Nigel Farage has awkward encounter with Chinese Dragon live on This Morning
Nigel Farage had an awkward encounter with a Chinese Dragon live on This Morning.
The Reform MP appeared on the popular ITV daytime show on Wednesday (29 January), to discuss his political life with hosts Cat Deeley and Ben Shepherd.
The show was also marking Chinese New Year, with 2025 being the year of the snake.
The politician was sat on the This Morning sofa as a Chinese Dragon made its entrance.
The Reform MP looked somewhat bewildered, before laughing at the dragon at the side of him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer focused on grooming victims not ‘grandstanding', says Reeves
After initially resisting pressure to implement a full probe, the Prime Minister said he had read 'every single word' of an independent report into child sexual exploitation by Baroness Louise Casey and would accept her recommendation for the investigation. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is set to address Parliament on Monday about the findings of the review. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described the move as a 'welcome U-turn', while Kemi Badenoch called on him to apologise for 'six wasted months'. Asked whether the Prime Minister had changed his mind about the idea of a national inquiry, the Chancellor told the Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme: 'I think Keir Starmer, our Prime Minister, has always been really focused, as he was when he was director of public prosecutions, on the victims and not grandstanding. 'But actually doing the practical things to ensure that something like this never happens again, but also to ensure that the victims of this horrific abuse over many, many years is got to grips with and that people have answers to their questions.' Earlier this year, the Government dismissed calls for a public inquiry, saying its focus was on putting in place the outstanding recommendations already made in a seven-year national inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay. Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride criticised the Government's 'very late' decision to launch the inquiry, and claimed it had only come after pressure from the Tories. Shadow chancellor of the Exchequer Mel Stride arrives at BBC Broadcasting House (James Manning/PA) Sir Mel told BBC One's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: 'It's a very late decision – it should have happened far, far earlier. 'We've been calling for this for many, many months.' He accused Sir Keir of previously dismissing concerns from senior Tory figures. 'Kemi Badenoch, Chris Philp and others have been derided by the Prime Minister for hopping on some kind of far-right bandwagon, dog-whistle politics and the rest of it,' Sir Mel said. 'That was the wrong response. This is just another example of the Prime Minister being pressurised by us into U-turning.' The inquiry will be able to compel witnesses to give evidence, and it is understood that it will be national in scope, co-ordinating a series of targeted local investigations. Baroness Louise Casey (Kirsty O'Connor/PA) Speaking to reporters travelling with him on his visit to Canada on Saturday, the Prime Minister said: 'I have never said we should not look again at any issue. 'I have wanted to be assured that on the question of any inquiry. 'That's why I asked Louise Casey who I hugely respect to do an audit. 'Her position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry over and above what was going on. 'She has looked at the material she has looked at and she has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen. 'I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation. 'That is the right thing to do on the basis of what she has put in her audit.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
British politics is in a loop and it's Farage's vision that's stuck on repeat
As so often happens, what Nigel Farage said on a recent visit to south Wales deserved endless pejoratives. It was ludicrous, condescending, half-baked, opportunistic and plain stupid. Even he didn't seem to know exactly what he wanted. At a Reform UK press conference in Port Talbot, he seemed to make the case for reopening the town's steel-making blast furnaces, before admitting that 'it might be easier to build a new one', though he also acknowledged that it would 'cost in the low billions' to do so. But he had even more dizzying visions of reopened Welsh mines. 'If you offer people well-paying jobs … many will take them,' said Farage, 'even though you have to accept that mining is dangerous.' The climate crisis, predictably enough, was not worth considering. He also did not offer any opinions about coal-related issues such as slag heaps, land slips, rivers that run black, and unimaginable underground disasters. When he was asked where new pits might be located, he blithely offered the opinion that it 'comes down to geology'. That is true, up to a point, but he would surely also have to think about the housing developments and business parks that often sit atop all those disused coal seams. The whole thing was – of course – politics on the level of pub bullshit, but Farage and his people presumably knew that. What mattered was the resulting spectacle: Britain's foremost populist proposing to 'reindustrialise' Wales, in the face of entirely reasonable doubts, mockery and outright opposition from voices easily maligned as the usual distant elites. In that sense the visit was a win, repeating a formula that has been working for a very long time. Besides Farage's own enviable political skills, there are obvious reasons for that. The first is to do with the fact that the basic social and economic conditions that fed into the rise of the UK Independence party and the Brexit referendum remain unchanged. It seems, in fact, to be 2016 for ever: Britain is still a country of anaemic growth and productivity, ongoing local austerity, stagnant wages and fear of the future. Those conditions explain people's ever-deepening disdain for mainstream politicians, and their sense that as life constantly goes round in circles, Westminster does not seem able or willing to break the pattern. Every grim rotation, moreover, seems to be accompanied by ever-more extreme manifestations of the country's dysfunctionality. Our passage to a new political era used to be marked by the results of elections and referendums. But of late, it feels as if more vivid proof of where we are heading is provided by civil disturbances. Last year's summer riots were an obvious example. In the same week that saw massed violence in Salford, we have just seen horrific outbreaks of racist violence in the Northern Irish town of Ballymena, and Farage has offered opinions that follow his usual slippery script: 'I just wonder whether it is not a deeper, broader problem we saw something of after Southport last year. You know what? If they'd listened to me, none of this would have happened.' A question not asked enough in political journalism is what life in contemporary Britain feels like. The answer in part comes down to a profound sense of tension and a constant, latent fear that something awful is about to happen. Farage attracts supporters by offering himself as an answer to that feeling – but to those who recoil from him, he is the source of it. Like Donald Trump, that combination makes him a very zeitgeisty politician. So does his presence on social media – which, even if most politicians do not yet understand it, has changed what is required to be a successful public figure even more radically than TV once did. Farage has 1.3 million TikTok followers, as many as every other Westminster politician combined. Particularly since Elon Musk turned Twitter into X, he is regularly cited and praised in the parallel news universe that millions of people now take their information from – full of scurrilous rumours and explanations for events rooted in QAnon-like conspiracies. That ecosystem blurs into the nightmarish version of reality X offers as a kind of mood music, represented by endless videos of violence and hostile altercations between members of the public. All this suits Farage – and Farage-ism – just fine. His key asset is a diagnosis of people's problems that gets simpler and sharper by the week: you are scared and struggling, he and his allies tell the public, because the government spends too much money on foreigners and is full of privileged and snobby people who know nothing of your pain. The Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham recently gave an interview to the centre-left journal Renewal, in which he mused on what effective political communication now entails. The governments led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, he said, operated in 'a world of nuance', but social media 'just ended all of that'. What he said next sounded like a brisk answer to why Farage is winning: our modern means of communication, he said, 'changed politics, and politics hasn't changed enough to reflect that … people want instant opinions from elected representatives. They want authentic opinions'. Six weeks ago I watched Farage do a walkabout in a neighbourhood of Scunthorpe, surrounded by crowds of people jostling to take pictures of him on their phones. Not long after he had been presented with an Airfix tank, he commented that all the attention was 'the benefit of just being real, you know what I mean?' Clearly, just like Boris Johnson in his pomp, a great deal of his persona – the clothes, the pints, every calculated pronouncement – is actually affectation and pretence. But politics is now so low on charisma and the common touch that simply being comfortable in your own skin looks like a kind of spectacular normality. In that sense, Starmer and Labour's other high-ups might be Farage's ideal adversaries. With the possible exception of Angela Rayner, they are mostly bloodless and hesitant. They cling on to a presentational style that is 20 years out of date, built around pre-ordained news themes on the proverbial 'grid', set-piece interviews, and complicated and chronically abstract rhetoric: 'missions', 'renewal', the constant chase for growth. Of late, the prime minister has tried his own occasional approximations of Farage's approach, putting up such blunt and boastful online posts as: 'I've already returned over 24,000 people with no right to be here. And I won't stop there.' But that style rings hollow, because he doesn't have Farage's swaggering confidence nor any understanding of how to bring such directness to the way he talks about Labour's fundamentals: the economy, jobs, public services. There is also something to be said about how the government intends to change the country. After a wasted year, last week's spending review contained a surprising amount of good news, not least on housing. But it was all about the kind of investment that will not start to become visible until 2028 or 2029. Everyday life, it seems, will continue moving in ever-decreasing circles for another three or four years. That is a long time for Farage to carry on making mischief, as he illustrates an aspect of modern Britain too little understood – that, to an extent that vividly illustrates other people's colossal failures, he looks like the only front-rank figure who understands how 21st-century politics actually works. John Harris is a Guardian columnist
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves defends Starmer's delay in launching inquiry into grooming gangs
Rachel Reeves has defended Keir Starmer's decision to launch a national inquiry into historic child sexual exploitation after months of pressure, saying that victims of grooming gangs have always been the government's priority. The chancellor said the prime minister was not concerned with 'grandstanding' and had instead wanted to 'assure himself' that a full public inquiry was necessary. She insisted that ministers had 'never dismissed the concerns of victims', even as Labour previously resisted calls for a wide-ranging investigation. 'I think Keir Starmer … has always been really focused, as he was when he was director of public prosecutions, on victims – not grandstanding,' Reeves told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. 'But actually doing the practical things to ensure that something like this never happens again.' Her remarks follow growing scrutiny over Starmer's past scepticism about holding a national inquiry into the networks responsible for grooming and sexually exploiting hundreds of vulnerable girls in towns including Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford. The prime minister has now said he would accept all of the recommendations published in an earlier review by Lady Casey, including the launch of a national inquiry. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, described the move as a 'welcome U-turn', while the Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, called on him to apologise for 'six wasted months'. Reeves confirmed the move, saying: 'The prime minister pre-empted the publication of the report this week and said that he will accept the recommendations, including for a national inquiry, alongside those local inquiries that have already got going.' The Labour government had been under mounting pressure to shift its position. Senior Tories, Farage, campaigners, some victims' families and Elon Musk were among those arguing that only a statutory inquiry could properly examine the extent of institutional failure across police forces, local councils and prosecutors. Labour MP Dan Carden, of the Blue Labour faction, became the first from his benches to break ranks and publicly call for a national inquiry at the start of the year. He urged the prime minister to 'use the full power of the state to deliver justice'. In January, a Conservative attempt to force a vote on establishing a new national inquiry, via an amendment to the children's wellbeing and schools bill, was rejected by MPs. At the time, Badenoch accused the Labour frontbench of risking the perception of a 'cover-up' by refusing to back the move. Starmer had argued that many reviews had already taken place, and a new national inquiry risked delaying the action demanded by victims. Lady Casey had initially concluded a national inquiry was not required, but changed her position during the course of her rapid review commissioned by No 10. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Pressed on whether Labour had been wrong to oppose an inquiry when in opposition, Reeves said: 'The Conservatives could have done another national inquiry, but they didn't. We've been focused on implementing the recommendations of the Alexis Jay review and other reviews, because there's recommendations that have just been sitting on the table. 'But the prime minister wanted to assure himself he was doing everything that was necessary, which is why he asked Baroness Casey to do this rapid review.' Asked whether ministers would apologise to campaigners who were previously branded alarmist for demanding more action, Reeves refused to be drawn. 'What is the most important thing here? It's the victims,' she told Sky News. 'It's not people's hurt feelings about how they've been spoken about. The most important thing here is the victims of these evil crimes.' The inquiry is not expected to be similar to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA) conducted by Prof Alexis Jay. It is expected to have statutory powers, including giving the inquiry power to launch local investigations, with or without the consent of the respective local authorities.
