player named Buckethead in the United States?
Lord Buckethead (the at-that-point temporary novelty candidate) was much closer to (and inspired by) Durham’s character, to be fair.
Ultimately it is all for the good; clearly a -face name is much more quintessentially British.
Ouch, Durham’s Buckethead didn’t even make it above the collapsed See Also on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckethead_(disambiguation)
Also in the US, Apple’s search assumes we want the guitarist.
that's all right, Lord Buckethead has now officially endorsed Count Binface for the by-election: https://xcancel.com/DavidHughesTwit/status/20759264658461409...
Presumably because he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the one is damaging his reputation while the other is not.
Note that the ability to conjugate Latin does not correlate with good character, despite what the English public school system would have you think. Most famous example of that is of course Enoch Powell.
It is however true that you're only allowed to say true, intelligent things in British politics if you're a joke candidate. Jester's privilege. Binface has driven the rightwing press mad because he's the last threat to their darling candidate, so they're now trying to smear him as if he were a serious candidate. Which he is not. The end result is very funny.
Enoch Powell was gifted linguistically, despite his notoriety elsewhere (and his Brummie accent?). I heard he was fluent in Urdu of all things, and was even seen speaking to Pakistanis in it when he was out campaigning. He could speak Welsh too. I was reading some academic paper on Greek literature once, I forget which, only to notice that it was written by one J. Enoch Powell.
I wish Count Binface all the best for the Clacton by-election.
Edited to add: Some of my favourite commentary around this by-election is along the lines of:
A fundamentally un-serious candidate with no coherent policies or political experience running against Count Binface.
Vote Bin, not rubbish!
Time for Bindependence day!
Ich bin ein Bin-liner!
It's Count Binface vs The Count of Dodgy Crypto.
I, for one, am ready for FFS1 & nationalising Adele.
Finally someone willing to stand up and make the tough decisions about the hand dryer in the gents' toilet at the Crown & Treaty, Uxbridge.
That hand dryer placement is absurd.
For real. I looked it up online to see if it's really as bad as Binface makes it out to be, but he's absolutely right. That hand dryer should be moved forthwith.
I hear Farage has boasting that he likes it where it is!
I have so many questions...
I wonder how the legalities of this work. If people write in "Count Binface" or if that's the name on the ballot, then if he wins, does that mean Jonathan David Harvey (the actual name of the guy who plays him) is elected? Does Count Binface count as an alias? If not, he required to use that name while in office - or more precisely, is he not considered a member if he goes by his own name?
If he goes into the parliament building without his costume, it would be a bit awkward if, say, they were required to address him by his Count Binface alias.
Or, perhaps they wouldn't care too precisely about the naming aspect, since everyone knows who he is, but politics is vicious and I'm sure there are plenty who would use any possible legal maneuver to keep him out of parliament. Surely there are laws to handle these kinds of discrepancies around someone's identity... right? Laws that could get him kicked out?
If he actually wins, would he try to do some serious good or would he keep the joke going? Should he actually prepare a serious "if I actually win the election" policy list? It would conflict with his joke list since he would be asked more questions about the real one. Or would he just have one big mixed list split 50/50 between jokes and serious ideas?
In my experience in the UK aliases and names are used in a rather flexible way compared to other countries. Anybody can decide on a name and start using it. It's not illegal unless it is done for the purpose of deceiving people.
If people commonly use it to refer to them it makes it that person's name for most purposes. Changing the name officially also requires only an affirmation or an oath at a court, although I don't think this would be the case here.
I think nobody would care much and the majority of politicians would go along with Count Binface as the proper way of address, because it'd be rude to do otherwise. Not the least because picking a fight with Count Binface would be seen as getting themselves dirty in non-serious politics. Not a very attractive proposition to be perceived as such for most political parties no matter how ridiculous their actions might be otherwise.
In Parliament, members are referred to by the place they represent, eg "The Right Honourable Member for Harry Pottershire" rather than their names. It's a way to make things less personal.
In fact, "naming" an MP is mark of having broken the rules:
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/naming-o...
I like it as a reminder that they're there to represent their constituents, and it means lesser known places are regularly mentioned in parliament (what with it being in London)
The indirect debate strategy has always baffled me (people addressing the speaker instead of the person across the aisle), but it's a really interesting way to frame a debate and to - theoretically - avoid ad hominems. Of course in UK politics they can still say stuff like "Mr. Speaker, I believe the right honourable lord of whatsit is being rather silly".
>If he goes into the parliament building without his costume, it would be a bit awkward if, say, they were required to address him by his Count Binface alias.
Members of Parliament aren't allowed to address each other by name in the Commons chamber.
All debate must be addressed to the Speaker (or Deputy Speaker if one of them are chairing the debate).
References to other members are made in the form of "the X member for Y constituency", where X is:
- "honourable" (the default);
- "right honourable" if they are sworn of the Privy Council (i.e. they've been a minister in the past);
- "learned and honourable member" (a qualified lawyer); or
- "gallant and honourable member" (somebody who has served in the armed forces).
There's no such thing as a "legal name" in the UK. For example, Boris Johnson's first name isnt actually Boris - that's just what he goes by.
Huh that's new. I knew you guys don't have any official government ID (and that it was an issue in Blair era) but I didn't knew you don't even have legal names.
We have official government ID (the national insurance number, roughly equivalent to a USian SSN), but names aren't expected to reliably link it in one hop, and we're politically averse to laws that require citizens to produce it in various circumstances, e.g. carrying ID cards, even though in practice most people do carry some form of government-sanctioned ID. Name changing is mostly limited by the fact that it becomes the duty of the person using a different name to laboriously link the new name to any previous names they've used wherever you need some paperwork in a different name. E.g. you need to provide your NI number to be employed, which typically means you need to have a paper trail back to it across any renames you might have had.
Your legal name is whatever you want it to be at any given time, you can just order a new passport or drivers license with ~whatever name you want written on it.
For a passport, the only real requirement is vague evidence that you actually use the name.
You can also have multiple names listed on your passport: for example, if you have a public and private name, or if you're a noble. I've found that the "vague evidence" requirement is actually quite strict, though: even if you use a name in 95% of everyday contexts, the passport office only counts bureaucratic evidence, and there are circular dependencies with most bureaucracies unless you produce a deed poll (which requires you to attest that you only have one name, for some reason: I'm not familiar enough with the law to know whether this is a real requirement, or just ceremonial language like the "I promise that a Catholic will never succeed to the throne" bit in the coronation ceremony). So the de facto rules about passport names are stricter than names in general.
> drivers license
Oi! It's a Driving Licence here in Blighty!
This is gradually getting tightened by the database state for all the usual reasons (hostility to immigrants and trans people); you can get away without ID as long as you don't want to work, claim benefits, rent a house, buy one, or have a bank account. Other than that, you're fine.
The first name component of the name "Boris Johnson" is Boris. It's just as valid a name as any other name he goes by, for both social and legal purposes.
His birth name, and I believe still his legal name, is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. But he is "commonly known as" Boris Johnson, so that's what can go on the ballot paper, although his full name must still go on the registration documents. Count Binface is in the same situation.
Since he gave up his US citizenship in 2016, I don't think he's subject to a jurisdiction where "legal name" is a meaningful notion. Ultimately, this means his first name is whatever he says it is (provided that he isn't lying): you'd have to ask him. Supposing that his answer changes depending on the social context, then both "Alexander" and "Boris" would be valid answers for "what is this person's first name?".
Count Binface is in a different situation, because "Count Binface" is a stage name, which he (presumably) doesn't go as in his real life. However, stage names are still considered legal enough to go on your UK passport. Ultimately, whether he would be allowed to write "Count Binface" as his name on the registration documents would depend on what the Electoral Commission decides. I had a look last week, but couldn't find their rules.
>Ultimately, whether he would be allowed to write "Count Binface" as his name on the registration documents would depend on what the Electoral Commission decides. I had a look last week, but couldn't find their rules.
One can stand for election using any name that one is "commonly known by".
The first word in the two word phrase "Boris Johnson" is indeed Boris.
The full birth certificate name of the former "born American" PM is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, so arguably that person's "first name component" isn't Boris alone.
> If he goes into the parliament building without his costume
If the people vote for a man in a bin costume then he should have the right to represent them in that very same costume. On the other hand, to satisfy both his desire for a costumes as well as parliament's rules that basically allow its members to look at each other eye to eye, he might switch to a transparent bin. Something that would benefit the whole country as transparent bins allow its users as well as the bin (wo)men to identify bins that have been filled with the wrong waste.
He's called Count Binface for a reason: he isn't wearing a hat, that's just his face!
> he might switch to a transparent bin
Tremendous comment :-)
Can't take out the (political) trash without first exposing it. The transparent bin is a great analogy lmao
We're super flexible on name law in the UK. I could change my name right now and just use it, I dont need any formal approval or anything to do so. It only becomes a legal issue if you do it for legally questionable reasons.
The British constitution is unwritten and based on centuries of convention which are so old they are considered law... Sort of.
From what I can tell there isn't anything about identity in the way you're suggesting. However there are conventions and regulations around dress in the Commons which preclude wearing hats.
As for what he'd do if he won, he hasn't said so far. However he does have a policy list which includes nationalising Adel and building 1 affordable home. As an MP he could campaign for those and attempt to table a private members bill.
I think the answer to a lot of these questions is "we don't know". He's been running in various campaigns for years, this is just the first time he's the only other candidate in a potentially high profile campaign.
I hope some Oxfoed PPE students will be using this for their dissertations.
The biggest practical obstacle, other than getting elected, is the dress code for the house of commons which disallows military uniform, disallows face covering (while voting), and requires smart business attire. You could argue that he might be in violation of all three!
The name isn't really that much of a problem.
To be fair, we really don't know what counts as smart business attire on Sigma IX.
I thought you were making a reference to Six Sigma and their distinguished Black Belts. Like, who knows what they call themselves today?
My apologies to the beautiful people of Recyclon for the unflattering comparison.
Or military uniform, for that matter.
> The name isn't really that much of a problem.
I know you are explaining in earnest but the way you ended and formatted it is sooo (un?)intentionally funny. Like, of all the stunts Binface is pulling, the name is the least legitimate of concerns.
Kinda like what they say about the poor people of Clacton having to choose between a joke trash candidate and Count Binface.
What's this type of makes-you-do-double-take, got-me-in-the-first-half-ngl humor called other than just British?
His face isn't covered, his face is a bin. I would've thought the whole "Count Binface" made that pretty clear...
There's slightly more controversy about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Manivannan , who is perfectly calibrated to annoy the maximum number of rightwingers: nonbinary immigrant on a temporary visa with a one-letter chosen name.
There are (fortunately) very few rules on who's allowed to be an MP. The public are supposed to be the ultimate arbiter. The rule against being elected while in prison was only introduced after Bobby Sands MP, for example. Otherwise the rules seem mainly concerned that you're not bankrupt or holding an ineligible state office.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-a...
Also, parliament has a rule against wearing costumes like this. But Count Binface called that rule "binist" and claimed there was some wiggle room in the way the rule was worded :)
I think leaving the seat empty if he wins is the only possible choice, both legally and democratically. He should make it clear that this is what would happen if he gets elected so the people of Clacton know what they are voting for.
I think Erskine May just says "Members should dress in business-like attire" - so maybe if he had a special 'business bin' as opposed to a 'smart-casual bin' he could argue the point.
He would though have to remove the bin for votes at the least
As described in one of the clips at the link, that rule says "in general", and one can well argue that this is the penultimate special case.
> this is the penultimate special case.
If Binface is the second-last special case, who is the last one?
Yes, that's the wiggle room Count Binface was referring to in the interview I watched.
I'd say standards have dropped so low, we may as well let in fancy dress. Lots of people in cheap thin dresses with no jacket [0] (some show knee when sat, even half an upper leg! [1]), boat shoes, white suits etc. They look like a collection of wedding guests.
Let's not get started on the sexism against men with Hoyle wanting them to wear ties and a jacket but for women just 'business-like' is expected.
[0] https://youtu.be/c3AsuotuPFs?t=94
[1] https://youtu.be/c3AsuotuPFs?t=755
I hope he wins the upcoming election. Won’t but one can hope…
The actual politician he’s standing against is an asshole
I think Binface is going to smash his own records and get to like 20%. Farage will get enough that Farage is going to claim the result as a decisive victory while at the same time the result is actually deeply embarrassing for Farage.
That's just the thing: Farage tried to create an "underdog vs the establishment" scenario where his corruption charged could be ignored because of "the voice of the people", but right now the absolute best he could hope for is winning from a garbage can.
There's just no way to claim that as a decisive victory with a straight face. It'll always come with the caveat "... against a bin" - which means Farage has already lost.
While I think your prediction is going to come true, deep down I'm rooting for Binface.
He wouldn't get away with his headgear in the commons but top hats are permitted (at least when not speaking) so he has some room for manoeuvre.
There is at least some concern within their camp that they could lose the election to a guy with a bin on his head. That for me is a win.
He’s very popular in clacton and his odds to win are like 90%, I doubt anyone in his team are genuinely worried about losing.
It's the 10% chance they are worried about. Reform is very much the Farage party, and him losing to a bin in their heartland would be catastrophic; he would go from being the presumptive next Prime Minister to a national joke.
Binface, ridiculous though it may seem, is going to be the unity candidate for tactical voting, and that's deadly serious from the point of view of those who wish to get Farage out.
Even if Farage wins, but with a reduced majority, in an election where the alternatives are fringe or novelty candidates, it will be hard for his dignity to recover.
He'll likely win alright, but at the last GE, he only received 21,225 out of 45,648 votes cast, (so got 47% of the votes on 58% turnout).
I think you'll get a non-trivial amount of people voting for Binface either a) because you don't care about politics & think it's funny b) as "anyone but Farage" c) to treat it as a by-election because they think Binface won't take his seat and it'll trigger the 'real byelection' with their preferred party instead.
There was an interview with him the other day on LBC in which they asked if he wasn’t worried he might have his vote split with the MRLP - Monster Raving Looney Party - but he pointed out quite adroitly that they are just as likely to split reform’s vote, so the more the merrier.
Novelty candidates sometimes get elected, e.g. Stuart Drummond.
> Drummond immediately decided to concentrate on politics and ceased being H'Angus; he was quoted as saying, "I am Stuart Drummond, I am the Mayor of Hartlepool, not the monkey." Drummond was re-elected in 2005, more than doubling his vote (up to over 16,000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H'Angus
He was re-elected once more in 2009 and because the English have a really weird political system, the direct election of mayor was abolished by a vote in 2012 making him the first, last and only directly elected mayor the town ever had.
Not only do they get elected, sometimes they become heroes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy
Don't think they intended to be a novelty or parody candidate though. Just someone famous for something else turning to politics, just like Schwarzenegger.
There's a long tradition in the UK of comedy candidates, notably the Monster Raving Loony Party.
There's even some talk of a potential Loony-Bin alliance.
The difference in this instance is that all of the major parties have stood aside, leaving the Clacton by-election as a race between Nigel Farage and Count Binface. Essentially it's turned into an election between Farage and anyone-but-Farage.
I sincerely hope the best alien wins.
I don't understand what this is, can someone explain? Clacton seems to be a town in the UK, are they campaigning for mayor? What's the relevance, why is Farage even involved?
Very briefly:
Farage received a "gift" of £5M. He didn't tell parliament about the gift, which breaks the rules. MPs or campaigning MPs need to declare gifts and donations, as there are strict rules on who you can receive money from. The media found out about the "gift", and Farage was going to be investigated. He resigned as MP for Clacton, which stops the investigation and triggers an election. I think his plan was for him to win again, and then be able to turn around and say "the people have decided, they don't care about gifts I get." However, all the other parties refused to stand candidates in the upcoming election. If Farage wins, then the investigation will start again. However, we have numerous comedic parties that will run in elections in the UK. Count Binface will challenge Farage. Farage won with something like 46% of the vote last time. With the negative coverage he's been receiving, and the option of sticking it to reform by voting for Count Binface, the people of Clacton might end up delivering a very embarrassing defeat for Farage. This is the country that voted to name a research vessel Boaty McBoatFace.
> This is the country that voted to name a research vessel Boaty McBoatFace
And "Killing in the Name" as Christmas song of '09, to spite the usual X-factor shoo-in.
There is a chance that more entertainment is yet to come from Clacton.
Thank you for the explanation, so this is basically for the election as MP. Does this mean that Farage's party also can't win in the next general election (and make him PM)? AFAIK him becoming PM was a worry.
To be prime minister you have to have support of 50%+1 of the MPs. This means either having them in your party, or having a deal with another party.
You also have to be an MP.
Currently Kier Starmer is a Labour mp in an area of London. He’s resigning and is being replaced by someone (Burnham) who was Labour Mayor for Manchester, but stood as MP in an area of Manchester last month after another Labour MP resigned.
Burnham beat reform in that election, and Count Binface. There was a discussion thy given how unpopular Labour is, that reform might win. In the end everyone who was anti reform (Farage’s party) voted Burnham and he got 55% of the vote.
While the sentiment in the U.K. is that if a general election were held tomorrow, Farage would win his seat, and reform would win a large number of votes. In reality polling puts Farage’s party around 25%, with four other parties on 10-20%. As the election isn’t proportional though it’s possible reform could get 55% of the seats with 25% of the vote, however last time they got 1% of the seats with 12% of the votes.
You also have to be an MP.
I don't think that's strictly true. You definitely don't have to be an MP in order to hold a cabinet office. I think that extends to the PM as well. It's never been tried obviously.
It's not strictly law, but at this point it might as well be. The last PM to be appointed without being an MP was Sir Alec Douglas-Home in the 1960s, and he immediately resigned his peerage and won a by-election to remedy that...
It has been tried but long ago.
The last member of the House of Lords to be PM was Lord Salisbury in 1900.
As noted Alec Douglas-Hume had to leave the House of Lords in 1963 and get elected as a MP.
The previous attempt would have been Lord Halifax in 1940 but by then it was clear the PM had to be from the Commons.
That's very informative, thanks!
Any party can win if it gets the majority of candidates across all parliamentary constituencies. However, a Prime Minister must be elected as an MP somewhere. If Reform got a majority without Farage being elected, they would be in a strange situation where the leader of the party couldn't become the PM. It's amusing to think about, in a schadenfreudish way, but the chances of that are slim. He would certainly stand in a general election for the same seat, other major parties would contest it, and it seems that Clacton-on-Sea supports him over the others. This by-election is special because the major parties are boycotting it for being a self-serving stunt that it is.
I imagine they would do what Labour have had to do with Andy Burnham, and get some no-name MP in a safe seat to resign in exchange for a promise to get in the House of Lords later or some other reward.
> Does this mean that Farage's party also can't win in the next general election (and make him PM)?
Firstly, that election is three years away; it's a separate political event.
Secondly, that depends on the outcome of at least three hundred constituency elections, which would have to return Reform candidates. They did OK for a minor party at the last council elections, but they have a very high attrition rate as candidates are discovered to be above the acceptable racism threshold, bent, mad, or simply never intended to do the job in the first place.
There are very few ways of becoming PM without also being an MP. The PM must be able to sit in the parliament, so he must either be an MP or a member of the Lords. In theory, the current PM or even the King could make him a Peer, and therefore a member of the Lords, but neither is likely :)
The last time a PM wasn’t in the commons properly was 1902, although technically Douglas Holme became PM before getting a seat, however Parliament didn’t resume until after he became an MP
A Lord can’t address the commons, which was most recently an issue when ex PM David Cameron was made foreign secretary in the dying days of the last Tory governemt.
Farage can't realistically be PM in the current parliamentary session anyway. His party needs to win, or do very well in, the next general election instead. At a national level this election is purely symbolic and dictates whether Reform will have 7 or 8 seats out of the 650.
I suppose that in theory if Reform could form a government after the next election, but Farage still didn't get a seat, a party colleague could become PM and appoint him as a peer. There's a rich history of politicians losing elections and getting appointed this way instead, though as far as I know none of them subsequently became PM.
Do you mean "must be able to sit in Parliament"? The Lords and Commons are the two distinct chambers.
There have been non-MP (ie non-Commons) PMs.
Sorry yes, I meant the parliament.
[flagged]
> Farage said the funds are required for his personal security
Nope. If he had declared that then there would be no issue what so ever.
There is no restriction on gifted money, no requirement on what to use it for - simply a common code of conduct that requires gifts to be declared.
Farage could of declared it, but didn't - now he has been outed with his hand in cookie jar in a dark closet he's retconning a reason he simply could have fronted with and taken his cookies with the light on and everybody watching.
Nigel Farage’s donations: four key claims fact checked by an expert in political finance - https://theconversation.com/nigel-farages-donations-four-key..."The Exemption Rule: Parliamentary ethics rules generally require MPs to register financial interests and "personal benefits" received in the 12 months before taking office. However, Farage and Reform UK have leaned on the exemption for strictly personal gifts "which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House" or his political activities"
Personal security would come under that.
I mean you may not agree, but it's an arguable case.
Are we really still going with the "personal security" story? I thought he had pivoted a couple of times to other, not necessarily more credible, stories.
Have you got evidence for otherwise? He does appear to have 3-4 security people, driver etc.
I guess technically he never said it wasn't for security. Apparently the 5m was an unconditional gift for campaigning for brexit, and how he had spent the money was “not the public’s business”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c072prlxlddo
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-latest...
He can make that case to the investigating committee. If Farage finds that inconvenient then, well, the easiest way for him to avoid such scrutiny in future is to declare any large amounts of money he receives. Not that difficult, and surely in the public interest to do so.
The standards committee has not yet made any ruling. It would be one thing for Farage to object to a specific ruling by the committee, but to object to the entire concept of a large undeclared personal gift being investigated simply shows a contempt for Parliament.
Leaking information to friendly journalists is the entire mechanism of British politics.
Farage is the current MP for Clacton. He has resigned because he is being investigated for taking massive amounts of dodgy money and not declaring it. He thinks he claimed the upper hand by saying that the voters would decide if that was ok or not, but the other parties have declined to participate. Now, it is a battle between himself and an alien being with a bin for a face.
Notably, if he is re-elected, the Parliamentary Standards Committee will simply continue their investigation into his dodgy finances.
Thanks for the context!
In addition to the other comments it’s worth pointing out that MPs are not allowed to resign. They’re elected by the people.
They can be moved into another public service role, and there are ceremonial roles designed to ‘shelve’ MPs, but other than that, criminal acts and incapacity, they can’t actually stand down. Starmer is resigning as Prime Minister, he is not resigning as an MP.
This is why the other parties see the whole thing as a farce. The chancellor approved the budget for the by-election by saying “if he wants to spend his summer talking to a bin, so be it” but it’s unclear if there’s any constitutional legality to it.
> ceremonial roles designed to ‘shelve’ MPs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stewards_of_the_Chilte...
It's hardly unprecedented for an MP to resign. What is almost unprecedented is immediately standing for election again: it's not a revolving door, you're supposed to fuck off and stay out. Especially not to pre-empt an investigation into your conduct. It is indeed a farce.
Representatives in the UK parliament are elected to represent a constituency, mostly the size of a town. In this case the constituency of Clanton is having a by-election (special election), because the representative resigned. With reading up on why this happened.
Thanks!
Nigel Farage is the incumbent Member of Parliament for Clacton and the de-facto leader of Reform UK, a populist right-wing party that has only a handful of MPs but is currently leading the polls. He is being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Committee over personal donations he accepted prior to becoming an MP. In response to this investigation, Farage stood down as MP, triggering a by-election (a special election held when an MP resigns, dies or is otherwise removed from their seat mid-term).
Farage announced his intention to stand in this by-election (which he is entitled to do), arguing that only his constituents had the right to decide whether he was fit to be a Member of Parliament. He argues that the Standards Committee is fundamentally illegitimate because he would be judged by his political rivals; in any case, the greatest sanction the committee could impose would be his expulsion from parliament, which would trigger a by-election that he would be entitled to stand in. The other major parties have all decided not to stand candidates against Farage in the Clacton by-election, creating this slightly farcical contest between the incumbent and a joke candidate.
Thanks for the explanation!
Clacton is a town in the UK. The election was triggered by Nigel Farage, the right-wing leader of the Reform UK party, resigning his parliamentary seat in early July amid a parliamentary investigation into an allegedly undeclared £5 million financial gift.
Instead of waiting out the inquiry, Farage decided to immediately run for his own vacant seat again, framing the sudden election as a "people versus the establishment" referendum to clear his name. All Britain's major political parties, including the governing Labour Party and the opposition Conservatives, are boycotting the race entirely.
Farage’s primary opponent is a man wearing a trash can on his head who goes by the name "Count Binface", a "beloved" staple of modern British democracy who regularly runs against prime ministers and prominent politicians as a satirical protest vote, armed with policies like capping the price of croissants and mandating functioning Wi-Fi on trains.
Thanks for the explanation, here's hoping Binface wins then!
It is a seat of parliament for the Clacton constituency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clacton_(constituency)). If you're American, think of it as a Congressional District, and it's a special election.
Basically Nigel Farage won the seat to become a member of parliament representing the Clacton district. Then, there was an ethics scandal, so Nigel Farage resigned his seat, but is running in the special election to fill the vacancy. All the other serious political parties (Greens, Labour, Conservatives, Restore) think this is a stunt and a waste of time, so they aren't running any candidates. So, Nigel Farage is the only "real" politician in the race, and the "silly" candidate with the most support is Count Binface. So the special election ends up being between Farage and Count Binface.
Thank you!
Imagine a senator decided to resign to avoid scrutiny into being bribed, there’s then a specialty election to replace them
However the senator decided to stand in that special election. If they win the bribery investigation resumes.
Add in that under the U.K. system it’s not just red va blue, it’s a multi party election. In 2024 Farage got 45% of the vote. Since then he came out pro Trump and pro Iran war, then went quiet as he realised nobody wanted that and he’s taken millions in “personal gifts”, he avoided tax by giving money to his floozy to buy a house for him (in cash), and he’s spent about zero days in the constituency he represents and about 6 days in parliament, and most of the time in the us furthering his media career.
Now imagine the only other candidate was a man dressed as a bin.
Nigel Farage is (was) the MP (Member of Parliament) for the Clacton area. He is currently under investigation by the parliament's standards watchdog after reports that he failed to declare some donations and benefits.
If he’s found to have broken the rules, it’s possible he’d be suspended from parliament and subject to a recall election. However, he has resigned from this position himself instead, which means there will be a by-election for that seat.
It’s widely perceived that he has done this to distract from the investigation, with the view being that if he runs, then wins, a parliamentary suspension looks like a coordinated attack on someone who has just proven he has local support.
The major UK parties have decided not to field candidates in this election, claiming it is a distraction tactic and a waste of resources. This will leave Farage campaigning head-to-head with a man dressed as a bin, neutering any claims that this is a “real” election win (as well as generating plenty of entertaining news footage over the next few weeks).
Nigel Farage was subject to at least two parliamentary standards enquiries about big, undisclosed personal payments he received from crypto-bros around the time he decided to stand to be the Member of Parliament (MP) for Clacton. Because he then lobbied the Bank of England as the leader of one of the parliamentary parties to drop their digital pound plans (which would undermine Tether's value proposition, and one of the donations, £5m/$6.75m, came from a Tether cofounder), the press were suggesting he is guilty of outright corruption.
By standing down as an MP, rather than letting the enquiry proceed, he hopes he has removed the parliamentary authorities' powers to look into his affairs too closely, but to avoid embarrassment, he's asserted in public that he stood down (and then immediately put himself forward as a candidate to stand in the special election that results) as a way to thwart the deep state's efforts to tarnish his reputation and to take away the power of the establishment to try him unfairly, and handed the power to determine his fate to the good people of Clacton (who now won't get the chance to find out if their local MP is corrupt, thanks to the parliamentary enquiry being halted).
In all honesty, it doesn't look like he knows what he's doing, but there was some suspicion that he was planning to drop out of the special election for personal reasons in due course, avoiding a return to parliament and the related scrutiny, and letting his seat fall to the Conservatives or Restore UK - but all the other parties refused to put up candidates, so now he's up against one comedy candidate and is probably going to win the seat regardless, unless he drops out and leaves the poor people of Clacton with a fiasco of some sort on their hands.
OK, buckle up.
Nigel Farage is basically like the UK's Trump: he was the head of the UKIP party, which championed Brexit, and then became the dog that caught the car when Brexit actually happened. Since then, the Reform UK party has taken up the position of far-right-practically-Nazis in UK politics, and Farage is the head of that.
Farage is also an MP (Member of Parliament) for Clacton. Recently, he was embroiled in a scandal where he clearly took foreign bribe money. As an MP, Parliament can run an investigation of him for it. So he stepped down—pre-empting that investigation...but immediately stood in the by-election that was triggered. This way, either he loses the by-election to one of the other major parties—Labour or the Tories, which these days roughly count as "somewhat right of the US Democrats and a tiny bit left of the US Republicans", respectively—or he is returned to Parliament with a strong mandate, having defeated whatever candidates those parties sent to oppose him.
Except...they didn't send anyone to oppose him.
This means that he's basically a shoo-in to return to Parliament unopposed—meaning he has no mandate—to face his investigation.
...Enter Count Binface.
Now the options for him are "return to Parliament having faced no serious candidates, right into an official investigation", or "lose to the man with a bin on his head".
Neither of these are good options for Nigel Farage.
It is a disaster for Farage. He looks like ridiculous with almost every outcome. Last by-election he (Reform UK) won with about 45% of the vote. This is a big win in UK elections as there are typically about 4 parties with a decent number of votes - MPs often win with a lot lower figure than that. This was in the context of a General Election with huge publicity and was probably at the peak of Reform's popularity (they have slipped a fair way since then). Even then, almost 55% of the people didn't vote for him. That leaves a huge number of voters swilling around with nobody to vote for. Maybe they won't bother voting, but on the other hand, maybe they will. Recent elections have shown a lot of tactical voting (i.e. people voting for the party most likely to beat an unwanted candidate) - if people are motivated enough to do that, then they may well be motivated enough to vote for a Bin. There's a lot of publicity and the election is taking place August when all sorts of random things can happen (it's referred to as the Silly Season because there's a typically a bit of a new vacuum). That said, Farage will probably win, but unless he wins by an absolutely overwhelming marging (i.e. Binface only gets a few hundred votes) he is hugely diminished.
That's also before you consider who Binface actually is - he graduated in Classics from Oxford University, has been a script writer for the Thick of It and Have I got News for You (both popular political satires) and has a Podcast that gets some big names on it. Every interview he does, he comes across as extremely smart, sharp and articulate. If there is ever a face-to-face discussion between him and Farage, it will generate endless clips of Farage's humiliation.
Policital affiliation aside, it is good to see somebody arogant and entitled brought down to size.
Haha, thanks, in that case I hope Binface wins.
> notably the Monster Raving Loony Party.
The _Official_ Monster Raving Loony Party (http://www.loonyparty.com/), you mean?
Wikipedia (of course) has a page on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_...) and also has a list of frivolous political parties worldwide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frivolous_political_pa...)
>There's even some talk of a potential Loony-Bin alliance.
Nah, never going to happen. There's history between Binface and the Loonies... and they're a lot more right-wing than people often think they are
Related mini-discussion the other day:
Farage left fighting a trash can as the UK populist's election gamble backfires
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48848034
As an American, I'm mildly jealous of the Brits' usage of "bin" for garbage cans. It's so succinct as to be appropriately dismissive, while we seemingly sanctify the idea with complex terms like "Wastebasket," "Trash/Garbage Can," or (worst of all) "Trash Receptacle."
"Binface" wouldn't be nearly as funny using an American term.
This person is hilarious, for non-UK people who are wondering what this is, this is a joke candidate for an MP who is getting a lot of attention because of the political system in the UK not working very well. This YouTube video has sort of started this off recently and made him go viral
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCVt8IhJkA&pp=ygUHQmluZmFjZQ%...
> This person is hilarious, for non-UK people who are wondering what this is, this is a joke candidate for an MP who is getting a lot of attention because of the political system in the UK not working very well.
Yes and he’s running against Count Binface
(sorry)
What I find interesting is that he seems to be the only candidate? Aren’t there actual political parties that could have produced legitimate candidates?
The election was triggered because a populist politician being investigated for corruption decided to step down, triggering an election so that he could run again to theoretically prove that he was who the people wanted regardless of the corruption investigation. This backfired when every other party refused to field a candidate (that is, to go along with his plan), apart from Binface. So Farage’s “me vs the establishment” commentary is not going as he expected.
It's also worth noting that he's being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Committee. Now that he has stepped down as an MP, that investigation would ordinarily be paused (and is from what I can tell). It would be resumed if he won but he gets a while to organise things before he has to face them again.
And if the Standards Committee find sufficient wrong-doing to suspend an MP for 10 days or more, the suspension automatically triggers a recall-petition.
If the recall-petition is signed by 10% or more of voters in that MP's constituency, this triggers a by-election.
So there's a reasonable possibility that once the investigation concludes, there will be another by-election in Clacton.
The election is a re-election vote triggered by the MP already in the very safe seat, as a distraction from "where did all this money come from" investigations around him (which are also conveniently paused by this byelection).
He's arguing that if he gets reelected then the investigation doesn't matter. The other parties are arguing it's a stunt, and so are fielding no candidates.
Binface's candidacy accurately represents the absurdity of the whole thing.
Those other parties all declined to compete in this by-election. They want Farage to stand to the rule of law on his corruption, and not endorse this procedural manoeuvre.
The timing of this by-election is also such that, were there an actual race, Farage would likely get his propaganda on the front of the newspapers throughout the summer months while everyone else in politics is on holiday.
Since it is a first-past the post system it would have been best if the other parties coordinated to only let the best party compete.
Having Count Binface as the only other candidate is IMO a second-best option.
That would've given Farage the "him vs The Establishment" fight he is looking for, though. Leaving it to the Count robs him of that.
Other interested candidates can submit their nomination from tomorrow to Friday and I think one needs the support of only 10 constituents and a hundred quid
More info should follow here today:
https://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/content/13-august-2026-electio...
[flagged]
Investigating Farage for failing to declare donations and gifts is neither “lawfare” nor a plausible means of removing him as an MP. It’s just the Parliamentary Standards Comittee doing its job. No legal penalty is on the cards. The worst the committee can do (and they might not even do it) is make him fight another by election, at which point the decision as to whether or not he remains an MP is entirely up to voters in his constituency. Odds are that Farage would win again, so if this is all part of a grand scheme to oust him, it’s a pretty stupid scheme.
Currently, the person working hardest to ensure that Farage ceases to be an MP is Farage himself, having made the strategic error of trying to pre-empt what he presumes to be the eventual outcome of the committee investigation by calling this farcical by election.
> Investigating Farage for failing to declare donations and gifts is neither “lawfare” nor a plausible means of removing him as an MP. It’s just the Parliamentary Standards Comittee doing its job. No legal penalty is on the cards.
All true, but I would caveat it, "no legal penalty is on the cards from the Parliamentary Standards Comittee"
We know that there are multiple dodgy dealings, and at least one SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) has been filed. We cannot rule out actual legal penalties in general, nor should we. Seeking a popular mandate should not be used as an get-out of legal accountability.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-...
There were but decided not to stand candidates, likely fearing humiliating defeat.
Yeah no, if thats your takeaway then you've severely misunderstood the situation. They dont expect, nor want to win that seat. They want Nige to win it back so he's held accountable as thats in their interest. And then when he's likely ousted later this year they'll all run when theres another election.
The system has proved to be quite dynamic, really. The electorate have had real choices over the past 10-15 years. Stay in the EU or don’t. Elect a genuine socialist or a centre-right conservative as Prime Minister. And unpopular or incompetent Prime Ministers have been removed quite promptly.
It’s time to get rid of FPTP, but the real problem seems to be that people just keep voting for the wrong policies.
> I’m an intergalactic space warrior and leader of the Recyclons from planet Sigma IX.
Ok you have my vote.
>Policies include building one affordable house.
Mine too.
I don't understand why the mainstream is celebrating the total collapse of any meaningful political opposition to populists. This kind of fluffed-up 2010's style optimism campaign is exactly how the establishment lost control in 2016 in both the US and the UK.
I think it's sad that Binface is the only one even attempting to engage in democracy at this point. He's a satire but he's also, seemingly, the only legitimate opposition that populists face. That should be concerning and embarrassing, but no one has learned anything over the past 10 years.
So, what happens when Binface loses? Are they just going to try to put Farage in prison like they're doing with the other populists? That'll surely help.
And if he does somehow win, what then? Doesn't that also prove that populism is the only viable strategy? Either way people are celebrating their own defeat.
The other parties aren't standing in this particular byelection because they (correctly) realise that it's just a media stunt by Farage, who is attempting to paint himself as a victim of establishment harassment (while being the epitome of 'the establishment' himself). By not standing, and forcing Farage to run against joke candidates, they've made a fool of him (which generally harms populists more than anything else you can throw at them).
The other parties have all said that they will run candidates against Farage in the almost inevitable second byelection that will by triggered later when parliament finishes its investigation into his corruption and punishes him for it.
This doesn't make a fool of Farage though! It clarifies to anyone already skeptical of the establishment that when pushed, they'd rather not play than risk losing. This is literally self-defeating!
You claim that this kind of thing "generally harms populists more than anything else," but I can't think of a single time that it actually has at the scale that matters. What would harm populists would be a viable alternative that takes the concerns of the population seriously.
If Farage wins he is still subject to an investigation that could eject him from Parliament, over a 5m crypto gift/loan he received from an ex-pat donor that he did not declare.
Farage is looking to get a popular mandate to try and both draw attention away from that investigation, and justify keeping his position because "the people have spoken". The other parties don't want to undermine the investigation by taking part in an election which would be moot if he were found guilty anyway.
Farage is therefore punching on air, and has been reduced to arguing that a joke candidate with a bin on his head who claims to be from outer space is an "establishment" (aka "deep state") plant.
It's actually a smart move from the other parties. Without a serious "enemy" to fight, populists look foolish as their usual rhetorical moves have no bite.
> If Farage wins he is still subject to an investigation that could eject him from Parliament
He will win, of course.
But Parliament can't actually eject him. All they can do is enable the one mechanism that could: a constituency recall petition that needs 10% of his electorate to sign it, that triggers… a by-election he could lose.
If he runs and his constituency vote for him in that, he's their MP.
That is true, but while he is popular in his home turf, 10% is a low threshold for a figure as divisive as Farage, so seems pretty much inevitable, unless this pre-investigation-results by election kills the motivation.
Now would he win the second by election even with a finding of misconduct against him? He might very well. But the establishment parties (especially the Tories) will feel much better placed to challenge him if they have him being found to have conducted in dodgy behaviour.
> This doesn't make a fool of Farage though!
I sense that you are not British, but you can trust us when we say this has absolutely made a fool of him to the British public.
This is really a bespoke kind of humiliation.
I lived in London for six years starting just before Brexit, so I watched this exact confidence up close. The British public "knowing" Farage is damaged is not new, it's not justified, and it doesn't do anything except make people feel better on social media.
I'm pretty sure that just like every other backhanded attempt to squash the populists, this will backfire. I can't know that of course, but I'm pattern-matching against years of this kind of stuff happening in like 5-6 different countries in Europe already.
He is noticeably more damaged now, believe me. Everyone thinks this election was at least a stupid idea and it is his stupid idea designed for his personal benefit.
You are right that it could backfire, but to give you a much longer and more analytical answer, here is the picture as Farage understands it and why he did what he did:
- Farage is the leader of an insurgent party with the ability to command national media attention. He can make the main news channels attend.
- He was already MP with a large majority off a pretty good, recent turnout.
- There is no local media at all to speak of — no local newspaper worth a damn, no local TV, no other earned media
- The election is five or six weeks away.
- No national party can stand up an adequate candidate in a parliamentary constituency election in that time. It will be novices, first-time candidates with poor name recognition.
So the above is the election he wanted to fight, right?
If any of the main parties stand up candidates, they will all feel they have to contest it so as not to lose vote share to Farage, and Farage wins.
If nobody stands up, Farage wins.
And if a novelty candidate stands up, Farage wins.
Whichever way, the outcome after the by-election is the same as the one before: Farage is going to be the MP for Clacton. So given that this happens regardless — it cannot be stopped even though he started it for his own benefit — what is the best outcome for people who wish to see Farage politically damaged?
It is not the first one, because that is the specific outcome Farage wanted.
This way he now has to campaign around the simple story: he is fighting for his political skin, and his main campaign position to the people of Clacton (and deprived Jaywick) is that it's OK he's been given money and gifts by crypto billionaires and convicted fraudsters and that it's unfair for that to be investigated.
This is not at all a backhanded thing; it's open party politics. The last time this was done it was done to a fully establishment Tory (David Davis) who resigned to fight a by-election on a single issue.
He'll still be under investigation(s) when he comes back, and he won't be able to blunt the impact of those investigations by claiming that he has beaten all the establishment candidates. This is the best path forward.
This is all from the perspective of people who already oppose Farage, though. Supporters will zealously reframe everything as illegitimate attack. Soft skeptics will notice the establishment's overreach.
I agree this might be a normal political tactic on paper, but that's irrelevant when you're dealing with populism. The entire game is tribal framing. To anyone outside the anti-Farage coalition, this just looks like the establishment closing ranks, and that's more recruiting material for him.
What I can see happening here, at best, is maybe Farage stepping away if the pressure gets too much. But then you risk him getting replaced by a more angry figurehead who will use Farage's downfall as evidence of the "hatred and dirty politics" of the establishment.
> This is all from the perspective of people who already oppose Farage, though
Actually, you seem to be the one ignoring data out of partisan prejudice. The polls are quite clear Farage's shady finances are damaging both him and Reform.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/12/farage-slump...
OK but what I am telling you is that this has actually damaged Farage's standing in his own party and among his own supporters. There's actual evidence for this.
And I presented that scenario in the form Farage understands it. Remember: he literally started this.
If Farage steps down — he's done it before, and I agree that there is a very good chance he does so before the election — then Reform is finished. There is nobody else, even though a few Reform people like to excitedly tell you that Zia Yusuf could do it.
It's the same with Trump: who is going to take Trump's mantle with the same authority when he goes? Nobody.
But in the UK, the chances of a populist party appearing at the fringes and seizing real power is very much held back by the way our system works. Farage is a unicorn; incredibly rare. Even the Tory party would have difficulty seizing back populism for the next decade or two.
And there is no establishment "overreach" here at all. Farage is a democratically elected MP who is being investigated by the parliament he joined for things any other MP would be investigated for. He could just sit and wait for that to be done, because he's an MP regardless and the people who ultimately judge whether he keeps his job are his own constituents anyway. If political parties choose not to play his game on his own terms and timescales, that is a decision for each of them.
His zealots are already seen asking where the Count is "getting his money from", and implying that he is an "establishment deep-state plant".
But he's a bin, and it's his seventh election. You can't exactly ask questions like "where is a man pretending to be a garbage can getting the £100 filing fee from" without making yourself look incredibly silly. Everyone but the most extreme cultists can see that, even his own regular supporters.
You can't fight a bin. It's like wrestling with a pig: you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. The real question is: is Farage's support strong enough to secure an overwhelming victory against the get-rid-of-Farage candidate without actually campaigning?
I think you are right that the issue is tribal framing.
The question is whether satire will puncture that.
Farage's supporters will be trying as hard as possible to paint Binface as a lefty establishment figure- but satire gives you an oportunity to reframe the debate.
Take the 5 million quid - the defence is it's a gift and who wouldn't take it if offered?
Binface can lean into that - rather than say it's terrible etc - he can say - yes I'd like a bit of that - and ask Farage how he can also get such a donation?
Such a question is in effect asking 'what do I need to do to get a 5 million donation' - which is the same as asking what Nigel did for it.
But it's more difficult to answer with 'none of your business' or I did nothing - implying Binface is equally likely to get it.
But perhaps I'm being over-optimistic.
They are playing, though!
If Farage wins, things continue exactly as they were: Farage the MP of Clacton, being investigated for undeclared financial gifts. With no serious counter-candidates, even getting 99% of the votes would be completely meaningless.
If Farage loses, well, he'll have lost to a bin, meaning his political career would be finished.
And anything besides a massive victory would only hurt Farage. Prior to this he was seen as a likely future Prime Minister. If he gets a 55/45 victory against a bin in a constituency which heavily favors his party, who would ever take him serious?
If the other parties contested the election, they would've legitimized his stupid "I'm getting a mandate from the people" move, automatically making it way more of a mess if his undeclared financial gifts turned into being expelled from the House.
The only winning move is not to play. The other parties know this, and by treating the Count as a completely legitimate candidate the media are guaranteeing this.
It's not a collapse of political opposition. The political opposition are simply not allowing Farrage to dictate the narrative here.
Whilst under investigation for undeclared funding, Farrage is trying to legitimise himself by resigning and having an electorate re-elect him at the expense of the tax payer. The mainstream parties have, understandably refused to play ball, leaving him to regain his existing position uncontested.
But, and this is the bit we are celebrating, Count Binface, a satirical figure, is standing against him, ridiculing him and highlighting in the media the whole selfish situation. This is a backfire for Farrage, as it has nationally pissed on his selfish legitimisation parade.
It's not that populists aren't facing opposition - it's that Farage resigned and said he'd be running in the by-election his resignation caused. He is using the by-election as a political stunt to try and get ahead of an incoming scandal - but by the opposition not running against him, he can't say that his mandate from the electorate is clear, and his only actual opponent is a (well spoken) bin.
Any amount of votes Binface gets is a deep embarrassment to Farage! Binface is just pointing at the farce that Farage has created, and undermining him in a particularly British way.
I think the strategy in leaving Farage to only face Binface is that win or loose it makes Farage look like an idiot. He wanted to get credibility back by getting re-elected after the recent scandal and this binface thing robs him of that.
I think the special case of the totally unnecessary by-election is important here. I would not expect the other parties not to contest the general election. I don't like the "X is an attempt to distract from Y" framing, but this really is a distraction from the "sudden revelation" that Farage has really dodgy financing.
Also, Farage is the ultimate "establishment" candidate. He would be the same level of obscurity as Tommy Robinson or Restore if he didn't have a regular seat on BBC Question Time. All of his money comes from a small number of rich donors. He's appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment in a constituency that has hardly any immigrants.
There is no opposition in this round because it is a total farce initiated by Farage. It takes two to tango and no one else (other than Count Binface) is dancing Farage's Doofus Dance.
If Farage wins, he will face the inquiry he is attempting to escape by pulling this stunt (in a summer where the WC is happening, Farage managed to score the biggest and most protracted own-goal in the history of own-goals). An effect of the inquiry is that it will trigger _another_ election in which the other parties are expected to field a candidate.
I'm not from the UK so I don't know the proper terms/political procedure but if you read up on the whole situation beyond the jokes, what I said above is a good rough outline. This is hardly the death of opposition to populists.
Specifically in this case, Farage is a celebrity populist; he is not likely to lose, and the political system (and the wider British public who oppose him) are conscious of not dancing to his tune.
He wanted this election on his own terms; he called it, to give himself a chance to bloviate and to claim that the very serious allegations against him are an establishment fit-up (when they are not).
The reality is that the outcome of those investigations has the potential to lead to another by-election (because only 10% of constituents need to sign a recall petition). Farage’s calculation is that if he triggers the by-election and wins before those investigations conclude, he can blunt the chance of a recall petition succeeding (and build some national case for Reform)
The response of the major parties to just decide not to play his game on his terms has some precedent. This is not an abdication of their responsibility, it is exercise of it.
More importantly this outcome is funny, broadly understood as a fair response, and is utterly humiliating to Farage, who is thin-skinned and easily enraged. He would have won against any candidate any party could rustle up at short notice and he knows it. He will still have his victory but nothing changes except that he is diminished.
The Ipsos poll cited in the first image was a survey of 1,000 uk citizens 18+. It wasn't a poll of 1,000 people in Clacton. It's meaningless and I'm surprised they used it.
It isn't meaningless, it gives a (very) rough estimate of how the general population feels about it. Coming in third in a two-person poll is... quite rough.
You also have to keep in mind that it isn't about Clacton. It is a city of no importance. Farage chose to run there in 2024 because he expected it'd be a slam-dunk for him - and it was. He does literally nothing for the people of Clacton, it is just his entry into the House.
On the other hand, Farage is trying to establish himself as the major right-wing option. If he wants to become Prime Minister he'll need to have nationwide support - and the Ipsos poll is a pretty decent indication of how the nation feels about Farage right now.
A contest between on one side a comedian with joke policies and on the other side Count Binface!
If you are interested in a pretty good political discussion - this is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV5E2UYwUkk
One of his policies is to build 1 affordable house - which is brilliant.
At least one! We might even get two.
In case you're wondering why there's so much interest in the Count, the reason is his opponent.
Nigel Farage is a populist gobshite. He's in trouble because he refused to declare a £5 million donation from a crypto billionaire, Christopher Harborne. MPs are expected to declare any "gifts" that might sway them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_UK_financial_allegation...
After Farage took that "gift", he became an MP and lobbied the Bank of England to adopt a stablecoin that Christopher Harborne was heavily invested in.
Recently, the press found years and years of undeclared dodgy donations to Farage and his party, many from convicted fraudster "Posh" George Cottrell, author of book How to Launder Money.
Sleazy MPs who take bribes are investigated, can be reprimanded, can be recalled by their constituents.
Farage is trying to get ahead of the curve by resigning now, then competing in the election for his successor. He's hoping to pause the investigation into his finances, and wants to pull the populist move of "The People support me!"
Every major party sees this trap and have boycotted Nigel's self-election. They'll fight him in the next election, after he's recalled for sleaze.
Effectively he is standing unopposed... except for the joke candidates. And who better a joke candidate than a quick-witted comedian in a ridiculous outfit? £500 to rip the piss out of Farage for a month is a bargain.
The thing populists hate most is being ridiculed and not taken seriously. It really pricks their ego. Will Nigel spend summer arguing with a bin? Will Nigel lose to a bin? That's for the people of Clacton to decide.
£3-6 croissants are a travesty and £1.10 price capping is the most sensible thing I've heard for decades. And that hand dryer is in an AWFUL position
More seriously, he actually seems like a decent guy. This is a really touching and personal history which gets into his motivations and his life https://archive.ph/61Ecw
He doesn't happen to have an American twin? Would be urgently needed.
(In the US, his name would translate as Count Trash Can-Face or Count Garbage Can-Face.)
Same in the UK. If you look at his pic, you’ll see it’s literal!
Binny McBin Face.
Or in Massachusetts, Count Barrelface.
No. The point of the comment was to clarify the confusion that you are reinforcing.
A "bin" in BrEn does not mean a generic container: it generally means a receptacle for waste, refuse, or garbage.
"Bin," generally, isn't British English. We have recycling bins, for instance.
Yes but in the USA a "bin" usually refers to a generic category of containers, often rectangular. A "recycling bin" is a specific kind of bin, and it's almost always qualified as such. If you called it a "bin" out of context people would be confused or think you're trying to be British or something.
Yeah, I'd say it exists in a linguistic grey-zone where understanding is a lot more common than usage.
Practically no American ever calls a garbage can a "bin" (though like you say we do have a concept of generic 'bins') but a lot of Americans will immediately know what you mean if you say it, sort of like "flat" and "apartment" (nobody calls them flats in the US, but many people know what you're talking about if you say it).
> isn't British English.
Eh? Most commonly uttered words in UK English: "Have you put the bins out?"
He means not exclusively British English
Then he should probably say that.
Almost no words are exclusively "British English" as it is the original and oldest dialect of the language.
Both are equally old ;)
JK ... but American English retain many older features of English which British English since modified.
The trashcan on modern macOS in Britain is called the "bin" and I hate it - somehow it feels wrong.
Even the favicon is great!
With this much memery he would probably win the presidential election in the US.
Nah, I think Americans are more into cruelty as entertainment.
Is this the British equivalent of the American Vermin Supreme?
Kinda, yes,
However there is a larger tradition of comedy candidates in the UK than in the USA. See also the Monster Raving Loony Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_...
And this sketch from Monty Python in 1970 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVI5ZOT5QEM
[flagged]
Count Binface went to Oxbridge apparently, so if he gets in, he'll still be part of the establishment. Not really sure he's any wiser about working class life than Nigel Farage (being part of the Galactic aristocracy doesn't help much either.)
However, I did like his suggestions to build at least one affordable home and rename HS2, the FFS1.
damage control in full swing already?
I mean better Oxbridge than being just a high-school graduate like Farage is, who got his first job as a trader thanks to daddy's connections in the City.
Reddit Moment
Farage is polarising. I think there is a genuine chance that tactical voters can rally behind a candidate who feasibly can get the votes. However, you have to remember this is an election for a representative of a constituency. The people in Clacton are voting for a candidate that will represent their needs in parliament. I don't think the left are going to vote for Binface as although it would be the biggest FU in history, the antidote to Farage-ism, it won't offer them change in their area - and won't give them a voice in parliament, which Farage has done.
Farage has not given them a voice in parliament. He’s barely been in the country.
He’s spoken 41 times in parliament in 2 years, almost entirely on national issues.
My own back bench opposition MP (lib dem) has spoken over 400 times. The next constituency over (Tory) has spoken 1000 times, both raising local issues.
Binface would give Clacton a far higher profile. A literal bin would.
There’s no other candidate those anti Farage could vote for.
I just want to preface this by saying he's a repugnant, awful human being and potentially is going to be one of the worst things that ever happens to the UK.
But... that's exactly what people in Clacton voted him in for. He was never going to represent their local interests - I think a lot of the locals realise that now. They care more about "immigration" and race-baiting than they care about the pot holes on their roads. This is the reality of modern politics.
My comment was more about the people who will never vote Reform, than the people that did.
Except 55% of these that voted in 2024 did not vote for him
That's the British voting system for you :)
Prior art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface
Actually the prior art is Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Looney Party[1] who started in 1963.
As a former Monster Raving Looney I have decided to defect to the Binface Party based on their sensible policies on the hand dryer in the Uxbridge Crown & Treaty pub.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screaming_Lord_Sutch
Lord Buckethead is much older than Boaty McBoatface.
Better prior art [1], in an actual election.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Drummond
Also members of the Original Monster Raving Loony Party, who have achieved multiple seats, including Mayor of Ashburton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_...
Still no: "Lord Buckethead" first stood in 1987, some 15 years before the "H'Angus the monkey" campaign in 2002.
Nope. Several decades later.
The "Boaty McBoatface" campaign was from 2016. "Lord Buckethead" first appeared in 1987, some 30 years earlier.
I thought that's the prior art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waldo_Moment
Neither Binface nor Farage have any answers for the problems the UK appears to be facing; this election feels like something specifically designed to create material for viewers of Have I Got News For You[0] to laugh at.
From The Atlantic: "The [UK's] output per person is now only just above that of Mississippi, America’s poorest state - and that slight lead is only achieved thanks to London. Outside the capital, in places where tourists do not visit, living standards fall well below Mississippi’s"[1]
According to the IEA, the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices of the 25 IEA countries reporting data.[2]
Hinkley Point C is routinely described as the most expensive nuclear power station ever built, four times the average for South Korean plants. Guaranteed pricing originally £92.50/MWh (2012 prices), now equivalent to around £133/MWh (2025 prices), inflation-linked for 35 years...[3]
HS2 is consistently ranked as the most expensive high-speed rail on the planet.[4]
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mkw3
[1] How Britain Became as Poor as Mississippi - A case study in self-sabotage https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/07/uk-productivity...
[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68da5e91dadf7...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hs2-reset
I think you make some good points, but as a UK citizen, there probably some extra context 'd want people to know.
Firstly, the Farage/Binface byelection is a result of Farage being investigated for breaking laws designed to stop political corruption. He's called an early local election to "let the people decide". Even if voted in, if he's found accountable for those charges, he'll have to call another election. So all major parties are staying out of this one, but would likely stand in a second. Essentially what I'm saying is, this isn't a normal local election by any means so I wouldn't use it to talk generally about political parties offering to the UK.
I would also urge against using HS2/electricity-prices/Hinkley to make a " therefore the UK is in dire trou me". There all quite different: Hinkely and HS2 are certainly managed and unpopular, but they're individual projects - a lot of the UK issues are caused by much more complex, larger economic problems than government projects being mismanaged.
And then on the energy price, the UK has really expensive energy. One reason for that is because there's a huge amount of invesent in renewables right now, and the investment is paid for by the consumer. I'm not arguing this is necessarily good, but it's a political choice to prioritise more expensive electricity today, with the goal of cheaper / more secure energy tomorrow. It's a lot more complex than just "the UK is cooked because it has expensive energy".
Sorry for the minor essay! I think the UK's economic situation is serious, but also very interesting (it's possibly the most extreme global example of financialisation backfiring), complex and worth understanding!
> Outside the capital, in places where tourists do not visit, living standards fall well below Mississippi’s
The article appears to treat nominal GDP per capita as a measure of living standards, which is obviously nonsense. Rather than looking at things like the Human Development Index or World Happiness Report, in both of which the UK outranks the US (incl. all the non-Mississippi states).
Residents consistently reporting higher life satisfaction and happiness likely speaks more to their living standards than non-purchasing power parity adjusted GDP per capita.
It is baffling how a sentence this uninformed made it into the article.
In what ways do you expect a candidate for MP for Clacton to address the various calamities you mention?
Same way that any candidate would I guess. It's how the Westminster system works; members advocate for their constituency within a broader parliamentary system.
I don't know what specifically is wrong with the US-centric numbers you are citing, but I know they don't match the lived reality of the UK, which compares favourably with not only Mississippi but with the US as a whole.
[dead]
While I haven't been to Mississippi I have spent the last 6 months driving around the UK on a working holiday, and this sounds like a massive stretch. Free healthcare might be helping.
Why is the life expectancy for Mississippi significantly lower than the UK? https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/compare/mississippi-usa/unit...
>Outside the [UK’s] capital, in places where tourists do not visit, living standards fall well below Mississippi’s
That is so sad and even somewhat shocking.
Actual rage bait.
I don’t even have the energy to get into how cherry-picked this entire post is. Bad and inaccurate comparisons, false tourism claims, lame tropes, ignoring extreme and amazing progress while pointing at why some numbers may appear how they appear.
This election was designed to distract from investigations into Nigel Farage’s funding. The reason Binface is getting a lot of attention is because none of the major parties are standing, as a ‘fuck you’ to Farage, to make his distraction look all the more ludicrous.
So no, neither of them has a plan, but that doesn’t really matter because neither of them will be running the country after the election either. It’s a bielection for a single seat. Running the country will be down to the new Labour PM and his team. As such the rest of your post is fairly irrelevant.
I think Farage and Reform/Restore have a solution to this:
From The Atlantic: "The [UK's] output per person is now only just above that of Mississippi, America’s poorest state - and that slight lead is only achieved thanks to London. Outside the capital, in places where tourists do not visit, living standards fall well below Mississippi’s"
This is what happens when you import low-skilled migrants (and their extended families) who are a net drain on the economy.
I think they're also against Net Zero, which is causing all the high energy costs.
Net Zero isn't what sets the price of UK electricity generation.
Marginal pricing means that gas sets the price.
At time of writing, gas is only generating 6.9% of the UK's electricity. https://grid.iamkate.com/
Net Zero is not the cause of high energy costs in the UK. The cause is international al energy costs, a way of setting the benchmark price per unit against the most expensive power, and tax.
Clean, renewable power is a way out of the mess.
"What costs make up an electricity bill?" from the House of Commons Library is worth a read[0], it reveals the typical breakdown of a household electricity bill in the UK:
Wholesale electricity costs make up 28.7% of the bill
Carbon taxes make up 6.4%
[0] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
"While gas accounts for 93% of wholesale electricity prices, those wholesale prices are only around 40% of bills. Ofgem’s breakdown of bills includes the costs of the Capacity Market (“CM”) and Contracts for Difference (“CfD”) within wholesale costs and not policy costs. Policy costs include the Renewables Obligation (“RO”), Feed in Tariffs (“FiT”), Energy Company Obligation (“ECO”), Warm Homes Discount (“WHD”), Green Gas Levy (“GGL”), Network Charging Compensation Scheme (“NCCS”) and Assistance for Areas with High Electricity Distribution Costs (“AAHEDC”). Moving CM and CfD costs from wholesale to policy costs would reduce the share of wholesale costs in the final bill to 42% and increase policy costs to 14%."
"Prior to 2006, the margin between retail and wholesale electricity prices was broadly stable at 3.88 – 4.79 p/kWh with an average of 4.23 p/kWh (2006 money). Had this margin been maintained in the subsequent years ie the costs of the energy transition not been added to bills, households would have saved £130 billion in 2006 money (£218 billion in today’s money). In contrast, some estimates suggest that the UK spent an additional £75 billion as a result of the 2021-23 gas crisis.
So despite what people say about high gas prices being responsible for high electricity prices, this was only true for late 2021-23 – for most of the past 25 years, something other than gas prices has been driving electricity prices higher."
https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-afford...
How do international high energy costs single out the UK and make our energy costs the highest?
>>Clean, renewable power is a way out of the mess.
Yes, can't wait until it exists.
> How do international high energy costs single out the UK and make our energy costs the highest?
Because of the marginal energy pricing scheme in use, which pays for all generation as if it were the most expensive. That and taxes etc. The UK energy market needs reform, blaming the Net Zero effort is ... well it's just wrong.
And paying people to not generate electricity
But essentially there no countries with high renewables and low energy cost: https://nypost.com/2025/05/07/opinion/cheap-solar-and-wind-i...
An opinion piece in an American right-wing tabloid? That's surely the end of the argument then!
"By Bjorn Lomborg"
Even less reason to read it then, well known as an unreliable source.
Haha. Yeah OK mate.
He's better described as a self serving political populist with this being one of several interesting chapters:
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborgie. He skated on a dishonesty charge as he was deemed to be to inept to know just how badly he was misrepresenting data.
To be honest I thought he'd faded away, but it's interesting to see his shit still being dragged up to rot in the sun again.
The finding was annulled.
He actually thinks global warming is happening and man made. He just demonstrates that the cure in some cases is worse than the disease.
You’re not allowed to celebrate how prepared for the future the UK is over nearly every other country in the world. You must get angry about current high energy costs due to the investments and war that are happening, just ignore anything positive.
In fairness, it is very difficult to look at the last 16 years of British governments and hold the belief "these people have well prepared the UK for the future".
I agree there’s no shortage of misses and embarrassments, though I would argue there’s still a lot to be proud of. A lot of progress has been made - especially when you zoom out and compare to peers. The HN crowd these days seems to have it out for Europe, and only sees headlines about doom and gloom in policy.
If anything, the past 16 years has taught me personally that everyone in the UK wants change - too much change possibly.
The UK was the first G7/G20 to cut carbon emissions by 50%, we just ranked [0] 3rd globally large in part to setting up for the future with green energy.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jul/08/climate-...
Ed Miliband has been doing really well as Energy Secretary, "overseeing a boom in clean energy investment, driving jobs and growth" (1)
But he hasn't been there for very many of the last 16 years.
1) https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/miliband-bids-t...
A serious candidate could probably defeat Farage but they are hiding behind this Binface thing and present it as a smart move. Cowards.
They probably couldn't. Farage is in very safe seat. He wouldn't have called the election otherwise.
You don't vote for a comedy character to win an election in a safe seat, because they won't.
You vote for Binface because you think Nige is wasting money on a pointless box ticking distraction instead of spending the money locally to fix things.
Farage hasn't got much of a sense of humour but if massive majority gets smaller he might spend more time in the area and less time in America on speaking engagements.
I think you wildly misunderstand the situation.
If what you think is true, why did Farage step down call the election in the first place?
It seems rather clear it was a PR stunt he knows he'll win in this district, which lets him distract from his own corruption scandals.
But if you think there is some other reason I'd be interesting to hear the theory.
A joke candidate with a bincan head has about 15-20% odds of winning this election. A serious candidate from a real party could have a real chance of defeating Farage but seems noone was brave enough. Better play it safe, take no risks and run away from fights. Thats the way forward for UK.
Why bother when they'll more likely than not run it again in a few months anyway?
No, better to make him look like a corrupt loser running up against a guy in a bin costume. And it works!
Count binface is NOT funny.