In a stunning display of political theater, Nigel Farage’s recent protest during Prime Minister’s Questions has sent shockwaves through Westminster. As Labour leader Keir Starmer appeared to tremble in fear, Carol Malone’s explosive commentary ๐ฎ๐๐น๐ธ๐ผ๐ฎ๐ญ the truth: the establishment is terrified of Farage’s ability to connect with the public and disrupt their carefully curated narrative.
On December 17, 2025, the Commons was abuzz for the last PMQs before the Christmas break. MPs jostled for attention, desperate to secure their moment in front of the cameras. Yet, amid this political pantomime, Farage was sidelined, allowed to speak only once every nine weeks. This isnโt democracy; itโs a calculated attempt to stifle dissent.
Farage’s absence from the chamber was not mere petulance; it was a calculated protest against a system designed to keep him quiet. By walking out, he held a mirror to Westminster, revealing its dysfunction and the fear it harbors toward his unfiltered voice.
Carol Malone’s incisive remarks in the Daily Express cut to the core of the issue. She stated that the uproar during PMQs when Farage speaks reveals the establishment’s deep-seated fear. They know that when he connects with the public, their carefully constructed narratives crumble.
Malone likened the Commons to a chaotic zoo, where serious debate is drowned out by jeering and shouting. This environment, she argued, is a far cry from the model of democracy that Britain purports to export. The reality is a farcical spectacle, where decorum takes a backseat to theatrics.
The mechanics of PMQs further illustrate the imbalance. With Reform UK polling higher than the Liberal Democrats yet receiving less scrutiny, the system appears rigged. Farage’s single question every nine weeks is a glaring example of how the establishment seeks to limit his influence.
Even when he does manage to speak, Farage is often met with chaos, leaving him no chance to respond. This one-sided dynamic raises questions about the fairness of a system that claims to uphold democratic principles while actively suppressing dissenting voices.
As Farage watched from the public gallery, arms crossed and shaking his head, the media seized on the symbolism of his protest. The empty seat became the focal point, overshadowing the scripted exchanges of the day. Farageโs absence spoke volumes, highlighting the cracks in a system that thrives on controlled narratives.
Malone’s commentary resonates with many who feel that the political landscape is increasingly disconnected from the realities faced by ordinary citizens. The fear of Farage lies not just in his words but in his ability to articulate the frustrations of millions who feel ignored by the political elite.
This unfolding ๐น๐๐ถ๐๐ถ raises urgent questions about the integrity of British democracy. If the establishment is so afraid of one man, what does that say about the health of the political system? The noise and jeering during PMQs are not just distractions; they are indicators of deeper anxieties within Westminster.
As the dust settles on this latest episode, itโs clear that the stakes are high. The establishment’s reaction to Farageโs protest reveals its vulnerability and the lengths it will go to maintain control. The public’s response will be crucial in determining whether this moment sparks a larger conversation about the future of democracy in Britain.
In a time when the political landscape is more polarized than ever, the events of PMQs serve as a stark reminder that the fight for genuine representation is far from over. The question remains: how long can the establishment continue to suppress dissent before the facade crumbles entirely?