Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 11 Nov 2019
NIGEL FARAGE HAS announced that his Brexit Party will not run any candidates in constituencies where the Conservatives currently hold seats.
The u-turn will be seen as a major boost for Boris Johnson’s party, with Farage saying that he wanted to ensure that “Remainer parties” don’t have a majority in parliament to force a second referendum.
Farage had previously stated that his party would field over 600 candidates across the UK’s 650 constituencies.
Farage has been attempting to build a “Leave alliance” but said today that those efforts had “come to nought”.
“The Brexit party will not contest the 317 seats the Conservatives won at the last election,” Farage announced.
But what we will do is concentrate our total effort into all of the seats that are held by the Labour Party, who have completely broken their manifesto pledge in 2017 to respect the result of the referendum, and we will also take on the rest of the Remainer parties, we will stand up and we will fight them all.
Farage say that the choice to fight against Labour seats and not Conservative ones is because of Labour’s “complete portrayal of 5 million of their own voters”.
“So in a sense, we now have a Leave alliance. It’s just that we’ve got it unilaterally.
We’ve decided ourselves that we absolutely have to put country before party and take the fight to Labour, ” Farage said.
The Brexit Party MEP also said that polling conducted by his own party suggested that if the the party stood in Conservative areas it could split the Leave vote and lead to “quite a large number of Liberal Democrat gains”.
“The real concern about that is what would happen if the Remainer parties could get between 325 seats in parliament? Well, we know what would happen. There’d be a second referendum. And so that has been a very real concern for me,” he said.
Farage, who was opposed to Johnson’s Brexit deal, has now suggested that he supports passing the deal in parliament.
“I have to say that last night, for the first time I saw something, since that Brussels summit, that actually was optimistic. I saw Boris Johnson on a video saying: ‘We will not extend the transition period beyond the end of 2020′,” Farage said.
Despite saying he has issues of “trust” around Johnson’s delivery, Farage added:
“At least it was a clear, unequivocal statement from him that we’re not going on beyond the end of 2020.”
Reacting to the news on the campaign trail, Johnson welcomed Farage’s move but denied it was any kind of deal between the two parties.
“I’m glad that there’s a recognition that there’s only one way to get Brexit done and that’s to vote for the Conservatives,” Johnson told reporters.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that the move demonstrated that Johnson and Farage are in cahoots.
“One week ago Donald Trump told Nigel Farage to make a pact with Boris Johnson. Today, Trump got his wish. This Trump alliance is Thatcherism on steroids and could send £500 million a week from our NHS to big drugs companies. It must be stopped,” Corbyn tweeted.
Last week, Trump had gone on Farage’s radio show to say that Farage and Johnson working together would be “an unstoppable force.”
The NHS is a key election issue amid claims that US drug companies would have greater access to the UK health system as part of a post-Brexit trade deal.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If it passes, then imagine when it gets to the stage where if you’re 40 years of age, you’ll be able to buy cigarettes, but someone aged 39 won’t be allowed to! Will you have to produce your birth cert when purchasing? It’s going to be impossible to enforce. Even New Zealand, where the idea originated, eventually accepted this and scrapped the legislation…
@William Tallon:
@William Tallon: Impossible to enforce? You produce ID to prove your age, similar to what happens today to prove you’re over 18. Pubs and bars in America still require ID to enter the premises, even if you’re middle aged. It’s not as crazy a suggestion as you’re making out
@Jason Memail: Errr… Yes, it is crazy! I doubt if anyone in the future is seriously going to be asking a grown adult in their 30s, 40s, or 50s for evidence of their year of birth when they’re looking to purchase cigarettes. It’s totally unworkable, and I suspect, will end up being totally ignored over time by both members of the public and the retail sector. That, of course, is assuming the government ever actually brings it into force, something which I think is highly unlikely…
Hey kids! Want to pay a small fortune to faceless multinational corporations and the taxman and get nothing in return? Start smoking! Apparently it’s rebellious…
@Ronan Mc: very good
Some of the aul pipe tobaccos had wonderful aromas. Does anyone remember Balkan Sobraine ?
Proper order
No place anymore for the filthy smokes they stink to high heaven.
@Sean Money: Let’s ban drugs too.
@Roy Dowling: well they make you sick and are very smelly. Surely a ban is correct.
My grandmother died, I don’t need another nanny!
Sounds good, but ya would wonder…I don’t smoke or drink, so don’t pay a stupid tax…
People should have the right to smoke, drink,eat fatty food, drink coke etc etc…
But don’t expect me to feel sorry for you when you phone Joe duffy giving out about the health service, while you yourself are clogging it up with self inflicted problems…
Give up smokes and get decent health insurance…52 x 60 euro on pigs would get one he’ll of cover
@hi from heaven: but why inflict the longer waiting list on people who dont smoke. Surely trying to get rid of smoking in its entirety would benefit the health system. I’m pretty sure the tax paid by smokers isn’t comparable to the money it costs to treat long term smoker related diseases
@Roy Dowling: well while we’re at it…….
@Roy Dowling: Why not, prohibition has proved so effective?!! Such shite coming from our governors now it’s so bloody transparent. They take us for fools and we let them, nay re-elect them. It’s on us that they lie so easily, we let them!
@Roy Dowling: It hardly makes sense to suggest banning anything “to benefit the health system”. There’s no provision to ring fence any funds for healthcare and zero guarantee that this is anyone’s priority. It’s an excuse that can only boost gangland profiteering. If alcohol in excess is as dangerous as you imagine, none of those alcoholics will live to claim their pensions. They’re not causing medical staff to protest about working conditions to the point of leaving Ireland. People need treatment and help, not scapegoating.
@Paul Conlon: the tax may or may not cover it, but don’t forget it is usually the lower paid people who smoke and definitely less likely to give them up as an adult..
So alot of money is saved through these people dying younger as they would be a total burden on health care, housing and pensions that would have to be provided by the state..
@hi from heaven:
You won’t be going anywhere near heaven with a comment like that. Poor people are a burden ?
@hi from heaven: do the world a favour and STFU!
I don’t drink or smoke, but I drink loads of coffee. I am forever being told by doctors to cut down, as I have sleep issues. But I don’t want it banned – coffee shops are my life!
What the fk is going on with our governors, is there an election soon?
@Chutes: Are you in a prison that you keep squawking about “our governors”? This article is about the UK for a start. Different jurisdiction.
Criminal gangs/black market operators in the UK must be rubbing their hands at this proposal. Yet another potential revenue stream for them to exploit.
Education around the dangers of smoking should be the focus not implementing a futile ban on the sales of cigarettes. Historically, prohibition has been shown to fail in it’s objectives and I don’t expect this ban will be any different.
@Conrad Stapletwin: Good to hear that someone is moderate and reasonable. Of course gangs are going to profit from prohibition.
While I applaud the sentiment, health and such benefits, I would worry about the trend and what may come next.
No fat/sugar products to be sold to overweight/fat/obese consumers?
If we let governments decide rather than taking personal responsibilities then we’re signing choice making freedoms away.
Not sure where it will stop but am worried about where it starts.
Ever thought that as a parent you have no control over school meals.
While this can be a blessing for some kids, I would not allow it for my children.
Smoking weed included?
@Fintan Stack: Weed doesn’t need to be smoked to be consumed/enjoyed. Vapes have completely removed the need for burning harmful carcinogens when consuming cannabis.
Didn’t realise it was overturned in New Zealand. Probably was a good idea to begin with. It’s like George Orwellian versus the cancer industry .. tobacco lobby is EVIL ENOUH SAID
Again if you ban something, it should be for everyone
@Dominic Leleu: Rationing might be a more balanced response. Even in US States where alcohol was frowned on for various reasons – and not all good reasons either – a normal amount was still available for those who chose to drink etc. Legally.
If only the UK could ban Tories.
Anyone who breaks this law should be burnt at the stake!
have your say