Nigel Farage laid out his plans for government with a promise to back the “little man and woman”, end wokery and make Brexit a success.

The Reform UK leader said the army needs to be stripped of political correctness and understand it is “there to kill people”.

He vowed to stop children being “poisoned” about British history in the classroom and said he would reinstall the sense that hard work is the key to success.

In an interview with the Daily Expresso, our new weekday news show, Mr Farage said: “We’re very much on the side of the little man, little woman. There’s five and a half million small businesses in Britain.

“No one has done them any favours, they’ve been punished and penalised for a very, very long time.

“I think in terms of the armed forces we want all the wokery gone, out.

“The army is there to kill people, that’s actually what it’s there for, defend the country and kill people.

“And education needs absolute wholesale reform. I’ve really had enough of our kids in too many schools being poisoned about this country, its history, what it’s all about, and a much bigger emphasis on trades and skills, as opposed to degrees in social sciences, which very often don’t help a person in the workplace.

“There’s just a few little ideas we put out there.

“We also want to reverse the flow of high taxpayers out of Britain. If the very richest people who pay the biggest taxes leave the country, it is everybody else who has got to pay more. “We’ve launched a proposed bill on cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

“One in four people under 30 is involved in that world in some way. Westminster has completely ignored the whole thing.

“We want to bring back manufacturing. I mean, there’s a very, very long list of things that we have campaigned on.

“Now, generally with the public, most of them are too busy living their lives to read every detail.

“They generally identify political parties with one big major cause, and if the one big major cause they identify us with is the immigration issue, firstly, because of the unfairness and potential risk of illegal immigration, risk to women and girls on our streets, risk to national security because we’ve no idea who these young men are, and if they also link us to illegal immigration which has seen a population explosion – I mean, just look at the roads. You can’t move anywhere during the month of August. Look at the housing crisis – so if we’re identified with that and all the knock on effects of that, that’s not a bad thing.”

Asked if Brexit would finally play out how it was supposed to if he wins, Mr Farage replied: “Yes. I think it’s very disappointing. Boris rode off the back of Brexit. He got into Number 10 with a big majority at that election and did nothing with it.

“Now they blamed covid but I’m not sure. I think the establishment governing Tory party, they never believed in it.

“For most of them a damage limitation exercise rather than opportunity. I think the betrayal of people like our fishing communities, to allow the foreign boats access within our six and 12 mile area for another 11 years, it’s just one example of how we could have done so much better with it. And now Starmer is doing everything he can to incrementally reverse Brexit bit by bit.”

Mr Farage said his party conference in Birmingham tomorrow (FRI) will be a “consolidation” of the promises he made at last year’s event.

Hinting at the possibility of big name defections at the gathering, he said there will be “one or two people who join us”.

The conference will be about “learning the lessons” of May 1 when Reform made major gains in English county elections to apply them for polls in Scotland, Wales and London next year.

Mr Farage promised genuine change under a Reform government and vowed to bring about a shift in attitudes in the country.

“On the economics of things, I just think we have to re-instill a sense, particularly among young people, that hard work is the only way you’re going to have any success in life. So attitudinal change is important,” he said.

Mr Farage said Reform, which only has four MPs, will bring in successful leaders in different fields to be ministers.

“I think the types of people that we will choose to be ministers will be different. Will drag in many talents from outside parliament.

“The idea that all you ministers have to be MPs. Why? Well, because we always done it like this.

“Right. So why can’t I do it differently? So we’re thinking about things in a very, very different way.”

Nigel Farage blasts ‘woke’ army for forgetting it’s ‘there to kill people’

Nigel Farage has reignited a fierce debate about Britain’s armed forces after attacking what he describes as the military’s “woke” culture and arguing that the Army must remain focused on its fundamental purpose of defending the country and being prepared for combat.

The Reform UK leader has repeatedly criticised diversity and inclusion policies across the public sector, and the military has become one of his particular targets. In his own political writing, Farage has argued that the Armed Forces have devoted too much attention and money to diversity initiatives at a time when Britain should be concentrating on defence capability.

The provocative phrase attributed to Farage — that “the Army is there to kill people” — is intended to underline his argument that soldiers must be trained and equipped primarily for warfare.

The comments have generated a wider discussion about what modern armed forces are expected to do, how military effectiveness should be measured and whether diversity programmes strengthen or distract from operational readiness.

Farage’s criticism of military priorities

Farage has argued that Britain’s Armed Forces have suffered from years of reduced spending, shrinking personnel numbers and what he considers misplaced priorities.

In a recent statement on military policy, he claimed that diversity and inclusion advisers had been placed throughout the Army and argued that resources devoted to such programmes would be better directed towards defence capability.

His criticism forms part of a much broader political argument.

Reform UK has sought to position itself as a party that would increase defence spending, strengthen the Armed Forces and place greater emphasis on national security.

Farage’s argument is that military personnel should not be distracted by political or cultural programmes when the international security environment is becoming more dangerous.

That argument has particular relevance because Britain’s own Strategic Defence Review has reached a similar conclusion on one central point: the Armed Forces need to restore warfighting readiness.

However, the government’s defence strategy does not frame diversity and operational capability as mutually exclusive.

Britain’s defence strategy

The 2025 Strategic Defence Review states that Britain must move towards “warfighting readiness” and develop a more capable and lethal integrated force. It identifies Russia’s war in Ukraine and wider international instability as evidence of a changed security environment.

The review also says the Armed Forces need greater readiness, improved stockpiles, modern technology and stronger industrial capacity.

Its approach includes drones, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and modernised conventional capabilities.

This is important because modern warfare is no longer defined solely by the number of infantry soldiers available.

The review argues that military effectiveness increasingly depends on technology, information, logistics, industrial capacity and the ability to adapt rapidly.

At the same time, it recognises that highly trained personnel remain fundamental.

The review says the quality of military personnel is a foundational strength of the British Army and calls for stronger recruitment and retention. It also identifies training as a strategic priority for restoring the Army’s readiness to fight.

That provides a more complicated picture than the political argument over “woke” culture might suggest.

The Army’s position on diversity

The British Army openly acknowledges that it operates diversity and inclusion programmes.

Its official policy says the objective is to attract, recruit and retain people from across society while creating an environment in which personnel can contribute effectively. Every Army unit has a trained diversity and inclusion adviser, according to the Army’s official website.

The Army argues that such policies are connected to military effectiveness rather than separate from it.

Its stated position is that an inclusive culture can help the service recruit from a wider pool of talent, retain personnel and benefit from different experiences and perspectives.

That is fundamentally different from Farage’s interpretation.

He sees diversity programmes as an example of institutional priorities being diverted away from defence.

The disagreement is therefore not necessarily about whether Britain needs a strong military. Both sides publicly argue that it does.

The disagreement concerns how that strength should be developed.

What does “combat readiness” mean?

Farage’s comments highlight an important question: what should the primary purpose of a modern Army be?

At the most basic level, an armed force exists to defend the country and, when authorised, conduct military operations.

British soldiers are trained to fight, and the Army’s own values explicitly recognise that personnel may face situations in which they risk serious injury or death. Its official standards state that soldiers must be prepared to confront people who break the law while remaining subject to international law and the laws of armed conflict.

But modern military effectiveness involves considerably more than willingness to use force.

A soldier must be able to operate within a disciplined organisation, follow lawful orders, work with allies and make decisions under extreme pressure.

The Army therefore places considerable emphasis on discipline, professionalism, teamwork and respect for others.

Its official values describe discipline as vital to ensuring that orders are carried out and that soldiers can rely upon one another.

Those principles are not necessarily incompatible with a combat-focused force.

The recruitment challenge

One reason diversity has become part of the defence debate is recruitment.

Britain’s Armed Forces have faced long-term challenges in recruiting and retaining sufficient personnel.

The Strategic Defence Review notes that the Regular Forces are considerably smaller than during the Cold War and says that increasing the number of Regular personnel should be prioritised when funding allows.

The government therefore has an obvious interest in attracting people from a wide range of backgrounds.

Official statistics show that, at 1 April 2026, ethnic-minority personnel excluding white minorities accounted for 12.8 per cent of the UK Regular Forces, or approximately 17,570 personnel.

The Army’s diversity strategy is partly intended to widen the pool of potential recruits.

Supporters of that approach argue that the military cannot afford to exclude talented people because of their background.

Critics such as Farage counter that recruitment should concentrate primarily on military suitability and operational effectiveness.

A debate about culture

The controversy surrounding the Army is therefore also a debate about institutional culture.

Farage has argued that some diversity initiatives represent ideological interference in an organisation whose central responsibility is national defence.

The Army presents the matter differently.

Its official values say soldiers should be judged according to their abilities rather than their race, religion or sex, while also emphasising that discrimination damages teamwork.

The Army’s stated objective is therefore not to replace military standards with diversity considerations.

Instead, it argues that professionalism and inclusion can operate together.

Whether particular diversity programmes achieve that objective is a legitimate subject for political debate.

The important distinction is between questioning individual programmes and suggesting that the entire Armed Forces have abandoned their military purpose.

The official defence strategy provides little evidence for the latter interpretation.

Indeed, the government’s central defence policy is explicitly built around restoring the ability to deter, fight and win alongside allies.

Farage’s wider defence agenda

Farage’s criticism of the Army fits into Reform UK’s broader defence agenda.

He has argued that Britain needs to rebuild its military capability after years of what he regards as underinvestment.

That position overlaps with some of the concerns identified in the government’s Strategic Defence Review.

The review itself describes years of declining investment and warns that Britain’s Armed Forces have experienced a “hollowing out” of important capabilities.

It calls for improvements in ammunition stockpiles, training, technology, infrastructure and personnel.

The difference is largely about political emphasis.

Farage focuses heavily on military purpose, discipline and combat capability while criticising what he sees as ideological priorities.

The government approach combines combat readiness with recruitment, inclusion, technological transformation and a closer relationship between the Armed Forces and wider British society.

The language of war

The phrase “there to kill people” is deliberately blunt.

Military organisations use more formal language, referring to combat power, lethality, deterrence and warfighting capability.

The Strategic Defence Review itself repeatedly uses the concept of a more “lethal” force and says Britain must be capable of deterring and, if necessary, fighting a major conflict with an advanced adversary.

In that sense, Farage’s broader point about the Army being a fighting force is not controversial in itself.

The controversy comes from the language he uses to make it.

Critics can argue that reducing military service to the act of killing ignores the broader responsibilities of soldiers, including deterrence, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, training allies and operating under international law.

Supporters of Farage’s argument may respond that overly cautious language risks obscuring the reality of warfare.

The distinction matters because military forces ultimately exist to deter aggression and, when required, use force under lawful political authority.

A continuing political argument

The debate over Britain’s Army is unlikely to disappear.

The international security environment has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War, and the government has explicitly acknowledged the need to restore warfighting readiness.

At the same time, the Armed Forces must recruit enough personnel to operate increasingly sophisticated equipment and sustain a modern military organisation.

That creates pressure to attract people from across British society.

Farage’s criticism challenges whether the Army has gone too far in pursuing that objective.

The Army’s response, reflected in its official policies, is that diversity, professionalism and combat effectiveness can coexist.

The larger question is therefore how Britain should balance those objectives while rebuilding military capability.

For Reform UK, the answer is greater emphasis on traditional military values, defence spending and warfighting.

For the government and the Army’s current leadership, the answer involves a broader transformation: increased lethality and readiness combined with modern technology, improved recruitment, professional standards and a more representative workforce.

Farage’s remarks have ensured that this debate remains highly visible.

But beneath the provocative language lies a serious question about Britain’s future defence posture: how can the country build Armed Forces that are sufficiently trained, equipped and ready for war while also maintaining the professional standards and recruitment policies needed to sustain them?

That question is likely to remain central as Britain implements the Strategic Defence Review and prepares its Armed Forces for a more uncertain security environment.