Speaking during PMQs, Sir Keir said: “Look at Reform. Mr Farage and his deputy worked alongside someone who took money to spread Putin’s propaganda.

“Whatever their denials, they have serious questions to answer about what they knew.

Sir Keir was responding to a question from John Whitby, Labour MP for Derbyshire Dales, who asked for an update on the Bill.

In a post on X after the Commons session, Mr Farage wrote: “Yet another session of PMQs where I get mentioned but can’t respond. There is not much point me even being there.”

He said: “Every single political party has a bad apple, in fact, many families finish up with a bad apple, these things happen.

“It’s not to downplay the severity of it … but it’s historic.

“You can never, ever guarantee 100% that everyone you meet in your life, you shake hands with in the pub, is a good person.”

Nigel Farage Loses It Over Keir Starmer’s PMQs Attack: ‘Not Much Point!’

Nigel Farage reacted angrily after another Prime Minister’s Questions session in which he was attacked by Keir Starmer but was unable to respond directly from the floor of the House of Commons.

The Reform UK leader complained that he had once again been mentioned during PMQs without being given an opportunity to answer the allegations made against him.

“There is not much point me even being there,” Farage wrote on social media after the session.

His complaint highlighted a growing argument over the role Reform UK should play in Prime Minister’s Questions, particularly given the party’s rising support in national opinion polls.

The dispute also raised a procedural question that has become increasingly relevant as Britain’s political landscape has changed: should the structure of PMQs give greater speaking opportunities to parties according to their current level of public support, or should opportunities continue to reflect parliamentary representation?

Starmer’s attack on Reform

The immediate controversy followed comments from Starmer concerning Reform UK and Russia.

During PMQs on 15 October 2025, the Prime Minister criticised Farage and Reform deputy leader Richard Tice over their previous association with Nathan Gill, Reform’s former leader in Wales.

Starmer said that Farage and Tice had “worked alongside someone who took money to spread Putin’s propaganda”.

He was referring to Gill, who had admitted accepting bribes in return for pro-Russian statements while he was a Member of the European Parliament.

Starmer argued that Reform had serious questions to answer about what its senior figures knew about Gill’s activities. The Prime Minister contrasted what he described as “Kremlin cronies” with Labour’s approach to national renewal.

The remarks were politically significant because Reform has consistently rejected suggestions that it is sympathetic to Vladimir Putin or Russian interests.

Farage has repeatedly described himself as supportive of Ukraine’s right to defend itself while arguing that Britain should pursue a different approach to the war and foreign policy.

Farage’s complaint

Farage’s frustration was not primarily that Starmer had criticised him.

His complaint concerned his inability to answer.

PMQs gives the Prime Minister substantial opportunities to respond to questions from MPs, while individual backbench MPs generally depend on being selected through the ballot system known as the “shuffle”.

The Guardian reported that Farage had asked only a small number of questions during the previous year compared with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey.

Theo Bertram of the Social Market Foundation argued that this created a mismatch between Reform’s polling strength and its opportunities at PMQs. He suggested that if speaking opportunities were allocated according to opinion-poll support rather than parliamentary representation, Farage would have been given substantially more opportunities to question the Prime Minister.

That argument does not necessarily mean the current parliamentary rules are unfair.

PMQs is fundamentally based on parliamentary procedure rather than national opinion polling.

But Reform’s rise has exposed a tension between the traditional structure of Westminster and a rapidly changing electoral environment.

A question of parliamentary representation

The problem is straightforward.

Reform had only a small number of MPs at the time, while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had much larger parliamentary groups.

As a result, their leaders and MPs had considerably more opportunities to participate in Commons debates.

Farage therefore faced an unusual situation.

His party could be performing strongly in national opinion polls while he remained relatively constrained in the Commons because Reform had comparatively few MPs.

This distinction between electoral support and parliamentary representation is at the heart of his complaint.

Supporters of Reform argue that a party attracting significant public support should receive greater opportunities to explain its policies and respond to criticism.

Critics can respond that parliamentary procedures are based on elected MPs and established rules rather than fluctuating opinion polls.

Both principles can exist simultaneously.

The Nathan Gill controversy

The specific subject of Starmer’s attack was particularly sensitive for Reform.

Nathan Gill had been a prominent figure in the party’s earlier history and served as a Member of the European Parliament.

In September 2025, he admitted accepting bribes in return for statements favourable to Russia.

His conviction created political difficulties for Reform because of his former leadership role in Wales.

However, the existence of wrongdoing by Gill does not automatically establish wrongdoing by other Reform politicians.

Starmer’s argument was that Farage and Tice had questions to answer about what they knew.

Farage rejected the implication that he or Reform had knowingly been involved in Russian influence.

The distinction between association and knowledge became central to the dispute.

The Prime Minister was raising questions about political responsibility.

Farage was objecting to the implication that his political movement should be associated with Gill’s activities.

Farage’s decision to stay away

The dispute escalated the following week.

On 22 October 2025, Farage decided not to sit in his normal place among Reform MPs during PMQs.

Instead, he watched proceedings from the public gallery alongside Reform supporter Arron Banks.

Farage described himself as a “mere spectator”.

He said that every week he was attacked by the Prime Minister and Labour MPs while having no right of reply.

The move attracted considerable attention because MPs are normally expected to participate in parliamentary proceedings from the chamber rather than the public gallery.

Farage’s protest was therefore as much about political visibility as parliamentary procedure.

It allowed him to make his argument directly to the public outside Parliament.

The rules are not entirely one-sided

Farage’s complaint did, however, receive an interesting response from Labour MP Chris Bryant.

Bryant pointed out that MPs can, in certain circumstances, be called to speak even when sitting in the gallery.

That highlighted an important procedural detail.

Farage was not formally prohibited from speaking simply because he was not seated on the government or opposition benches.

But the practical reality was that PMQs does not guarantee every MP an opportunity to respond to remarks made about them.

The session is tightly structured.

The Prime Minister answers questions from selected MPs, while party leaders and other MPs receive opportunities according to parliamentary arrangements.

As a result, being mentioned by another politician does not automatically create a right of reply.

Why Reform wants more exposure

For Reform, the issue is particularly important because the party’s strategy depends heavily on national visibility.

Farage remains its most recognisable figure.

He has a long history in British politics and is experienced at attracting media attention.

But parliamentary exposure is different from television appearances, rallies or social media.

PMQs is one of the most widely watched regular political events in Britain.

A strong performance can generate headlines across newspapers, broadcasters and online platforms.

A politician who is absent from the exchange can therefore lose an important opportunity to communicate directly with voters.

Reform’s argument is that this matters even more when its support in national polling exceeds its parliamentary representation.

A changing political landscape

The argument over Farage’s role at PMQs reflects a broader transformation in British politics.

For decades, Westminster politics was dominated by two major parties.

The traditional PMQs structure developed during that period.

But the growth of Reform, the Greens, Liberal Democrats and nationalist parties has created a more fragmented political system.

The question is whether parliamentary procedures should evolve accordingly.

The answer is not straightforward.

If speaking opportunities were based entirely on opinion polling, the allocation could change every few weeks.

If they were based only on parliamentary representation, newly emerging parties could remain underrepresented in high-profile debates even when they had substantial public support.

That tension is unlikely to disappear.

Farage and the politics of confrontation

The episode also reflected Farage’s broader political style.

He has frequently used confrontation as a means of attracting attention to Reform’s arguments.

By complaining publicly about PMQs, he transformed a procedural frustration into a national political story.

The protest also allowed him to frame himself as an outsider challenging the established parliamentary system.

That message has been central to Reform’s political identity.

However, critics argue that Farage’s position is complicated by the fact that he is now an elected MP and party leader operating within the same parliamentary system he frequently criticises.

The debate therefore raises another question: how far can a politician challenge Westminster while simultaneously seeking to influence it from inside?

Starmer’s position

For Starmer, attacking Reform during PMQs was part of a wider political strategy.

Labour was increasingly competing with Reform for voters concerned about immigration, national identity and the direction of the country.

Starmer’s criticism of Farage over the Nathan Gill affair was therefore not simply about one former Reform politician.

It was also part of the broader political contest between Labour and Reform.

The Prime Minister sought to question Reform’s credibility on national security and foreign interference.

Farage sought to portray the criticism as an attempt to attack his party without giving him an adequate opportunity to respond.

The resulting confrontation benefited both politicians in different ways.

Starmer was able to challenge Reform directly in the Commons.

Farage was able to present himself as a politician being denied a platform.

Calls for reform of PMQs

The controversy has prompted renewed discussion about whether PMQs itself needs to change.

Theo Bertram argued that Reform’s polling support justified greater opportunities for Farage.

His argument was not necessarily that parliamentary representation should be ignored.

Instead, he suggested that the current system could be adjusted to reflect the political importance of parties beyond their number of MPs.

Such a reform would have wider implications.

If Reform received more opportunities because of its polling position, other parties could make the same argument whenever their support increased.

It could also make PMQs more representative of current public opinion while potentially making the system more complicated.

A political dispute bigger than one exchange

Farage’s “not much point” remark therefore represented more than frustration after one PMQs session.

It reflected the growing tension between Britain’s parliamentary institutions and its changing electoral landscape.

Reform was increasingly important in national politics, but its parliamentary representation remained comparatively small.

Farage wanted greater opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister and defend his party.

Starmer, meanwhile, had every opportunity available to question Reform’s record and political credibility from the dispatch box.

The result was a familiar Westminster confrontation: one politician with the power to answer and another demanding a greater chance to respond.

The argument is likely to continue as Britain’s political system becomes more fragmented.

For Farage, the challenge is to turn Reform’s electoral support into parliamentary influence.

For the established parties, the challenge is to deal with a political movement that cannot easily be ignored.

And for Parliament, the question is whether traditional procedures remain appropriate when the relationship between votes, seats and political influence is changing so rapidly.

Farage may have said there was “not much point” in being at PMQs.

But the controversy that followed demonstrated the opposite.

His absence, his complaint and his decision to watch proceedings from the gallery became a political story in their own right — illustrating just how important PMQs remains in Britain’s increasingly competitive political debate.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.