Claim checkedClaim found, not checkedEmotional passage flagged as deflectingEmotional passage, fits the subject
The words of Nigel Farage. Transcript from the video's captions, fetched on 2026-10-09; not an official record. Captions do not say who is speaking: Polifiles assigned each turn by reading the captions, without checking the audio. BBC Politics' upload of the Today programme interview (about 9 minutes). A short trailer clip of the exchange about giving the money back, which opens the video and is repeated later, is left out; the item runs from the first question to his last answer. The captions cut the start of some lines and run the two voices together in places, so short fragments are assigned by meaning, not by the '>>' marks: "Yeah. People vote for individual members of Parliament rather than for leaders in the presidential system. That's the theory, isn't it?" is kept in Nigel Farage's answer, because Nick Robinson replies "you're obviously not convinced"; in the exchange about whether he was in politics, "in politics.", "wasn't politics." and "Yeah, yeah, I I I" are given to Nigel Farage and "I interviewed Farage." to Nick Robinson; in the exchange about the standards inquiry, "Yeah, no, there is" is given to Nigel Farage and "and but but also you have to declare it within a year of becoming a politician..." to Nick Robinson. Trimmed: starts at "Now, for weeks you've been saying vote for us"; ends at "it was absolutely the right thing to do.". Questions are shown in grey boxes. Tap a marked sentence to see the label and its sources. Other speakers' full contributions are in the video.
Nick Robinson
Now, for weeks you've been saying vote for us to get rid of Starmer. He's gone, isn't it? The danger that people say it's not just over for him, it's over for your chances of becoming Prime Minister.
Well, look.I mean, I you know, make no bones about it.Starmer was a great asset to us in every way.But look, I mean, who knows?Maybe there'll be a contest, maybe there won't.
I hope there is because I have absolutely no idea where Andy Burnham stands on anything.He flipped and flopped over the course of just this Wakefield campaign, let alone anything else.And look, he hasn't He won't have a mandate if he becomes Prime Minister.And I think the British public are pretty sick of the game of musical chairs that's been going on in number 10 now for the best part of a decade, and they deserve to have a general election.
Partly answeredPut to him that with Starmer gone his own chances of becoming Prime Minister may be over. Agrees Starmer was an asset to Reform, then turns to Burnham's lack of a mandate, without saying whether his chances have fallen.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
You know though that the rules say there doesn't need to be a general election. There've been many changes of Prime Minister without having a general election. You just fancy your chances.
No, it isn't just that.I actually think that a Prime Minister has to have a mandate from the people.This man, Mr. Burnham, didn't even stand in the 2024 general election, so he's not tied to that manifesto personally in any way at all.And if it is a coronation, he will have no mandate whatsoever.
So, it's right, proper, and fair that the British people have a choice.Yeah.People vote for individual members of Parliament rather than for leaders in the presidential system.That's the theory, isn't it? [laughter]
AnsweredTold the rules do not require a general election and that he just fancies his chances. Says it is not just that: a Prime Minister needs a mandate and Burnham did not stand in 2024.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Yes. Well, you're obviously not convinced, and you hope you hope not given that you fancy being Prime Minister yourself. Now, of course, you have just had an election in which you could have taken down Andy Burnham, and you lost and you lost it badly in truth, didn't you? Even if you'd added your vote together with your old enemy Rupert Lowe, you wouldn't have won. Now, was that because of your choice of candidate?
You chose a man who had tweeted his sexual fantasies about a TV star wasn't really serious, was it?
16,000 votes would win most by-elections, but we were of course hoist by our own petard because effectively this campaign became vote Burnham to get Starmer out.So look, it was a landslide victory, good for him.
Partly answeredAsked whether Reform lost Makerfield badly because of its choice of candidate. Says the vote was large and the contest became a vote to remove Starmer, without addressing the candidate.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Wrong candidate?
Ah, look, you know, we couldn't find these social media posts.He's a plumber, a rugby player, ex-army, one of the lads, likes a beer, and it was it was male banter.It wasn't prissy, it wasn't good, it didn't help.I will admit that, it didn't help.
AnsweredAsked whether it was the wrong candidate. Says the posts were not found in vetting and admits they did not help.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Why didn't you either withdraw him or get him to apologize?
Because A, it was too late to withdraw him.B, he was actually a very good hard working candidate and a proper local guy.Um, and C, when it comes to the apology, I said, "Look, Rob, you must decide yourself what you do."I can't force people to apologize.Either way, either way, whatever had happened, whoever had stood for us, Burnham would have won that by-election.
AnsweredAsked why Reform did not withdraw the candidate or get him to apologise. Gives three reasons: too late to withdraw, a good local candidate, and the apology was his own decision.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
here, I guess, as we get closer to a general election, whether it's on the original schedule or as you expect next May, is whether Reform UK is seen as a protest vote or seen as serious. So let me ask you something about you. Would you be happy if the next Prime Minister of this country secretly banked a 5 million pound check from a billionaire whose business interests he was promoting?
Uh, well, I would refute that entirely.I'm not promoting his business interests, I've been promoting
AnsweredAsked whether he would be happy if the next Prime Minister secretly banked £5m from a billionaire whose business interests he promoted. Rejects the premise that he promotes the donor's business interests.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
I asked you in general as a principle. I hadn't come to you, but would you would be happy if any candidate to be Prime Minister banked a secret check for 5 million pounds?
So, why is it secret?
Partly answeredAsked as a principle whether any candidate for Prime Minister should bank a secret £5m. Answers with a question about why it is called secret, without saying whether that would be acceptable.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Well, you didn't reveal it. It was revealed by the newspaper you taking 5 million pounds.
Why should I?
AnsweredTold he did not reveal the money and a newspaper did. Asks why he should have, and goes on to say he was not in politics at the time.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Because we believe that people should govern in the national interest, not in the financial interests of themselves or their supporters.
in politics.
AnsweredTold the rules exist so people govern in the national interest. Replies that he was not in politics.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
You telling me you weren't discussing becoming an MP?
wasn't politics.
Yeah, yeah, I I I
Partly answeredAsked whether he was not then discussing becoming an MP. Repeats that it was not politics, without addressing the discussions; the captions are fragmentary here.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
We did a 40-minute interview about whether you might become a member of Parliament.
And I as you well know, it was a very, very difficult decision.I'd far from made my mind up.Look,
AnsweredReminded of a 40-minute interview about whether he might stand. Says it was a very difficult decision and he had far from made up his mind.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
And you took 5 million pounds from a billionaire who wants government and the Bank of England to change its policy.
No, I want government and the Bank of England to change their policy.I have done for years.I've been saying this consistently since 2019.There is a whole new world out there of AI, tech, crypto, you name it and we're being left behind.
AnsweredTold he took £5m from a billionaire who wants the government and the Bank of England to change policy. Says it is his own long-held position on crypto.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Just to explain to people cuz you know, we didn't get the chance. You have long argued for cryptocurrency, that's true. You think the Bank of England's making a mistake by coming [clears throat] up with the idea of effectively a public crypto coin, if you like a a sort of digital currency, an official one. But you're promoting something that would massively financially benefit a man who gave you 5 million pounds and you didn't think we deserved to know it.
No, hang on.Number one, I wasn't in politics.Number two, I don't believe there's anything in the rules that says I had to declare it.Number three, of course it is being investigated by standards.So perhaps I better say not say too much.
And lastly, even if the UK, even if London became a center for crypto trading, it would still be a minute part of the global market and the fact that a marketplace would happen here would not influence the price directly in any way at all.
AnsweredPut to him that he promotes policy that would benefit his donor and did not think the public deserved to know. Gives four points: he was not in politics, the rules did not require it, it is under investigation, and London trading would not move prices.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Let's be clear, there is an inquiry into whether you broke the rules and if you did
Yeah, no, there is
AnsweredReminded that there is an inquiry into whether he broke the rules. Accepts there is.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
and but but also you have to declare it within a year of becoming a politician. It isn't just at the time you are a politician and they'll assess whether you did.
If If If it seemed to be a donation linked directly to political activity.
AnsweredTold the rules require declaring benefits from the year before election. Says that applies if the money was linked to political activity.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Let Let's be clear what I'm asking and I'll give you the chance to answer it. Okay. The reason I'm pushing this is because we know that why we have rules on taking money, particularly vast, unimaginable sums. For most people in the country, £5 million into your own bank account. We have those rules to be sure that you're doing what is in our interest and not in your interest.
So, it's very clear, Mr. Farage, you've got lots of generous benefactors, you could give this money back.
Well, Boris Johnson got a gift from the same person.
DodgedTold he could give the money back. Replies that Boris Johnson received a gift from the same donor.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Will you give this money back?
Uh will you give your salary to charity?How about that?How about that?
DodgedAsked whether he will give the money back. Asks whether the interviewer will give his salary to charity, without answering.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
I I'm not running to be prime minister. You
If you give your entire salary to charity, then maybe I will.
DodgedTold the interviewer is not running for Prime Minister. Repeats the salary challenge as a condition.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
I'm not running to be prime minister.
You are the main interviewer for our national broadcaster.So, you you equally have a very responsible public position.
AnsweredTold again the interviewer is not running for Prime Minister. Replies that the interviewer also holds a responsible public position.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Well, but you know, one day maybe I'll come on your interview program, you can interview me. But meanwhile, I'm interviewing you about you becoming prime minister and taking on the most important job. Will you give the money back?
What on earth has that got to do with you?If I did, it would be a purely private matter, as the money was in the first place.
Declined openlyAsked again whether he will give the money back. Says it is none of the interviewer's business and would be a private matter.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Well, you could say no, but it sounds to me like you're saying you might give it back.
don't think it's any of your business, frankly.And if if, however, if the standards commissioner decides that it is, we'll talk about it again.
Declined openlyTold it sounds as if he might give it back. Says it is none of the interviewer's business unless the Standards Commissioner decides otherwise.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Understood. Now, the reason I say it's of interest, of course, is that you mocked the prime minister, he is still the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and your party attacked him for taking money for free glasses and for suits. By one calculation, this is 1 270th of the amount of money you've taken. If Starmer shouldn't have taken money for glasses and suits, surely you should not
He was leader of the opposition.I was a broadcaster on GB News.I think there is a difference.
AnsweredAsked why, if Starmer should not have accepted glasses and suits, he should keep £5m. Says Starmer was Leader of the Opposition while he was a broadcaster, so the cases differ.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person
Nick Robinson
Now, talking of that, broadcasting on GB News, and indeed, what you've done for many, many years, what we know is you are defined by your views on Europe. You've consistently argued for it. And given that it's the anniversary of a rather important decision, Brexit, people, I think, are entitled just to a simple answer. Do you now in any way regret your recommendation to Britain that we should leave the EU because you claimed it would make us richer and it would get immigration down.
No, I do not regret it at all.I do not regret independence.I do not regret getting back the ability to make our own decisions on regulation, immigration, global trade partners.But what has happened is the earthquake that happened 10 years ago today was not accepted by the establishment.Many tried to overturn it and when finally they were pushed into actually getting us to leave the European Union, they then did not implement the wishes of the people and that is why you're seeing the two-party system as it's historically been known, frankly under massive attack.
That is why we've had seven prime ministers in the course of the last 10 years.They haven't accepted the public vote with goodwill and they haven't implemented it and no, it was absolutely the right thing to do.
AnsweredAsked whether he regrets recommending Brexit. Says no, and blames the establishment for not implementing it.Our model rated thisNot yet reviewed by a person