Much though this angered veterans and political opponents in Argentina, it also allowed him to become a Right-wing icon in Britain. Gone were the days of “Gotcha!” and “Argie bastards”: now Thatcher’s heirs had a friend in Buenos Aires. The sideburns, the chainsaw, the herd of cloned (English) mastiffs: he was the perfect maverick. ¡Afuera! became a well-known meme and entered the lexicon: could it not be just as well applied to the ECHR, the BBC, Net Zero, and however many quangos? Soon enough, Kemi Badenoch, who would never call herself “Britain’s Trump”, began describing herself as “Britain’s Milei”: here was a figure a divided party could rally round. Nigel Farage praised Milei’s politics as “Thatcherism on steroids” and said he was thinking about buying Argentine bonds (probably not the wisest use of his £5 million). Liz Truss said Milei was her favorite conservative; he confessed not to know who she was.

But it wasn’t going to last forever. Milei was always going to get less popular, and so he was always going to make a fuss over the Falklands. As the next Argentine election gets closer, and as his approval ratings languish somewhere in the 30s, he needs something to match the chest-thumping of his estranged vice president, for whom we British remain “pirate usurpers”. So, in a speech to the nation on 4 September, he declared that Argentina must “act swiftly” and “show a united front to the world”. The pirates will be vanquished, Argentina redeemed.

Suggested reading

Is Britain still fighting the Falklands War?

By Alwyn Turner

It is an occupational hazard of governing Britain that sometimes Argentines will rattle their sabers. Prime ministers have learned to deal with it from time to time since 1982, usually by rolling their eyes. But this time it might be different. What makes the present Falklands flare-up unusually alarming, from the British point of view, is a sinister allusion in Milei’s speech to “winds of change in the world that are favorable to our claim”. “Winds of change”: it is an evocative phrase, famously deployed by Harold Macmillan in Africa in 1960 to describe the inevitability of decolonization. There was no escaping or denying our decline; we could only try to manage it. The Wretched of the Earth were about to have their day, and it would be futile to resist them. Even Right-wingers like Milei — and, for that matter, General Galtieri — cast their struggle for “las Malvinas” as a noble work of anti-colonialism.

That still leaves the timing of Milei’s intervention: and here it’s tempting to imagine that he can smell British weakness. That, anyway, is an appealing explanation of his conduct for critics of Britain’s Labour government at home, many of whom are feeling understandably compromised for having previously lavished Milei with praise. After all, critics of the shambolic Chagos deal can reasonably contend that it might have planted in hostile heads the idea that Britain is no longer able or willing to defend its far-flung possessions. Starmer and Burnham certainly seem to be made of weaker stuff than Mrs Thatcher.

Yet the British Right itself also bears much of the blame. They spent years sucking up to Milei — and to MAGA and to Israel, some elements of which now seem to be most receptive to Argentine revanchism. More to the point, they have done much to play up Britain’s weaknesses, as though trying to make the country seem like an enticing target. While railing against the Chagos deal, for instance, plenty of Right-wing voices prophesied that “the Falklands will be next”. Never mind that the idea that Britain’s dealings with Mauritius would set a precedent for how it would handle another Argentine attack on the Falklands was far-fetched. Most people in Britain had never heard of the Chagos Islands; and given that their main purpose is to host an American base, it is anyway questionable how sovereign we are there. The Falklands, on the other hand, have a British population, and, at least since 1982, have been part of our national identity. British blood was spilled there in living memory; Starmer’s own uncle was almost killed. A Labour government, even a weak one, wouldn’t give them up without a fight.

Likewise, in the early phase of the Iran war, Nigel Farage tried to backtrack from his initial bout of jingoism by saying that Britain anyway lacks the “capability to offer anything of any value to the Americans or the Israelis”. Our country, in other words, is too weak even to be helpfully subservient. Milei would reasonably conclude from this that Britain is spent, and that the Falklands would be easy pickings. And, more pertinently, the White House might think that there is nothing to gain from keeping up friendly relations with Britain — so that they might as well throw their lot in with the Argentines.

A decade ago, an Argentine leader playing domestic politics with the Falklands may not have mattered much. But where Macmillan’s winds of change were blowing in Africa, these days they’re more American in nature. For it is in Washington, DC that the new “political facts” are emerging. A few months ago it was reported that the Pentagon was reviewing its position on the Falklands — until now a studied neutrality — setting off fears that it might move in a pro-Argentine direction. More recently, President Trump suggested that he would be reluctant to help us, as Ronald Reagan did in 1982, in the event of an Argentine invasion. He brings to bear his typically transactional theory of foreign affairs: we didn’t scratch his back in Iran, so why should he scratch ours in the South Atlantic?

More from this author

How the Euro elite helps Trump

By Samuel Rubinstein

There’s a broader point here too. Where Milei’s Argentina could prove to be a good local ally to America, complementing Trump’s vision of a “Donroe Doctrine”, Britain is regarded as a sad old has-been, running on fumes. As one American diplomat remarked, “keeping South American countries on side” could be “more strategically important than pleasing the Brits out of a ‘sense of nostalgia’”. All of MAGA knows that Britain is in terminal decline: it is practically axiomatic that soon enough it will, in JD Vance’s infamous jibe, be an “Islamist” state. This being so, Trump and those around him might well reason, why shouldn’t they take the side of Argentina versus Britain — Right versus Left, Christianity versus Islam, the vitality of the New World versus the shabby decadence of the Old?

Shortly before Milei’s speech on the Falklands, Sarah Rogers, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, posted a photo of herself grinning next to him, captioned “Exciting things are happening in the Western Hemisphere”. It could scarcely be any clearer that she is not a friend to Britain. But at ARC in London a few months ago, as she waxed lyrical about Anglo-American friendship, a mainly British audience lapped up her every word. “Sarah Rogers is a political superstar and Britain’s New Right should be grateful for the undisguised passion she expresses in this speech for our national renewal”, effused James Orr, then still in post at Reform UK. When she promises to unleash the “full range of tools” against Britain’s speech restrictions, when she declares that “nothing is off the table”, even the free-speech liberals among us should hope that this would not cover inducing a hostile foreign power to invade Britain’s sovereign territory. It was always naïve to think she was invested in our “national renewal”. She appears to be much more interested in Argentina’s.

Britain is used to pinning its foreign policy ambitions on a vague and slippery notion of “soft power”. We hope to get into the good graces of other nations, and punch above our weight, by keeping everyone fed on a diet of Harry Potter and the Premier League. Our best soft-power weapon against Trump is, of course, the Royal Family; and we have been able to deploy it quite effectively. Certainly, he responds to it better than any hard power lever we might be able to pull — for example, refusing to let him use bases on our sovereign territory. The image we project to the world matters, and can have real geopolitical consequences.

But there is also such a thing as negative soft power. Sometimes it can suit certain purposes to make the country, at least under the present government, seem as degraded as possible. When Farage goes on American TV, or speaks at the Capitol, one gets the impression of Britain as an authoritarian police state, disfigured by mass immigration. Why should a crime-ridden hell-hole deserve to keep the Falklands? Milei understands this; he knows better than most what makes the MAGA movement tick. In his speech, he dwells on Britain’s pitiful state: “the UK is facing multiple migration, demographic, and economic crises with no clear solution”. These words are a product of Britain’s negative soft power. So too, and worse, is the fact that Trump might listen to them with open ears.

Thatcher was less naïve about the “Special Relationship” than plenty of today’s conservatives: she rejected out of hand Reagan’s efforts toward a negotiated settlement. The opposition, for its part, was patriotic to a fault. Michael Foot, speaking both as Labour leader and “Cato”, the pseudonymous author of the anti-appeasement polemic Guilty Men, said he “knew a fascist when he sees one” — he didn’t try to undermine Britain’s position to bolster his own.

Today, though, a dangerous game is being played. Its main effect might be a damaging one: to convince MAGA that Britain is a lost cause. That is the purpose Britain is usually brought to serve across the Atlantic: a vision of apocalypse, a cautionary tale. That, rather than any real desire to make Britain great again, is what sustains MAGA’s interest in British affairs. Britain’s decisive victory in the last Falklands War was much-needed proof of life after decades of decline on the global stage. Today, therefore, there could be no punishment more fitting, no better proof of Britain’s death, than Milei’s Argentina seizing the Falklands.

They would soon be gathering at a cavernous venue on the fringe of Britain’s troubled second city. Inside, their party had built a turquoise fantasia to welcome them. There were tractors and buses to climb aboard. George Finch, the laddish young leader of Warwickshire County Council, was striding about with a camera crew buttonholing attendees. Jeremy Kyle was seated on a circular dais, broadcasting a show live to the jumbotrons above our heads. You could buy some roast hog or fly a helicopter simulator or sign a book of condolences for Ann Widdecombe. On sale were pens and mugs and tea towels that showed Nigel Farage doing the dishes and proclaiming: “Washing up is… boring, boring, boring.”

Conference was supposed to be a chance for “normal people” to gather — and for party leaders to unveil their serious plan for power, ready to be implemented on day one of a Reform government. Certainly, a change in conversation feels especially urgent for the party now. An embarrassing by-election, and a series of rows over funding, had driven Nigel Farage away from the spotlight and stalled his momentum. Restore were leeching votes from the Right, while just a few days before the faithful were due to gather, a poll had put Reform third, behind the Conservatives. It was the party’s lowest rating in 18 months.

But if Farage’s inner circle hoped Conference would now be a chance to reset after a torrid summer, there was the “James thing”. With key lieutenants James Orr and Dan Jukes caught on camera discussing a legally dubious funding operation in garish detail, and Farage filmed ordering oysters in the Essex sunshine, and insisting “it’s all above board”, it seemed Reform’s bid to fix itself was floundering already. The blob was fighting back.

Reform has since been reported to the Metropolitan Police by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, both keen to twist the knife. As for Farage himself, he told Laura Kuenssberg he was simply not paying attention. “I am not a compliance officer,” he complained. “I was in the middle of canvassing in the Clacton by-election. I turn up. I frankly wasn’t even listening.”

The ongoing project to professionalize Reform looked, then, to be a work in progress. There were other signs. On Friday, the first panel of the day featured a spread of Christians talking about freedom of speech. When the discussion was opened to the floor, the first comment was on the “gay issue”. While there had always been gay people, a woman mused from the front row, it felt as if there were now be more of them than ever. Had the panel considered the physical implications of hormone-disrupting chemicals? The panel did not wish to consider such things. With the microphone returned, they hastily moved back to freedom of speech.

More significant was the party’s struggle to develop its relationship with big business. Reform has always had a strong element of petit-bourgeois support — “normal people” running normal companies seemed well represented among the delegates. For the blue chips, though, associating with an insurgent political movement is not without danger. Why risk tying yourself to a Guardian exposé on racist language? Just think of the ESG rating. But despite this, and Reform’s rolling donation crisis, British industry has begun to shift. Slap bang in the center of the conference hall was a lounge sponsored by Heathrow. Major firms, including NatWest and Serco, attended the business dinner.

The morning after, though, the rumors were that it had not gone to plan; Farage is said to have mocked NatWest for debanking him and Serco for profiting from the asylum crisis. There were other frustrations too. Nick Marley, whose supply-chain management consultancy paid £6,000 for a booth, told me he was disappointed “senior folk” from the party hadn’t dropped by his stand for a chat.

Among the membership, there were far fewer doubts. Talk to almost any rank-and-file member and they will tell you the same thing: the establishment is trying to stitch up Nigel; they will use any trick in the book; if we have made any errors they have been made 10 times over by the uniparty before us.

Two young councilors from Salford were bullish. Their local party group chat had barely mentioned the exposé; it seemed destined to slide away, to be forgotten alongside other SW1 gossip. When one of the men asked for my view, I suggested that the drip, drip nature of financial misconduct claims would eventually become a problem. But the lads were not worried: we were at a reception, drinking for free, and Boney M. would be on soon. If Andy Burnham were to call a snap election, they both agreed, Reform would likely leapfrog the Tories to become the official opposition.

When I spoke to a Reform insider about Channel 4’s revelations, however, they were far less sanguine. The atmosphere the evening before, they said, had been “febrile” as the news broke. “This reflects a pattern of unprofessional behavior that was starting to be addressed but now needs to be supercharged”.

More from this author

Could the Middlesbrough crime spree spread?

By Felix Pope

The appointment of Zia Yusuf, who served as Reform’s chair from 2024 to 2025 before abruptly quitting, had been meant to bring the organization into line. But when I asked about his performance, my source was contemptuous. Yusuf had not helped, and indeed had perhaps made things worse.

After the evening’s entertainment had wound down inside the hall, attendees decamped to a nearby shopping center, where a dim casino served drinks until 5am and slot machines flashed neon-bright. Here, a certain anxiety seemed to be germinating through the party cadre. A Reform press officer, glassy-eyed, insisted that he simply did not care anymore. He did not care about anything.

Another functionary was eager to tell me that he had known and been deceived by William Lockwood, the undercover reporter from the Centre for Climate Reporting responsible for the Channel 4 sting. The Reformer pulled out his phone and began scrolling through dozens upon dozens of WhatsApp messages between the pair. “If I had a birthday party and invited 100 people he would be one of them”. He seemed wounded by the experience, on the edge of a nervous collapse.

The next morning, a small band of protesters gathered outside the conference. Separated from attendees by the police, they held a banner that read “Brum Youth Give Racists the Boot” and chanted, “Say it loud, say it clear: refugees are welcome here!” Many were wearing surgical facemasks.

Inside, Danny Kruger was delivering a talk about how to reform the state. Danny Kruger always seemed to be delivering talks on how to reform the state. Each day of Conference, he popped up at events throughout the hall, proscribing civil-service reforms and constitutional restoration and cost-cutting measures. On this occasion, he was in conversation with Mark Littlewood, the Liz Truss ally and director of Popular Conservatism, as he set out Reform’s preparations for power.

The party had intended for the conference to focus on such plans. Everywhere, the hoardings declared Farage’s team was ready for “The First 100 Days”. On stage, spokespeople were making policy commitments. But, in the wake of Channel 4’s report, nobody other than the party hardcore seemed to care.

In Kruger’s case, that was a shame, because his ideas are both serious and radical. Reform, he declared, would have to launch an “institutional intifada”. “I want Reform to be a radical insurgent party. A revolutionary spirit in the English tradition of revolutions, which is restorative, which is why restore is such a good word, annoyingly. Actually, we are about restoration not revolution but there is a radical spirit to that restoration that’s going to require some breaking of the furniture.”

Kruger and Littlewood agreed that the power of quangos would have to be severely curtailed. How many even were there? According to Truss, Littlewood said, there were 444. But he wished it might have been 666, given the demonic implications. Kruger, who is in charge of Reform’s preparations for government, working under Orr until the latter’s resignation, began throwing out policy on the hoof. He would like to abolish His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, he said, and was sure Yusuf would agree if he raised it. But, he conceded, “that’s a big job”.

For Kruger, and an increasing number of others on the Right, Britain’s modern ills can be traced back to 1997 and the election of New Labour. According to this theory, Tony Blair’s constitutional reforms started a process of political neutering, removing power from elected officials — and, by extension, the public — and placing it into the hands of an unaccountable bureaucracy. Electing a conservative government would therefore achieve little unless such vested interests were taken on. Following this line of argument, populism can be viewed merely as a means of re-establishing popular control of the state.

While the ostensible theme of the conference was demonstrating that Reform was ready to take office, that actually seemed to undersell its importance. For if the party is truly prepared to follow through on Kruger’s proposals, it will mean a vast and complex remaking of the British state. The constitution would be revised, the House of Lords faced down, the machinery of government re-tooled to conduct mass deportations. Such plans will face huge and sustained opposition. That the party’s own conference had been overshadowed by a Channel 4 exposé said little good for its chances of succeeding.

After Kruger’s talk ended, I spoke to David Starkey, who had been sitting in the front row and whose arguments regarding Blair’s malign constitutional influence have become influential in these circles. There were still several big question marks, he told me. “How far is Farage himself committed? How far is Farage capable of communicating these ideas? And finally, how far have they really done the preparatory work?” The effort required would dwarf the voluminous preparations made by Trump’s team in advance of his second term, Starkey said, while he could see no signs that key legislation was being prepared ahead of time.

In its clashing moments of frivolity and seriousness, the conference seemed to mirror something of Farage’s own internal divide. Is he a hard-drinking outsider, giving voice to a slice of the nation — but whose indiscipline and laziness will ultimately doom him? Or is he ready to move into No. 10 and transform the country in the twilight of his career? The question of whether Reform can now break past its core vote share largely depends on how the public answers those questions.

Then there’s the damage inside the party machine. Jukes, who started campaigning for UKIP at 18, is said to be like a son to him; Orr has deep ties to JD Vance and European conservative networks, and brought a much-needed intellectual ballast to the party. Farage’s relatives, the leader himself told Robert Peston, had been begging him to quit politics. “When your own family starts to turn on you because of what you do, [there are] some very thoughtful moments,” he said. “Very, very thoughtful moments.”

Suggested Reading

What Farage can teach Prince Harry

By Mary Harrington

One insider described the events of the past 48 hours to me as “sub-optimal”. Jukes and Orr had wanted “to show something shiny to the boss” — they had not considered the diligence required. Such problems, however, would help Reform in one respect. “External pressure keeps everything tight,” they said. “The cracks don’t show.”

Farage, the insider claimed, had come out of the summer in a much better place than before. “He’s much more chipper. He likes campaigning… yes, he’s a politician — he likes the sound of his own voice but he always listens.” In this telling, the Clacton by-election was not so much a busted flush as a period of rejuvenation, the Faragist equivalent of a yoga retreat in the Balearic Islands.

Another source insisted the conference had been great and the “hit job” from the press had been dealt with effectively: nobody wanted to hear from murky groups looking for gotcha moments. Jukes was a “generational talent”, they said, and one of the most loyal people in Farage’s circle. “To lose them to a fucking net-zero sting would be awful.”

As we spoke, Farage strode past in a turquoise suit, surrounded by a phalanx of security guards in black. “Andrew Breitbart… just used to say ‘walk towards the fire,’” the source said as we watched Farage head into the arena. “Whenever there’s a scandal or a hit job or whatever, I just think you have to walk towards that fire. You can’t be afraid, you can’t run away from it. And yet, there’ll probably be more. That’s the nature of life. You win some, you lose some.”

To end the conference, the leader appeared on stage for a final time. He seemed to be in an ebullient mood. “If it’s not fun then it’s not worth doing anyway, is it?” he asked. This had been the biggest and most fun conference they had undertaken. Did he really mean it? “My people’s army,” he continued, “I’m proud to lead you. Once again, I love you all.”

For the faithful in the hall, it was a moment of inspiration. “Farage is back to his best,” Peter Faultless, a wizened party member from near Walsall told me, as we walked away from the stage and back towards the real world. “He clearly wants to lead us.” For Faultless, as with so many other Reform members, there is no alternative. Yusuf is great and Jenrick smart, but Farage is the boss. “Reform is not going to win the election without him,” he added. “Without him — we’re not the same.”

Lansbury came from a radical family, and he’d been campaigning for women’s rights since the 1880s. Then in the Liberal Party, he’d gone on to join the Social Democratic Federation, the country’s first socialist party, before being elected in December 1910 as the Labour MP for Bow and Bromley, in the East End of London. Once in Parliament, he was infuriated by the Liberal government’s refusal to extend the franchise to women and by its approval of force-feeding Suffragette prisoners on hunger strike. “You are beneath contempt,” he shouted, walking up to the government front bench. “You will go down in history as the men who tortured innocent women.” He was suspended from the chamber for that outburst.

He was equally angered by his own party’s failure to confront the government on the issue. Having exhausted all other tactics, he resigned his seat and called a by-election, asking his constituents “to endorse my policy of making women’s suffrage the beginning and end of my parliamentary fight”. It was a risky move. Bow and Bromley was a marginal constituency, and he’d only been elected in 1910 because the Liberals had declined to field a candidate and had backed him, giving him a clear run against his Conservative opponent. But it was worth the risk for one so committed to the cause. 

Suggested Reading

Farage's Clacton reckoning

By Simon Heffer

The by-election that followed was noisy and atypical. The Labour Party was incensed by Lansbury’s actions and declined to give him official support, while the Liberals again refused to participate. Women’s groups from around the country campaigned for Lansbury, with public meetings addressed by the constitutionalist Millicent Fawcett, the socialist Ethel Snowden and the extremist Emmeline Pankhurst. Meanwhile, anti-suffrage opponents rallied under the slogan of “No Petticoat Government”, and the Conservatives tried hard to insist that this wasn’t a single-issue election.

The most effective poster read: “Lansbury is sick of Parliament. Bow and Bromley is sick of Lansbury. Vote for Blair and make everybody happy.” And on polling day, that’s what happened. On a 10% swing, the Conservative Reginald Blair took the seat and Lansbury was out of Parliament for a decade.

In the long run, standing on his principles didn’t do him any harm. When he returned to Westminster in 1922, again for Bow and Bromley, the number of votes cast had more than tripled, the electorate swelled by the enfranchisement of the working class and of most — if not yet all — women. It turned out that he’d been, in that curious modern phrase, on the right side of history. And when the Labour government split in 1931, and the party suffered a massive election defeat, he was the only ex-Cabinet minister left in Parliament, becoming leader by default at the age of 73. He held the party together in its darkest hour, his record speaking for him as a veteran campaigner for women, peace and the working class.

Nigel Farage, it hardly needs saying, is no George Lansbury. There is no issue of principle, or even of policy, at stake in today’s by-election in Clacton. And the difference doesn’t speak well of today’s politics. Beneath Farage’s thin-skinned petulance and posturing, there lies the media’s — and perhaps the public’s — fascination with electoral contests, rather than actual policy. Keir Starmer’s premiership was a time of flatlining productivity, of rising unemployment, of an incipient borrowing crisis (bond yields are higher than when Liz Truss “spooked the markets”). But the average voter could be forgiven for not noticing the parlous state of the economy as the drama of Andy Burnham’s by-election victory and unopposed coup played out in the press. This isn’t politics, it’s soap opera, and with the departure of Peter Mandelson, Farage is now the longest-standing character still in the show, in large part because he recognized the direction of travel early on.

It wasn’t always thus. Even if we consider the closest recent parallel to Clacton, that of David Davis in 2008, there was a serious point being made. Davis was the Conservative shadow home secretary and believed that a critical moment had been reached when the Commons voted in favor of the Labour government’s proposal to allow detention without charge for up to 42 days. This came in the midst of an attempt to introduce identity cards, attacks on the jury system, and increased surveillance by councils and quangos. As Davis pointed out, “600 public bodies have the authority to bug phones and emails and intercept the post”. So he resigned both his shadow cabinet job and his seat to fight a by-election in his constituency of Haltemprice and Howden in Yorkshire on the issue of civil liberties.

Then, as now, the other major parties didn’t contest the election. Labour, understandably, had no wish to defend its record, and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said his party supported Davis’s position and wouldn’t therefore stand against him. The whole thing became a farce. There was a record field of candidates — 26 in all — including the likes of David Icke, Mad Cow-Girl and Ronnie Carroll (the man who’d sung “Ring-a-Ding Girl” in the 1962 Eurovision Song Contest). There were so many of them that they weren’t allowed on the platform to hear the result, for fear of breaking the stage. 

Davis won, of course, with an increased share of the vote, but it was a pyrrhic victory, both politically and personally. Gordon Brown’s government paid no attention at all. And Davis’s career suffered. Just three years earlier, he’d fought David Cameron for the Conservative leadership. Now, he looked a much reduced, peripheral figure. “If I was given my job back, I think I’d take it,” he said. “But I don’t think I’ll be offered it.” He wasn’t, and he didn’t serve in the Coalition government of 2010-15.

In retrospect, Davis’s by-election captured the moment when British politics became totally trivial. The question of civil liberties was genuinely important, and has become ever more so. But the chance to challenge the growing power of the state was ducked by the media, which had decided that soap operas were more fun. The Daily Mirror saw Davis’s actions as “a cynically disguised leadership challenge to David Cameron”, while the Daily Telegraph said it was “a challenge to Mr Cameron’s authority”. It wasn’t. It was an attempt to position the Conservatives as the party that would defend the individual. When it was turned into a circus, the opportunity passed and the direction of travel remained unchanged. The era of the police raiding people’s homes in pursuit of social-media rudeness was just about to dawn.

And now comes Farage in Clacton. He may not have distinguished himself in Parliament, he may have struggled with delegation and with running a political party, but he has proved over the last three decades to be a consummate campaigner, and calling a by-election looks like a retreat to his comfort zone. But it’s a path fraught with danger. To start with, he runs the risk of becoming a laughing stock, even more than did David Davis. Breaking the 2008 record, there are 34 candidates, ranging from the SDP through three separate representatives of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, all the way down to Rejoin EU. It’s hard to retain any sense of dignity in these circumstances. Worse still, the focus on Farage’s finances risks giving the impression of him being a spiv, rather than the lovable rogue that has previously been his great selling-point. 

These three self-triggered by-elections tell an unedifying story of political decline. Lansbury’s was an honorable position and it was seen as such. Davis was also a principled man, but he was treated as a joke. And now Farage reduces legitimate concerns about the probity of his funding to a caricatured gimmick of the electoral process.

Oddly, though, that comment from the Suffragette may yet be applicable. The Bow and Bromley by-election in 1912 does not “stand out in history as a great political landmark”. But if Farage is sufficiently damaged, then Clacton in 2026 may do.

One need not share the apocalyptic visions of Britain’s near future animating much of the Right to see a similar, dreamlike paralysis in the face of our own national disintegration. The facts, when outlined, are bleak. Elected on a mandate of renewing Britain, Keir Starmer is now the least popular prime minister in British history, whose party’s landslide victory may yet prove terminal. If we assume that Starmer’s time in office is now drawing to a close, then it is his fate for his premiership to have been bookended by being heckled by angry crowds at the scene of two stabbings: the first in Southport, the second in Golders Green. That footage from North London revealed the Union Flag fluttering from lampposts, a now England-wide dynamic which only took effect after Southport and the ethnic riots which followed, shows how quickly we have stumbled into creating a simulacrum of the Shankill Road even among loyal and placid suburban British Jews. Neither of these two attacks were Starmer’s specific fault; his fate is just to embody the modern Westminster state, loathed by its people.

Seemingly cursed from the start, it is hard not to feel some grudging sympathy for Two-Year Kier. True, he is unsuited both ideologically and temperamentally to keeping a fractious country together. But who else could do any better? Every news story, every headline, looks like an extract from some future documentary recounting the disintegration of a state. Just weeks before the elections, Starmer’s St George’s Day video message once again possessed all the attributes of a late-stage imperial bureaucrat trying to dampen an ethnic revolt outside the capital. And rightly so: the political salience of St George’s Day, which is entirely new, is the symbolic rupture between the English people and their form of government that Westminster represents.

More from this author

The Ulsterisation of English politics

By Aris Roussinos

That rupture, indeed, is closer to the resurgent Celtic nationalisms than it is their antithesis, and is best understood as part of the same process that has led the governments of all three devolved nations to be led by parties eager to terminate the Union. On the other pole of national politics, the Greens, by virtue of their support for Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalism, are functionally Westminster’s only political faction committed to the logic of an independent English state: in technical terms they are therefore more of an English nationalist party than Reform, the ambivalent flagbearers of Unionism, whose support base nevertheless rests upon English dissatisfaction with Westminster. The logic of party political fragmentation is also one of national dissolution, consciously intended or otherwise.

The two legacy parties of British mass democracy, meanwhile, have shrunk to regional London parties of the Westminster statelet. Losing their leafy shires to the Liberal Democrats, and the suburbs to Reform, the Conservatives are now the party of Metroland Hindus, socially conservative West Africans and Clapham Yimbys. No longer a national mass party, Labour has become a London-based workers union for those who actually run the Westminster state — the civil servants, lawyers and thinktankers who now make up Labour’s voting base — and the social housing tenants to whom they distribute their patronage, or at least those who have not yet been seduced by their own ethnic parties, whether openly, as in Tower Hamlets, or under the Green mantle, as in Waltham Forest. Politically, it is the British state’s seat of government that has now become the periphery, buffeted by events it can no longer control.

And in turn, further than London than they have seemed for centuries, it is on the peripheries that the twilight of Westminsterism is now most highly evolved, and the country’s future determined. Northern Ireland, waiting for its devolved elections next year, remains, as it has been since its abortive birth, a thing apart, incomprehensible to British observers, and viewed with a mix of horror and disdain by political elites in the Republic. Indeed, the anxiety within Ireland’s coalition government that Farage will “bounce Ireland into a referendum it is not ready for” reads more like fear of a border poll succeeding than of it failing. Yet the exultant glee expressed by Sinn Féin at the election results in Scotland and Wales, which show, as my own abstentionist MP claims, that “people are looking beyond Westminster towards a brighter, more positive future, free from the shackles of the British government”, is difficult to dispute.

The SNP’s victory in Scotland, despite all its internal feuding and record of incompetent governance, once again demonstrates the existence of a hardcore voting bloc for independence above all other factors, even if it is outweighed by a slim unionist majority, divided, as in Northern Ireland, between opposing factions. In Wales, initially ambivalent about devolution, Plaid Cymru, seeking independence, is now the party of government, yet with only a slim lead over Reform, which has now taken on the responsibility of defending the Union.

Yet the headline take — that both countries now share pro-independence administrations — obscures the more meaningful political reality that, just like Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are now more or less evenly divided between those wanting to preserve our shared state and those wishing to dismantle it. With no immediate route to independence for either, the likelier outcome than near-term secession for is therefore a repeat of the dysfunctional deadlock of Stormont, with the concrete work of governance taking a backseat to the symbolic politics of national identity. Political paralysis, and the radicalization of the voter base into two binary and directly opposing conceptions of national identity, now appears unavoidable. The hopes of Celtic nationalists rest on framing a now probable Reform government as an English nationalist party, the Westminster state assuming its final, most reductive, and cartoonish form.

Yet Reform’s hopes, in both Scotland and Wales, must be that the accelerating immigration into both Wales and Scotland — immigration supported by Plaid and the SNP respectively — eventually inspire defections among Celtic nationalists of the ethnic rather than civic variety, with the novel and rapid peripheral adoption of England’s demographic churn eventually producing an equivalent political response. Indeed, 12% of Reform’s vote share in Scotland is now assessed to have come from defecting SNP voters. Yet the tussle between Unionism and nationalism works in precisely the opposite way in Northern Ireland, where the mass immigration lauded by Sinn Féin has the effect of strengthening the Unionist vote, by importing people with no particular emotional bond to Irish nationalism, who are in many cases wards of the Westminster state, dispatched to Ulster by the spreadsheets of Whitehall bureaucrats rather than any personal choice. The same two poles — the traditional nationalisms of the British state and the new ones created by mass immigration — are in interplay across the Kingdom, with long term effects difficult to predict: other than bitter and dysfunctional polarization and the counterintuitive ambiguities inherent to nationalism, far beyond the apparent synchrony of yesterday’s results.

More from this author

How Gorton beat Denton

By Aris Roussinos

With Reform, a personalist movement led by a figure ambivalent about the Union, now adopting the mantle of Unionism in Wales and Scotland, it is ironic that its own pitch to English voters is not so different to that pronounced by Sinn Féin’s South Down MP Chris Hazzard: that “Westminster does not serve our people.” Rare is the English voter who would now disagree. The zeal with which Reform’s new English voter base has taken to flagging its own ethnic enclaves is an outward manifestation of the collapse of post-industrial England’s Labour coalition into opposing ethnic blocs. As the pollster Luke Tryl observes: “We are seeing some of the most fragmented results in councils that combine a white working class vote with a large ethnic minority population.” The political polarization reshaping British politics is simply the reflection of an already-existing social polarization decades of willed Westminster blindness failed to prevent and which it is now too late to undo.

In England, Reform’s success in Bradford, Birmingham, Greater Manchester, just as much as the rise of the South Asian Muslim identitarian candidates — or where electoral demography requires it, the Greens as a temporary substitute — reflects this binary process of self-sorting into ethnic factions. The belated protestations of horror from liberal pundits amazed at the inevitable consequences of their worldview have come too late to arrest this dynamic. The Greens, for now, may be a beneficiary, though the party’s coalition of radicalized young women; geriatric millennials seeking yet another lifeboat from the wreckage of the Corbyn project; and Muslim identitarians is hardly more stable than the Labour bricolage whose rubble it picks over.

Yet something similar could be said of Reform, whose working-class and petit bourgeois coalition is deeply divided on economic questions, papered over by a shared, and newly assertive identity. There is no logical reason, other than the total unqualified success of a future Reform government, for the same structural forces demolishing the 20th-century parties not to do the same to Reform in turn. England’s genuine ethnonationalist contingent, currently celebrating as online outriders Rupert Lowe’s success in his Great Yarmouth fiefdom, is more likely to find the failure of a Farage government a profitable hunting ground than any immediate attempt to supplant Reform as the dominant party of the Right. Whether there will be a Britain left for them to restore is quite another question.

For there is, in all that Reform’s path to government seems inevitable, no real certainty in Britain’s future politics other than extreme volatility. Reform’s vote share has decreased from its greatest highs: unless the party fully cannibalizes the Conservatives, or enters coalition with them, it is not on course for a stable majority. There is just as much a likelihood of a coalition of England’s Left parties, propped up by peripheral nationalists, as there is of Farage entering Downing Street, in doing so accelerating the dynamics of disintegration and dysfunction on which Reform relies. Should Reform achieve power, it is highly likely to find its program frustrated by the functionaries of the Westminster state, heightening the already mutinous mood of provincial England. The dysfunction of the Westminster state accelerates its disintegration into identitarian voting blocs, and the state’s disintegration in turn accelerates its political dysfunction: and all the while, the country gets poorer, angrier and worse governed. There is more to Ulsterization than just flags on lampposts.

Let us look at the problem objectively, from first principles. In every country in the United Kingdom, the winning message from last week’s elections has been that Westminster, as it currently exists, simply does not work. In the peripheral nations, the electorally dominant solution is to break away and start again. In England, it is to gamble on Reform as the last chance of resolving this mess. The world that Starmer entered power to preserve, of optimistic, 1990s cosmopolitan liberalism, is already gone forever: his political failure, rather than deriving from his personal flaws, was to attempt to rule a country that no longer exists. Yet in attempting to mend and preserve a Westminster state whose very failure is propelling him to power, it is hard for even the most sympathetic observer to see Farage — a far more polarizing figure than Starmer — working the same raw material into something more stable.

The state may not break apart, then, but it will continue to hollow out, as its constituent peoples old and new continue to sort themselves into smaller political units, focused on ever-narrower and more bitterly opposing ends. The process now underway, which Starmer’s doomed two years in government has radically accelerated, is still very far from assuming its final form. Indeed, Farage is just as likely to prove a catalyst of disintegration as a nation-builder. Some unhappy marriages fall apart; others stagger on, in hope that things might change, or fear of the alternative. The difference between the two outcomes is as often a matter of chance, and circumstance, as willed choice. Westminster is no more in control of how things end than any individual voter. Like the cartoon Yugoslav, all we can do is continue, motionless, to watch the headlines scroll, and wait for events to unfold as they will.

Most importantly, this new “crypto” would be decentralized. Transactions would remain anonymous, carried out directly and without intermediaries, between digital wallets across the world. And while advanced liberal democracies were busy printing money and injecting it into an insolvent banking system via quantitative easing, the total amount of Bitcoins would always be limited to a hard cap of 21 million. Where over-spending governments could stimulate hyperinflationary spirals, the new software would act as a “digital gold”, strictly rationing tokens to “miners” who used their computer processing power to create new Bitcoins.

In the midst of a financial crisis unmatched since the Wall Street Crash, a new techno-utopian movement was born. And it’s perhaps no surprise that Nigel Farage became an evangelist. An instinctive iconoclast, the Reform leader is temperamentally attracted to anything that’ll shake up our fusty old institutions. At a crypto conference last year, he told delegates he was “your champion”, promising to “bring crypto in from the cold”.

Lately, though, Farage has gone from fanboy to investor, putting £215,000 into a crypto startup headed by the former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng (of mini-budget and Trussonomics fame). Kwarteng quickly claimed that the Farage link would help his firm gain “institutional credability” (sic), a useful asset in a crypto world that remains murky, unregulated, and dogged by associations with tax avoidance and money laundering.

Quite apart from his general enthusiasm for crypto, this isn’t Farage’s first foray into unorthodox financial schemes. A former City metals trader, he’s spent years touting the benefits of commodities investments as part of his partnerships with Fortune and Freedom, a financial advice outfit, as well as doing ads for something called Direct Bullion.

More from this author

Will Robert Jenrick sink Reform?

By Jonny Ball

With Farage now getting more involved in the crypto game, advocates doubtless hope their man will help Bitcoin disrupt finance just as he did British politics. Or, if we believe the naysayers, the crypto craze is a symbol of our intellectually decrepit age, a modern-day Tulip bubble inflated either by the dangerous or deluded, eager to sell assets with no underlying value beyond providing dark web services and anonymity for illicit activity. In this reading, the flow of money into Bitcoin and other digital currencies is less a sign of frontier innovation and more an emblem of our era: a damning indictment of the decline of productive, patient, long-term investment in favor of speculative gambles in unproductive assets.

Ultimately, though, Farage’s enthusiasm for cryptocurrency exists at the intersection between grift, personal self-enrichment, and an inchoate political ideology. Nor, of course, is he alone here. Bitcoin and the broader crypto phenomenon has become indelibly associated with the populist Right, from Javier Milei in Argentina to Marine Le Pen in France, who lately performed a screeching U-turn on her party’s opposition to what she once called a tool of the “ruling elite”. For his part, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele instructed his fellow citizens that businesses large and small must accept Bitcoin as legal tender. Farage has promised he’ll let people pay taxes using crypto, and has committed to setting up a sovereign wealth fund of digital currency assets.

If a vague libertarianism is part of the appeal here, there are other draws too. “Drain the swamp” was the rallying cry of Donald Trump, who netted a large fortune through the launch of his own crypto memecoin on the eve of his second presidency. The slogan most obviously referred to Washington’s insider networks, the liberal think tankers, corporate lobbyists and the captured elites in the Republican old guard. But it might just as well have been aimed at MAGA’s other adversary: the finance capital establishment, whose donations allowed Kamala Harris to outspend Trump by three-to-one in 2024.

Wall Street’s cliques sit atop the apex of the world’s dollar-denominated reserve system. They may have been tempted by Trumpian tax cuts, but not at the expense of losing those most valuable of commodities: predictability, stability, and borderless, frictionless open markets. Then there’s the Federal Reserve top brass, who Trump has wasted no time in attacking once back in the White House, not for their money-printing splurges, but for their parsimony, and their refusal to run the economy on hot at the President’s behest.

The crypto world serves as a strange mirror to the traditional Wall Street-Fed nexus. It’s the wayward brother, the rebellious trustafarian that nonetheless remains committed to sharing in the outputs of an over-financialized service economy, reliant on the proceeds of what Marx liked to call “fictitious capital”. The embrace of the technology by an ascendant Right-populist wave reveals an emptiness and superficiality at the heart of their projects. These are Janus-faced movements. On the one hand they feed off popular resentment at the ruling classes  — the deracinated, ultra-rich “citizens of nowhere”  — and instead promise nationalist, patriotic revivals. Yet all the while, they advocate for the further entrenchment of an unrestricted, borderless world, one facilitated by new financial technologies.

The collapse of the postwar Bretton Woods system, over half a century ago, preceded a new phase of globalization, with the expansion of consumer credit and financialization replacing industrial exports as the engines of the global economy. But whatever they might imply, the populists don’t propose to reverse these trends. Rather, they want to deepen them, with the further sublimation of national boundaries and the coherent economies they imply for digitized, globalized transactions. They rail against a globalist elite while promoting a technology that facilitates and smooths global economic integration. They promise to halt national decline while actively boosting digital assets — assets that undermine the capacity of nation-states to fully control their own fiscal and monetary destinies.

For Farage, then, this is less “Take Back Control”, and more “Cede More Control” — to software that has an anti-statist, anti-national ethos embedded into its very code. All the while, crypto involves not the replacement of globalized capitalism, but merely its rejuvenation. And how will this be achieved? By pushing deregulation-on-steroids, turbocharged market liberalism without the mediating forces of the Federal Reserve to shore it up. That’s what’s at the very heart of the crypto phenomenon: the desire for a peer-to-peer currency functioning without the oversight of banks, legislators or indeed law enforcement. And, again, this isn’t so surprising. Faragism has always focused its ire on the free movement of people, of labor, while the transnational nature of capital mobility was taken as a given, or even an unalloyed good. And what all this shows, under proper scrutiny, is that the most mainstream of populisms can operate as a vehicle for intra-elite, rather than anti-elite, competition.

In Reform’s case, meanwhile, its leader’s crypto moment also speaks to a profound identity crisis. Yes, the party wants to stop small-boat crossings. Yet as Nigel began growing his collection of failed Tory ministers, his outfit has lost its outsider edge. We saw another symptom of its ideological confusion in its flip-flopping over Iran: should it remain attached to Trump’s transnational ambitions at all costs, or should it focus on the blunt economic fears of voters back in Britain.

All the while, the party is caught between pledges of reviving industry, rebuilding state capacity, and reorienting the economy towards manufacturing on the one hand — and its roots in the free-market, Austrian School dreams of City-based eccentrics on the other. In a world of burgeoning protectionism, and massive state-capitalist subsidies and aggressive mercantilism practiced by both the Americans and Beijing, the idea of reconciling both approaches is a fantasy. Industrial revival will require an active, agile state that shapes and directs market forces towards strategic, long-term goals.

Perhaps most of all, though, Farage’s crypto mania looks out of step with the times. Where the promise of bitcoin was a future of prosperity driven immaterially, with newfound wealth accrued in the digital ether, conflict in the Gulf reminds us of the centrality of hard goods: energy, steel, secure trading routes, and military-industrial capacity. In a world returning to the politics of production, Farage’s crypto evangelism feels less like a rebellion than strange nostalgia for a fading, borderless age.

The real question, however, is how they failed to see this coming. The uncritical acceptance of Trump by Europe’s populist Right reveals a poor understanding of US foreign policy, and a near-total absence of geopolitical vision. Regardless of who sits in the White House, the logic behind America’s foreign policy remains the same: advancing US economic and geopolitical interests at the expense of everyone else.

Since the early Nineties, every single American president has ended up bombing some faraway country, despite all of them — including George W. Bush! — campaigning against foreign entanglements. Trump 2.0 is merely the latest, and most brazen, iteration of this pattern. Having vowed to “stop all wars” as recently as in his inauguration speech, he has since pursued the most aggressive and militarist foreign policy since Bush Jr., culminating in the attack on Iran — something none of his predecessors had dared to do, despite four decades of Israeli pressure to that end, precisely because they understood the catastrophic consequences. For Europe’s self-described patriots, America’s addiction to military intervention — much of it, over the past quarter century, on or near Europe’s doorstep — should have prompted some caution. That would have been far safer than automatically aligning with “America First” or taking Trump’s promise of peace at face value.

This imperial logic applies to its allies just as much as to its adversaries. Since the Second World War, Washington has consistently treated Europe as a key extension of its global empire, a region to be controlled politically, economically and militarily, and kept firmly aligned with US interests. Nato has been central to this project. As summarised by its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, its function was that of “keeping the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down”. In other words, the original purpose of the Alliance was not to defend Europe, but to prevent the emergence of an autonomous bloc, ensure its strategic subordination to the United States and foreclose rapprochement with Russia.

Earlier European sovereigntists understood this. Charles de Gaulle deeply resented what he saw as American domination of Western Europe under the guise of the Atlantic alliance, arguing that it reduced European nations to the status of protectorates rather than genuine sovereign states. In 1966 he acted on this conviction, withdrawing France from Nato’s military structure and expelling US forces from French soil.

In the six decades since, US policy towards Europe has remained essentially unchanged. In the Eighties, when European nations, led by France and West Germany, sought to pursue a détente with the Soviet Union, Washington pushed back, insisting that European security policy be subordinated to American Cold War strategy. And even after the fall of the Soviet Union, the US made clear that that European security would remain anchored to American leadership through Nato.

Far from providing security to the continent, the Alliance’s eastward expansion was a key factor in triggering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which the US then exploited not only to “bleed” Russia — but also to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia, and force the EU to decouple from Russian gas and turn to American gas instead, both of which were longstanding US strategic imperatives. This was made possible by a European political class in submission to the transatlantic dogma. Just look at their silence in the face of the Nord Stream bombing, an act of sabotage carried out with at least US foreknowledge, if not direct US involvement.

European populists have long attributed this subservience to ideology — an unholy alliance between liberal-globalists on both sides of the Atlantic. But Trump himself explodes this thesis. Despite being as ideologically remote from Europe’s liberal-transatlanticist class as it is possible to imagine, he has extracted from them essentially the same compliance: on trade, defense, Nato spending and even Greenland. The master-servant relationship, it turns out, has nothing to do with ideology; it is structural. One might expect this from a “globalist” political establishment quite clearly beholden to foreign and vested interests. Yet the same transatlantic streak seems to run through virtually all European Right-populist parties, which means the continent’s sovereigntists are either comfortable with Europe’s subordination to Washington or genuinely blind to its structural nature, believing that Trump would somehow be different.

In fact, things have only got worse. Since returning to the White House, Trump has launched an aggressive trade war against Europe, threatened to annex part of its territory, weaponized the continent’s dependence on American gas to extract political concessions and demanded Europeans spend hundreds of billions on US weapons. Europe’s globalist establishment has dutifully complied with all of it. But Europe’s sovereigntist parties have not put up much of a fight either. Whatever the short-term political calculations, the optics of self-described European patriots saying little while their transatlantic ally economically waterboards the continent are not good.

The war on Iran may prove to be the turning point. Europe is already feeling the economic ripples: oil and gas prices have surged dramatically, heaping further hardship on households and businesses already battered by the switch from Russian to American energy. Indeed, according to the EU Commission President, the war has already cost European taxpayers an additional €3 billion in fossil fuels imports. A prolonged conflict — or even a stabilization of prices at current levels — would be economically devastating for the continent. And if Europe loses access to Qatari LNG, its dependence on American gas will become absolute.

That alone would be alarming if it were simply an unintended consequence of war. What if rising energy prices were, however, factored in from the outset? As the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, and Europe’s principal energy supplier, the United States stands to gain substantially from the price surge. This raises the possible scenario: if the proxy war in Ukraine was designed to decouple Europe from Russian gas, the Iran war may be aimed at decoupling it from Mediterranean resources altogether. As noted earlier, US imperial strategy spans decades and administrations, and the ideological color of the president is largely irrelevant to its execution.

Nor does this account for the war’s other potential consequences: mass refugee flows towards Europe, as previous US Middle Eastern wars have generated, and growing pressure on European governments to become more directly involved militarily. Europe now faces two devastating wars on its doorsteps — one to the east, stoked by Washington, and one to the south, actively waged by it. The first pushed Europe into economic and geopolitical vassalage, but the second may be the shock that finally breaks it, plunging it into economic and social collapse.

In light of all this, it’s little wonder that rifts are starting to emerge between MAGA and the European populist camp, and most visibly in Germany, the country most economically affected by these wars.

The AfD is probably the party that has received the most explicit US backing, including Elon Musk’s notorious declaration that “only the AfD can save Germany”. But the Trump administration’s increasingly reckless and aggressive foreign policy is now causing serious strains within the party.

The AfD has always been broadly split into two camps. One — stronger in western Germany, associated with party leader Alice Weidel and foreign policy spokesman Markus Frohnmaier — is pro-MAGA, transatlantic, pro-Israel and neoliberally oriented. The other — dominant in the east, represented by party co-chairman Tino Chrupalla and Thuringian leader Björn Höcke — is more openly nationalist and Eurocentric, more sympathetic to Moscow, hostile to US interventionism, and critical of Germany’s unconditional support for Israel.

Höcke has been characteristically blunt. In 2022, he stated: “It was and is US strategy, as a foreign power on our continent, to drive wedges between peoples and nations that could actually work very well together.” He argues that Germany must cease to be a “vassal state” of the United States, and that Washington, as a non-European power, “should withdraw from Europe”, since “the natural partner for our way of working and living would be Russia”.

When Trump bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities last June, the divide became impossible to paper over. Chrupalla wrote on X: “A fuse has been set on the powder keg of the Middle East.” More recently he said: “Donald Trump started as a president of peace. In the end, Donald Trump will end as a president of war.” Meanwhile, within the other wing, Frohnmaier declared that Israel had “every right” to ensure that “its existence is not threatened”.

More from this author

How the Ukraine war ends

By Thomas Fazi

The party leadership has tried to manage these tensions, largely aligning with Trump on most issues. But the outbreak of the war in Iran has caused these pressures to bubble to the fore. In a notable break with other European Right-populist parties, most of which either endorsed or stayed silent about the US-Israeli strikes, the AfD issued an official statement, claiming that “the renewed destabilization of the Middle East is not in the German interest and must be brought to an end”. It is a modest step, but a telling one. And as the war grinds on and its costs for Germany mount, the Eurocentric wing of the party is likely to grow stronger.

Similar fault lines will inevitably open in other Right-populist parties across the continent and beyond — and indeed they already are. A vivid example comes from the UK, where Nigel Farage’s Reform has found itself tied in knots over the Iran war. Within the space of days, Farage criticized Starmer for not backing the US operation more forcefully, while simultaneously attacking the rising fuel prices that the same war has caused. Meanwhile, Reform’s own ranks were split: deputy leader Richard Tice called for full UK support for the US offensive, while the party’s new Treasury spokesperson Robert Jenrick, who recently defected from the Conservatives, told the BBC: “If you’re asking me the question, do I think that it is in the interests of the British people… for us to be deploying British airmen in bombing raids over Iran right now, when our allies have not asked us to do that, then, no, I don’t think that’s necessary.”

Labour wasted no time pointing out these contradictions, accusing Reform of “saying they would bomb Iran” one week and “backtracking as petrol prices rise” the next. It illustrates the impossible position in which Trump’s war has placed his European populist allies: they cannot support it without owning its economic consequences, and they cannot oppose it without betraying their transatlantic loyalties. But more crucially, it points to the total lack of geopolitical vision among most Right-populist parties.

They better get their act together fast. Any national-populist party that wants to seriously challenge the European liberal-globalist status quo — and wishes to retain credibility with its voters — can’t limit itself to anti-immigration, anti-“woke” and anti-establishment domestic politics. It needs to articulate a coherent foreign-policy framework in line with Europe’s core economic and geopolitical interests. As de Gaulle understood 60 years ago, this necessarily means breaking with Washington and its forever wars.

In the intervening years, with his bombastic style, and even his body language, Farage contributed to a fundamental reordering of British politics. The Clacton MP is sharp and his enthusiasm for a pint conveys an everyman bonhomie. More profoundly, though, he channels something lying deep within the national psyche: merriment. It’s no surprise, then, that his personality has so easily translated into a huge following on TikTok.

And as his star has risen exponentially, so too has his party’s — on current form, it looks likely to form the next government. All the same, what fueled Farage’s rise may not last forever. Reform’s political brand — like UKIP and the Brexit Party before it — used to be all conviviality and connection, but as the party has expanded, that merriment is increasingly being replaced by something else: whinging.

If anything, Matt Goodwin’s campaign to win the Gorton and Denton by-election was characterized by a complaining doomerism, failing to say much — if anything — that was positive about the seat, let alone the country. This constant focus on national decline undoubtedly bears fruit when building a popular Substack or YouTube channel. But if you’re trying to win over voters who can’t name the Home Secretary, you need something more hopeful. And even four days after his defeat, Goodwin was still at it. Nicknamed “Badloss” by some of his critics, he was relentless in his complaints that Britain’s electoral system was just as bad as Lebanon and Sierra Leone. Not that many people noticed, though. Let’s face it, if you lose by more than 4,000 votes, and proceed to say you were cheated of a deserved win, people are bound to switch off.

Indeed Goodwin’s failure, and Reform’s immediate response — imagine Donald Trump’s conspiratorial “Stop the Steal” campaign delivered with the hamminess of a Carry On film — is all the stranger given the Gorton result was objectively strong for both man and party. Pushing Labour into third anywhere in the north west is no mean feat. Goodwin simply lost to a strong candidate, Hannah Spencer, in a difficult race. So as the smoke cleared in a testing by-election, Reform sounded like losers.

More from this author

Will Britain follow the Carney Doctrine?

By Aaron Bastani

Spencer, on the other hand, couldn’t have been more different as she shrugged off the negativity thrown her way by both Labour and Reform. A Bolton-born plumber, she focused throughout on bread-and-butter issues: stopping fly-tipping, cleaning up litter, fixing the housing crisis and sprucing up high streets. During the campaign she even completed a plastering qualification. As she stood to deliver her victory speech, focusing less on ideology than daily hardships, Goodwin will have known that these were subjects that would appeal to his target voters: the Greens were no longer the po-faced identitarian liberals who like to tut at your package holiday. At that moment, Reform must have realised that its pitch as the only credible alternative to the uniparty was lost.

But what happened to Reform’s mojo? Whether you blame the veteran Tory influx, Goodwin’s performance anxiety, the outsourcing of strategy to consultants — it is clear that the party has lost its “aura”. This seemed pretty clear when I was canvassing in Gorton, and was repeatedly and politely told by party canvassers that they weren’t permitted to speak to journalists. Nor was Goodwin particularly keen on individual interviews. Yet this is a mass party and, managed correctly, its membership should be its greatest asset. Suddenly, the party machine feels preachy, with a very New Labour feel. Warm ale is out; a pint of control freakery, please.

This relinquishing of authenticity by Reform has started to be reflected in polling. At the weekend, as the Greens announced they had passed 200,000 members in England and Wales for the first time, FindOutNow placed them in second place; on Monday, Lord Ashcroft’s survey put them at third, just three points behind Reform, with almost 90 seats.

Then, on Tuesday morning, came the big one. YouGov — Britain’s most reputable pollster — put them on 21% of the vote and in second place, just behind Reform: five points ahead of both Labour and the Tories. In all likelihood, Reform and the Greens will have more members than Labour come the local elections in May. And, for those looking to dismiss the Greens as a party of students, bohemians and unemployed artists, think again. YouGov gives them a 6% lead over Reform among all Brits under 65.

Given the avalanche of attacks and negative campaigning against the Greens in recent weeks, from both the Right and the center, how is any of this possible? After all, similar attacks paralysed Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour after 2017, and led to a drubbing two years later. Yet Polanski seems to go from strength to strength, leading to panic among some on the Right, with much of Westminster struggling to understand exactly why the Greens are soaring so high.

Traditionally, many of the party’s would-be supporters figured a vote for the party would be a vote for environmentally friendly policies. When Caroline Lucas was the party’s sole representative at Westminster, the Greens were able to push climate-related issues into the political realm in a remarkable way, from fracking to net zero. It only took one MP.

As the party has increased its MPs to four, the modern Greens have made the political weather on everything from renationalization to Gaza. Today, its MPs function as committed campaigners on strongly held policies at a national level — as well as effective constituency representatives at a local one. This understandably appeals to many of those voters disappointed by the traditional parties.

It helps, too, that Green supporters care about such a range of issues — from electoral reform to rewilding beavers to rent caps to closer ties with Europe. Some simply want to exert pressure on the Labour Party to move further Left. This broad, semi-coherent theory of change sees the party as an expression of social movements as much as an electoral vehicle.

More from this author

Farage is preparing for power

By Aaron Bastani

One downside is that the party risks becoming too successful. The uncomfortable truth is that too many first-place finishes mean the Greens will need to offer more than a grab-bag of progressive causes. For now, though, such problems remain in the future. My suspicion is that few Green voters expect Polanski to be the next prime minister. Many may not even want such an outcome, preferring the party to be a junior coalition member in a progressive government. Indeed, when I interviewed Polanski last week, soon after the Gorton and Denton result, he merely expressed an ambition to lead a party of several dozen difficult MPs in Parliament.

This, incidentally, is also why anti-Green scare tactics, from both Labour and the Right, will ultimately fail. It’s easy to make radicalism feel like an existential threat when it risks actually leading a government — as with Corbyn. That isn’t the case with Polanski. Certainly, comparing a by-election win in Manchester with Iran’s Islamic Revolution strikes most Britons as unhinged. In any case, it’s hard to present an organisation as much of a danger when all its MPs can fit in the back of a London cab.

Ironically, this anti-establishment vibe is also what is most winning about Polanski’s Greens. The party and its leader manage to couple radical purpose with fun — which, in a strange way, is reminiscent of Farage at his best. While I had to grab a few hours of sleep after Thursday’s result, Polanski stayed up all night. The following evening, he appeared on The Last Leg, full of verve and enthusiasm. This relentless energy is invaluable in politics.

Tramping around the sodden streets of Levenshulme a few weeks ago, with all those houses proudly displaying Green party placards in their front gardens, it was strikingly obvious that Reform’s success had opened the door to new possibilities for the Left. After all, if we are suddenly predicting that Nigel Farage can go from YouTube to No. 10, something previously viewed as impossible, then what’s so outlandish about the Greens overtaking Labour?

In terms of what is politically possible, Nigel Farage has — again — done more than blow the bloody doors off. Only this time it won’t all be to his own advantage.

But amid the noise there is signal. Finding that signal, and discerning what the future is likely to hold, is the mission of the Swift Center for Applied Forecasting, where we apply scientific methodologies to scenario analysis and forecasting to predict the future. In 2025, we successfully predicted that major threats dominating the headlines would fail to materialize. We correctly forecasted a significant war between India and Pakistan would not occur; that H5N1 would not become a devastating pandemic; and that the global oil market would be resilient to price shocks despite the conflict between Israel and Iran. Conversely, we identified quieter, yet critical geopolitical shifts, such as the rising risk of US engagement in Venezuela, weeks before the mainstream press acknowledged this reality.

What does 2026 hold? The starting point is to know where to look. With that principle in mind, we have identified specific scenarios for 2026 — five relating to technology and five relating to geopolitics — that we believe are underrated and worth watching. In each case, resolution one way or another will dictate geopolitics for years to come or constitute a significant step toward a landmark in human history.

Technology

1. Will any, or all of, OpenAI, Anthropic or SpaceX IPO?

The potential initial public offering (IPO) of OpenAI, Anthropic, or SpaceX in 2026 would mark a new era for frontier technology. These firms will no longer be AI and rocketry startups, but full-fledged geopolitical assets. Crucially, an IPO forces transparency. For years, the capabilities and financials of these labs have been shrouded in NDAs and corporate secrecy. But a public listing would require the disclosure of risk factors and expenses such as compute costs. It would also require published revenues rather than opaque comments during podcast interviews. It would effectively serve as a public audit of the AI market, revealing whether the path to AGI is truly the profit utopia many believe.

An IPO for any of these entities would very likely to be the largest technology listing since Alibaba or Saudi Aramco. It would absorb significant liquidity from capital markets and would stand a good chance of setting valuation benchmarks for the entire AI and aerospace sectors for the coming years.

Each of the three companies is driven by an insatiable need for liquidity to fund the next generation of capital-intensive projects. It may be possible for all three of them to IPO in 2026. Our forecasters note that the prospect of artificial general intelligence (that is, AI with across-the-board human-level capabilities) and multi-planetary life has captured much of the market’s interest. 2026 may represent the optimal window to convert that hyperbole into public capital before the excitement fades or regulation arrives. However, the capital required for all three to IPO will be substantial — enough to leave a question mark over whether all three will IPO.

2. Will an AI system exceed 85% on the key intelligence benchmark?

How do you measure the capability of an AI model? By using “benchmarks”: suites of tests that assess the model’s ability to solve a range of problems. The ARC-AGI-2 benchmark is widely regarded as the only test that effectively measures “fluid intelligence”: that is, the ability to learn and generalize from novel information. While large language models (LLMs) can pass the Bar Exam by reciting law, ARC-AGI requires them to solve abstract visual puzzles they have never seen before. The average human scores between 60-65% on the test. A score of 85% is generally seen as the threshold for AGI-level performance on this specific benchmark.

Earlier in 2025, no AI model scored more than 24% on ARC-AGI-2. But Poetiq AI, a system that acts as a “reasoning layer”, or wrapper, on top of existing frontier models like Gemini, recently scored 54%. The fact that a small team of six researchers could leverage existing models to originally break the 50% barrier suggests that the underlying intelligence of current models is yet to be fully exploited.

The view persists that LLMs are merely “clever parrots”, but if a model were to score 85% it would be an important development. In short, it would constitute powerful evidence that we are getting closer to creating a general reasoning model. This would likely trigger an acceleration in investment and add fuel to the concerns of those calling to regulate frontier AI models.

Some of our forecasters are bullish. They argue that if a wrapper can double performance in a few months, the integration of these reasoning techniques directly into the training of GPT-5 or Claude 4, the leading models produced by OpenAI and Anthropic, could easily bridge the gap to 85% in 2026. More skeptical forecasters argue that the curve will flatten; the jump to 54% picked the “low-hanging fruit” of reasoning, but the final 30% represents a fundamentally harder class of difficulty.

Suggested reading

The flaws in Musk’s Mars mission

By Robert Zubrin

3. Will a private fusion energy company achieve net energy gain?

Energy is the hard constraint on the AI revolution. Data centers, between them, are as hungry for energy as are small nations. As such, the search for a dense, clean, and scalable power source has intensified. Achieving “net energy gain” — that is, producing more energy from an experiment than is put into it — in a private facility would be an important milestone, for it would signal that fusion is transitioning from an experiment to an engineering and commercial problem. It would unlock substantial investment and could fundamentally alter the long-term projections for climate change, industrial capacity, and geopolitical energy dominance.

The probability for this event in 2026 remains low. The historical precedent is that technical progress consistently lags behind promised schedules. This precedent, understandably, weighs heavily on forecasts. But new developments contradict that pessimism. While only the government-run National Ignition Facility (NIF) has publicly achieved net energy gain, investors are piling capital onto attempts to repeat the feat in private facilities. Companies such as TAE Technologies, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, and Helion are deploying high-temperature superconducting magnets and advanced computational modeling that were unavailable a decade ago. For a private sector facility to achieve this would demonstrate fusion is becoming a commercially viable alternative to natural gas and fission — unlocking a scalable energy source that is capable of meeting the demands of the AI revolution.

A critical development to watch is the intersection of politics, media, and energy. Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) has announced a merger with TAE Technologies in a deal valued at over $6 billion. The combined entity aims to site its first utility-scale power plant next year. Devin Nunes, CEO of TMTG, has explicitly linked this move to “ensuring America’s AI supremacy” by providing the massive power required for future data centers.

While constructing a plant and achieving net gain are vastly different milestones, the aggressive timelines of private firms suggest that 2026 could see a breakthrough for private fusion. If a private company achieves what NIF did, but in a way that is commercially viable, the energy markets will price in a future of abundant power long before the first electron hits the grid.

4. Will Tesla deliver its first Optimus robot to paying customers?

While LLMs displace cognitive labor, humanoid robots target physical labor. Optimus is Tesla’s humanoid robot prototype. There are several hurdles to widespread commercial release of humanoid robots — with those problems including battery density and real-world motion and navigation — but if Optimus reaches the market, it would be a sign that humanoid robots have become commercially viable.

The implications for the labor market would be huge. Humanoid robots do not need breaks and are increasingly physically capable. If their dexterity and reliability improve, and the cost of running them comes down, then they will start to become serious competitors to human workers. Once a robot costs around $15/hour to operate, human wages for the equivalent tasks will be difficult for businesses to justify.

Elon Musk views Optimus as potentially more valuable than its car business, and competitors are on the march: companies like Agility Robotics and Figure AI are already running pilots in factories. Naturally, Swift Centre forecasters remain skeptical that mass adoption of humanoid robots will occur in 2026, viewing pilot programs within Tesla’s own factories as more likely than general retail availability. However, this is a crucial invention to watch in the months ahead.

5. The AI race: Will a Chinese company beat the US models?

The narrative of US leadership in AI is built on the assumption that export controls and superior talent will keep Western models ahead. However, if a Chinese company were to release an open-source model that beats Western closed models on a “time horizon” benchmark — which measures the ability of an AI to autonomously complete long, complex tasks — then the assumption of US leadership would be immediately weakened.

Already, the gap between US and Chinese models is closing faster than analysts anticipated. The next battleground isn’t just about chatbots that can write poetry. Instead, it is about “agency”: AI that can plan and execute complex tasks on its own. If a Chinese lab such as DeepSeek releases a model that tops the charts in autonomy, and gives that model away free of charge, that lab would be flooding the market with free, high-level intelligence. This would undercut the business models of the US tech giants and mean there was a real threat to the US’s leadership on frontier AI.

In short, it would prove that the US’s attempt to gatekeep the future is floundering, leaving Washington with next to no leverage and Silicon Valley with no monopoly. Swift Center forecasters are therefore closely watching AIs’ performance against the time horizon benchmark set by the AI evaluation organization METR.

Geopolitics

While technology seeks to drive the world into a new era, geopolitics in 2026 is defined by fragmentation and the conflicts of old. The post-Cold War order is fraying, and in its place is emerging a new round of protectionism, regional blocs, and raw power politics.

1. Will the Supreme Court strike down Trump’s emergency tariffs?

Since taking office, President Trump has leveraged emergency executive powers to impose broad trade tariffs, including a blanket 10% tariff on all global imports. The constitutional legality of these powers is now being tested in the US Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s emergency tariffs would be a defining constitutional moment for the US in 2026. A strike-down could hamstring the administration’s economic agenda. It could also create chaos in global markets, for importers, having paid billions in import duties, will seek billions in refunds. Such a ruling would force the administration to seek alternative, and probably more aggressive, legal avenues to enforce their desire for protectionism.

Our forecasters note that this is a high-stakes legal battle with the potential for significant economic fallout. The administration argues that tariffs are a national security tool, citing precedents from the Nixon era. However, the Supreme Court has shown some resistance to executive overreach.

In response, the administration might use the Smoot-Hawley Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to provide legal justification for tariffs, signaling that the trade war will continue regardless of the ruling. A defeat would have the additional significance of being framed by the administration as an abuse of power by the courts, hampering the economic will of the people. But a win for Trump would show just how powerful he has become.

2. Will Russia and Ukraine agree to an indefinite ceasefire or peace agreement?

A ceasefire in 2026 would redefine the security architecture of Europe. It would almost certainly leave Russia in control of significant Ukrainian territory, validating the use of force to redraw borders. It would also force difficult conversations about the lifting of sanctions, the reconstruction of Ukraine, and the future of Nato. Conversely, a failure to reach an agreement risks an embarrassment for the Trump administration while prolonging the human, economic, and financial costs of the war. It also prolongs the risk of the war escalating into a direct conflict between Nato and Russia.

A peace in 2026 is unlikely to be a true resolution. More likely is an “indefinite ceasefire” akin to the Korean Peninsula’s frozen conflict. This allows both sides to claim partial victory — or simply survival. The key variable to watch is the terms of security guarantees for Ukraine and how seriously they are enforced.

More from the Swift Center

Will India and Pakistan go to war?

By Swift Center Forecasters

3. Will Benjamin Netanyahu still be Prime Minister of Israel?

After two years of war in Gaza, and a shorter war between Iran and Israel, the Middle East is in a fractious state — with consequences for us all. Central to what happens next will be the political survival of Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister who took Israel to war. His coalition relies on the Israeli far-Right, making a two-state solution or normalization with Saudi Arabia difficult if not near-impossible. If Netanyahu loses, the probable winner will be Naftali Bennett. Bennett’s path to victory will require a coalition with centrists and possibly Arab parties. The departure of Netanyahu could therefore create an opportunity for a diplomatic reset between Israel and its neighbors.

This year, Netanyahu faces both an election and the resolution of his corruption trial. While the polls currently show him losing to a centrist coalition, the Israeli opposition is fractured, and Netanyahu is a master campaigner. If Netanyahu survives 2026, he will probably move to finalize his overhaul of the judiciary. Specifically, he could seize control of the Judicial Selection Committee and pass the “Override Clause”, which would allow his government, if it has a majority in the Knesset, to ignore Supreme Court rulings. This would effectively end the independence of Israel’s judiciary, removing the last barrier to permanent annexation policies and shielding Netanyahu from his own corruption trial.

Suggested reading

Gaza is the endpoint of liberal democracy

By Aris Roussinos

4. Will Reform UK win the most seats in the 2026 Welsh Senedd and England local council elections?

While the world watches Washington, a quiet political earthquake is building in Wales. The 2026 Senedd elections will use a new voting system that swaps “First Past the Post” for “Closed List Proportional Representation”. Insurgent parties such as Reform UK are expected to benefit from this new system, for as they can convert vote share into seats more efficiently than under First Past the Post.

After 27 years of the Labour Party’s governance in Wales, there is a feeling of voter fatigue. Issues such as NHS waiting times and controversial 20mph speed limits have been highly unpopular with working-class voters, who are flocking to Reform UK. Reform, riding high on its local election victories and strong public polling, could take control of the Senedd in 2026, with Plaid Cymru being the other major horse in the race. If Reform, the Right-wing party led by the Brexiteer and MP Nigel Farage, wins the most seats, it would be a historic shock to the UK’s political system.

A victory for Reform in Wales would be more than just a headache for Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and Labour; it would be a resounding signal that the traditional Westminster parties are losing their grip on power. Just as voters in the US, France, and Germany have punished incumbents for perceived failures on immigration and economics, Welsh voters appear ready to reject the norm. If Labour loses the Senedd — a socialist citadel the party has held for nearly three decades — it would signal that there are no safe havens from the rising challenger parties. It would demonstrate that the disconnect between the governing class and the governed has reached a breaking point from which traditional parties may not recover.

5. Will the Iranian regime fall?

There is growing unrest in Iran over the soaring cost of living. Across social media there are numerous videos of cars being set on fire during running battles between protesters and security forces, with several deaths already being reported. Many protesters have called for ending the rule of the country’s Supreme Leader, while others have called for a return to the monarchy.

While street protests are not new to the Islamic Republic, the recent events signal a shift in the political risk. The coordinated strikes by the “Bazaar” (the conservative merchant class) represent a historic break between the regime and its traditional economic backbone. Student unrest is common; merchant class unrest less so. This signals a substantial shift in the risk of the unrest turning into a crisis that the Iranian government can’t control.

Already, the Islamic Republic faces difficulty in de-escalating the protests. This is because the driving force is not just inflation, but fiscal rigidity. The regime faces significant spending pressure following the return of UN sanctions and the costs of the 12-Day War with Israel in June. Reports suggest that projected oil revenues now cover only a fraction of administrative costs: perhaps as low as 5%. This forces a stark trade-off. Does the government concentrate funding on security, or on the maintenance subsidies that previously helped manage social unrest? Our forecasters have noted the government’s decision to close public offices in 26 provinces. Officially, the reason for this was “energy conservation”, but given the context of mild weather and the country possessing the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves, it instead suggests the state is running on empty.

On the Islamic Republic’s side is that it remains the strongest regional ally to China and Russia. Iran sends ~90% of its oil exports to China, and China is Iran’s largest trade partner. Iran is also the only country in the region actively and publicly supplying Russia with military equipment for the war in Ukraine. However, with Chinese demand for oil lessening, Beijing’s willingness to bail out Tehran may be waning.

Should the regime fall, the geopolitical realignment would be profound. It would represent a strategic victory for the United States and Israel, while dismantling a central pillar of Chinese and Russian influence in the Middle East. The fallout would be felt directly in Europe, where the loss of Tehran’s drone and missile supplies would damage Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. Regionally, Hezbollah and the Houthis would lose vital support, dramatically reducing their capability to continue destabilizing the region.

Collectively, as we look forward to what 2026 may bring, we see rapid technological advancements matched by growing geopolitical tensions. Yet the dawn of genuine stability across the Middle East may be breaking on the streets of Tehran.

Severance is a classic “mystery-box” show. Prototyped by J. J. Abrams’s Lost (2004-2010), mystery-box narratives offer audiences a series of puzzles, with the promise that they will all be satisfyingly resolved eventually. In real life, there are no writers scripting our reality (so far as we know). However, the paranoid forms of political explanation taking shape on both the contemporary Left and Right share an affinity with the speculative uncertainties of the mystery-box show. 

Conspiracy theories (“fan theories” about reality) abound, and not just on the fringes of the far Right and far Left, but among the sensible denizens of the establishment center as well. The spread of a conspiratorial worldview reflects our current crisis of authority. But more than this, it distorts our understanding of what is really happening. We find ourselves searching for hidden hands and shadowy conspirators rather than facing our problems.  

In Britain since Brexit, neither the Conservatives nor Labour seem to have relished being in power. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak sometimes seemed as if he were trying to pass himself off as the leader of the opposition, promising to “put things right” after the next election, rather than when he lived at No. 10 Downing Street. 

Since Labour came into power in August 2024, both it and large portions of the British media have often behaved as though Reform UK (with five MPs) and the far Right (with no MPs) were the actual government, and Labour only the beleaguered opposition. As with The Board’s speaker in Severance, it is by no means clear where the voice of authority in Britain is actually radiating from. The suspicion that political power always lies somewhere else, and that whoever purportedly possesses it is actually power-less, provides perfect conditions for conspiratorial thinking.

Suggested reading

How the Right sold out

By Sohrab Ahmari

In the United States, meanwhile, the sense that power itself is out of power is a mainstay of political discourse. The Trumpians and the online-Right more generally are fond of speaking of an amorphous “they” directing the course of events. “They” don’t want you to know. “They” want you to live in fear. A permanent elite called “the regime” — a Left-leaning cabal comprising elements from the media, Big Tech, education, the NGOs, and “woke capital” — really controls things. The background assumption behind such rhetoric is that although it controls all three branches of government, the Trump GOP is, in fact, still at the mercy of malign and hidden forces.  

Like the world of Severance, our political imagination appears to be fundamentally adrift in time. Many on the Left have convinced themselves that their Right-wing political opponents are literal throwbacks to 20th-century fascism. Conservatives have succumbed to the same tendency: for them, the political opposition are really communists. For the Right, corporate DEI, “woke” capitalism, the use of critical race theory in schools, the increased emphasis on heritage justice issues, and the new zeal in progressive circles for open borders — all have become signs of old-school Marxism. 

Conservative commentators seem unable, however, to explain why supposedly extreme Left ideas have been so successful at capturing what were until recently slow-moving, conservative institutions and corporations. So they offer us spy-novel scenarios in lieu of political explanation. Conservative writers such as Christopher Rufo describe a multi-decade “long march through the institutions” by a global cadre of far-Left conspirators, who are now supposedly poised to bring about the revolution. As with the “Right-wingers are really fascists” thesis, there is a sense of time-slippage at work in these narratives. We are being invaded by the forces of a nightmare past. Unmask your opponents, and the eternal enemy will stand revealed.

A more plausible explanation can be found in the writings of the Left-conservative French philosopher Jean-Claude Michéa. Rather than a battle between communism and fascism, Michéa sees a struggle taking place within contemporary capitalism. Two forms of contemporary liberalism — economic liberalism (or neoliberalism) and cultural liberalism (progressivism or so-called “wokism”) — are working together and reinforcing each other, in order to enable global capitalism to function. Indeed, according to Michéa, it is “dual liberalism” that typifies the current establishment.

Michéa, in his 2007 book, The Realm of Lesser Evil, describes contemporary neoliberalism as a “vast, humanity-crushing machine” that is busily “dissolving the extraordinary diversity of existing cultures into the icy abstraction of the global market.” Neoliberalism dictates that there must be unrestricted flows of capital, goods, and labor across borders. To achieve this, it redefines the world in terms of transparency and metrics. During the ’80s and ’90s, under the New Public Management or so-called audit culture, public sector bodies were compelled to recant their previous objectives and justify their existence in value-for-money terms. The long-term result has been a kind of capitalist version of the Leninist permanent revolution. When applied to institutions, it produces a new normal of continual restructuring. All existing organizational structures are turned upside-down and inside-out. Whatever was there before must be reformed. All sense of prior mission and long-term stability is lost.

Rather than resisting neoliberalism, Michéa observes, many progressive elites have allowed themselves to be recruited into its service. Whereas socialist politics was once concerned with protecting the interests of working people and safeguarding national populations, the progressive or neoliberal Left is hostile to the nation-state and any sense of continuity with the values of past cultures. Elites have thus created a highly selective, pared-down version of Left-wing ideology that is compatible with the needs of global business, and manifests itself as the current iteration of “woke” cultural liberalism. 

This new liberalism embraces the principles of openness and boundary-breaking, and focuses on overcoming what it identifies as society’s dominant norms. In doing so, it claims to free people from the oppressive structures that restrict human potential. In reality, it is attacking the last vestiges of the pre-capitalist traditions that once made societies distinctive entities. Unburdened by past values or cultures, nations can be redeveloped in the standardized terms of the new global capitalism. 

Schools and universities have accordingly aligned their teaching curricula with environmental sustainability goals and “global challenges,” and now go about the business of producing outward-facing global citizens, rather than passing on traditions. Heritage institutions, such as museums and art galleries, have sought to make themselves relevant to the current moment by critiquing their own former missions, turning their collections into exercises in moral repentance rather than commemoration. Dissent has become compulsory, so long as that dissent is aimed at the status quo. Of course, what this means is that our actual dominant norm is the compulsion to attack dominant norms — which conveniently fulfills the larger neoliberal project of dissolving all prior structures. 

Cultural liberalism and economic liberalism are not opposing forces. Rather, they work together to further the interests of the current system. Once we view the contemporary workplace through the lens of this dual liberalism, much that might have otherwise seemed puzzling begins to make sense. Corporate DEI and environmental and social governance frameworks are not, as many on the Right would have it, forms of “Marxist” indoctrination that have somehow captured the corporate sphere. Instead, they enable the extension of managerial logic into new domains, both legitimizing private enterprise and providing new opportunities for growth. 

The “woke” capitalism that emerged in many corporate workplaces during the 2010s was a particularly evocative example of dual liberalism at work. Corporate managers once defended the value of the work they did in the old “audit culture” terms of efficiency and value for money. After the 2008 financial crash, however, capitalism sorely needed a new justification. The restatement of corporate missions in moral terms, as well as the new corporate tolerance for workplace activism, reassured progressive employees that their workplaces and professions had meaningful responses to contemporary crises. And management’s newly compelling moral framework silenced dissent. How could anyone defy managerial decision-making when management had become fluent speakers in the languages of social inclusion and environmental justice?

Suggested reading

Grindset is the new Protestant ethic

By Michael Cuenco

By the end of the 2013 film The Congress, much of humanity has mentally migrated into a simulated world, leaving their withering bodies (and the physical world itself) neglected and abandoned. Our current tendency to operate within a dreamland of historical analogies is strikingly similar. The ubiquitous accusations that one’s political opponents are really fascists or communists are an easy means to win an argument — but also to evade reality. 

In truth, dual liberalism creates problems for both Right and Left. As Michéa observes in The Realm of Lesser Evil, Right-wing conservatives champion free markets and then purport to be shocked by the world those markets create. Their focus on communism allows them to not follow economic incentives to their logical conclusions. And it also allows them to blind themselves to the fact that woke is simply what neoliberal capitalism had evolved to look like in the late teens. Right-wing populism of the sort offered by Reform UK has no intention of breaking with economic liberalism, and thus no answer to economic problems. Instead, the party proposes reviving exhausted Thatcherite economic policies. There is no recognition that these policies have already been tried and that they led here, to this precise — and problematic — moment.

The realities of dual liberalism are just as disquieting for the Left. While progressive rhetoric might resist marketization, progressive principles — choice, openness, autonomy — inevitably create spaces and opportunities for the free market to exploit. Relaxed border policies and the low-wage precarity of the gig and outsourcing economies are inextricably linked, as much as moral defenders of the former might decry the social consequences of the latter. Whereas anti-globalization was until recently a mainstream position on the Left, suggestions that we should reimpose restrictions on cross-border labor flows are now increasingly labeled “fascist” or “far Right.” The influence of the economic strand within dual liberalism — a deep commitment to flows and radical progressive change for its own sake — has rendered the contemporary Left strikingly different from previous Left-wing traditions.

One of the complaints from viewers of mystery-box shows is that their final reveals are usually disappointing. The buzz surrounding online fan theories conceals the less-appealing reality that the writers don’t have the answers, and are making it up as they go along. We can have answers, if we choose to, but we must wrench ourselves out of the dream world of rhetoric, and confront the escalating problems that face us in the real world.

It means we should now be asking the question: what if the UK reaches Net Zero immigration before the next election? This seemingly outlandish suggestion could well dictate the future of British politics. The Boriswave is over; might the political ripples it caused (including the meteoric rise of Reform) now lose their momentum?

The Right-leaning media’s reaction to the ONS report, somewhat ironically since their paramount complaint is that immigration is too high, was to downplay the reduction and instead focus on a new panic about the higher levels of emigration of British nationals. Isn’t it time to cut through the “cope” and examine the facts?

More from this author

Britain doesn't want to go to war

By Freddie Sayers

This alleged “exodus” of British nationals certainly merits closer inspection. The Telegraph in their splash, claimed that the ONS data revealed young British workers were fleeing Labour’s high-tax regime. These youngsters, they speculated, have been “flocking to Australia” and to the “Middle East, where remote working is allowed”. For their part, the online Right asserted that the data laid bare the ongoing replacement of highly skilled white British workers with low-skilled foreigners from incompatible, faraway cultures.

Both narratives are precarious, to put it politely. There is no doubt that some skilled professionals are leaving — wealthy lawyers and bankers are constantly tempted by Abu Dhabi; ambitious entrepreneurs will obviously want to take their startup to the US, if it is doing well; and our junior doctors have long been swapping the grinding NHS for a better-paid stint in Australia. The competitiveness of our economy is a serious cause for concern; but these professional emigrants do not amount to hundreds of thousands in a year. Let’s be serious: 18-year-olds  from post-industrial British towns aren’t leaving in their droves for Abu Dhabi to become digital nomads.

The ONS emigration statistics are, to be frank, pretty sketchy. Emigration is far harder to measure accurately than immigration — mainly because British passport-holders don’t need a visa to leave. In years gone by, the ONS would have used something called the “International Passenger Survey” to account for those departing the country, but it was notoriously unreliable. So now instead they scan the population for people who have gone dark and ceased to have any contact with the state — if, after a year, there is still no sign of them, the presumption is that they have emigrated. Since this new methodology was introduced in 2021, there actually hasn’t been much fluctuation in numbers: there has been no sudden surge in emigrating Britons. Complicating accurate measurements are the ‘Neets” who have simply disappeared from the states radar. It can be hard to tell the difference between them and those people who have actually left and as a result all sorts of guessed adjustments come into play: some of these presumed emigrants may just be people lost to the system; others will be young people going abroad to study, and who will return.

Most significantly, though, what everyone does seem to have ignored is the fact that many of the emigrating “British Nationals” will be immigrants or children of immigrants who have acquired British citizenship but have decided to return home. We know the main reason emigration numbers are so high in 2025 is that a chunk of the Boriswave migrants are choosing not to stay — 286,000 immigrants from outside Europe permanently left the UK in the past year alone — and, in addition, Europeans who settled in the UK pre-Brexit are still leaving in large numbers. If an immigrant has acquired citizenship and then chooses to go back to their country of origin, they are still counted as one of The Telegraph’s “exodus of young British workers”.

While the ONS does not provide details of what portion of the emigrating Britons are naturalized citizens or children of immigrants, thankfully there is another migration dataset we can look at, compiled every four years at enormous expense by the United Nations. If you look at their 2024 Global Migration Database and compare that census of British migrants around the world with the 2020 figures, you can see more clearly what is happening: 72,000 more British nationals have settled in Poland (an increase of nearly 40%) and 23,000 more British nationals have settled in Romania since 2020. It seems quite reasonable to conclude that these are Polish and Romanian immigrants to the UK who have returned home along with a British passport and in some cases a British family. The next big hotspot for emigrating Britons is… Bangladesh! Nearly 13,000 Brits have moved there in the past four years. Unless young Billy from Kent has decided, along with thousands of his friends, that Bangladesh is the new land of economic opportunity, these emigrants will be naturalized British citizens with Bangladeshi ties. By contrast, only 3,259 more Brits are living in the UAE than four years ago, and the numbers moving to America are up by only 1%.

Suggested Reading

Blue Labour has come too late

By David Littlefair

The reality is: not all immigrants want to stay in Britain forever. Last week’s report from the ONS made that clearer than ever. And this underlying level of emigration will continue to affect net immigration numbers in the coming years right through 2029. It is hard to think of a single metric that could be more important at the next election.

Political pressure will persist, even with net migration at this lower level. Right-wing commentators are correct to observe that 900,000 arrivals in a year, notwithstanding 700,000 departures, is still much too high for most voters to bear. It was partly anxiety about a roughly similar level of immigration that led to the Brexit result in 2016. A figure of 200,000 net still means an additional one million people every five years — and our current mix of immigrants is now dominated by those from outside Europe, whereas pre-Brexit it was mainly Europeans. Asylum seekers are also at an all-time high of over 100,000 (nearly half of whom arrived on small boats) and are still hard to expel once they’re here. Anxieties about assimilation are well-founded. So, for now, there is still plenty for Reform UK to campaign on. But if the downward trend were to continue, things might start to look very different.

Reducing immigration is like fixing a roof with multiple leaks: each entrypoint is a distinct challenge, and the biggest entry-points are the legal ones. It was, after all, Boris Johnson’s relaxing of rules around care home workers and international students bringing over family members that led to the huge rise in numbers in 2022-2024, and credit for addressing this should go, unfashionably enough, to Rishi Sunak. His government’s changes to the rules concerning care workers, in October 2023, and international students, in January 2024, are the single biggest reasons for the end of the Boriswave. Further restrictions introduced in March and April 2024 are now having an effect: the key long-term visa grants in the latest quarter are down more than 50% since Q1 2024. Consider it Sunak’s parting gift to Keir Starmer.

The Labour government has continued the tightening, raising the minimum skills and salary thresholds for skilled worker visas — and this also is having an effect. Home Office data show that applications for skilled-worker and health-and-care visas are down to a new low. In October 2025, there were only 600 health-and-care visa applications, compared with a high of 18,300 in February 2022. In January 2026, there will be a further tightening, paired with a much longer 10-year wait for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), which is expected to further discourage applications.

Data analyst James Bowes, from the University of Warwick, now forecasts that these shifts, combined with the long-tail effects of earlier waves of immigrants now leaving, could push the UK into overall net negative immigration by as early as this time next year. Madeline Sumption, director of the Oxford Migration Observatory, is more skeptical, and tends to think that the net figure is more likely to rise gently as the boomerang from the Boriswave settles down. In any case, if Keir Starmer has any desire for a surprise comeback, he should be obsessed with this goal — and be fully supportive of his Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood.

Many things could yet derail this trend — chief among them a panic lurch to the Left by Labour after the May elections— but it is clear what the game-changer now looks like. For Nigel Farage and Reform UK there is now the chilling possibility of another Pyrrhic victory — just like the Brexit campaign before it — in which the change to national policy they campaigned for so effectively takes place, and that success removes the principal reason for their existence.

But something else was troubling me, which wasn’t unrelated. A few months before, a Nazi flag had been hoisted onto an electrical cable at the very intersection where our generational paths collided, and left to fly in the mountain breeze. Many locals were horrified, and a local man was arrested. A swastika was being flown three minutes away from the home where I lived out my teenage years and my parents still dwell, in what was once one of Britain’s strongest bastions of anti-fascism? What would the miners who held these communities together have thought of such disrespect? How did it come to this?

Debates continue to rage about the meaning of flags, as indicators of identity and belonging. But they have never just been about nationalism. Back in 1831, in the Valleys town of Merthyr Tydfil, the red flag of socialism was raised for the first time in direct response to the working conditions at the Cyfarthfa Ironworks that was lorded over by Crawshay Bailey. That flag would become synonymous with this region, giving rise to the Labour Party, birthing the idea of the NHS and also becoming a key battleground in unionism and the fight for working-class rights.

Earlier this year, I co-hosted a two-part BBC radio series called From Despair to Where?. Named after the song from the Manic Street Preachers, it addressed the problem of the Valleys today. The producers wanted to show a balanced picture of the region and, to their credit, managed to find some inspiring local projects. But what I found only reaffirmed the general malaise, decline and dereliction that has come to define this place. The sense of hopelessness felt by a group of young girls I interviewed has stayed with me. As one of them tearily said to me off camera, “there is no hope for the young in these valleys. Is there any wonder that so many are taking their own lives? I sometimes wonder what the point of it all is. I want to believe in something. But it’s hard.”

More from this author

We need to talk about violent speech

By Brad Evans

But something has also changed in the atmosphere. When I was growing up in the Valleys in the Eighties, we felt the sense of ruination and abandonment. This was captured by a BBC reporter who, in 2013, described the place as carrying an “unbearable sadness”. Yet in a political reversal of the stages of grief, that sadness turned to despair and that despair has now turned to anger that is barely contained within the valley. And who can deny these people that anger when the outside world continues to crush them?

The BBC series was inspired by a book I wrote about growing up in poverty. It also situated the history of the Valleys within the broad sweep of political and economic history to bring new attention to its struggles, and how people need to have their voices listened to by those in power but find it often denied. My hope was especially to reach out to disillusioned young people and remind them of the Valleys’ proud past of fighting injustice and inequality.

Miners from South Wales made up the largest contingent of volunteers from Britain in the fight against the fascists during the Spanish Civil War. An encounter with striking Rhondda Valley miners in London inspired the American civil rights activist, Paul Robeson, to establish lifelong links with the region, finding common cause between the exploitation of Welsh labor and racist policies in America. That is not to mention the contribution these communities gave deep underground as their coal extractions literally fueled both of Britain’s war efforts, which included untold sacrifices against the Nazis.

Yet I have also come to the sobering realization that such history means absolutely nothing to young people in these towns, who are desperately scrambling to find their place in a world that doesn’t want or need them. The mining communities that once defined the Valleys belong to a different world entirely. It is not theirs. There is nothing remotely comparable, except the poverty and the familiar strips of precariously perched terraced houses, which are home to people who continue to know their lives don’t matter. There is no nostalgia for that past. Everything from that era has been lost or abandoned.

Just as the idea of university has been looked upon with suspicion by many in the Valleys for a number of generations, so the same suspicions apply to politicians, especially those seated in Westminster. Indeed, while there was a moment in history when the peoples of the Valleys did feel some kind of representation, through the voices of politicians such as Aneurin Bevan, the Aberfan disaster of 1966 extinguished whatever faith there may have been in the national political process. Aberfan was also a watershed moment for the Labour Party in South Wales, as the governing party was shown to be removed from the people whom it was meant to represent the most.

What replaced it was apathy. The apathy continued for generations, and the palpable feeling of despondency grew more assured each time the Labour Party came to power. Local people have known the Tories never cared for their plight, but that’s OK. It’s politics and at least you know where you stand. What’s worse is to be continually held down by those who claim to be saving you from drowning.

Keir Starmer’s government has been both a monumental let down and a cataclysmic failure for these people. Cuts to benefits have been acutely felt, especially by pensioners, which has then led to further disbelief as politicians such as Angela Rayner profit from second homes. Her potential replacement as deputy prime minister, Bridget Phillipson, killed off any hopes many poor young children could have of getting into university with her hike in tuition fees. Local people suspect the next Budget, and its inevitable round of cuts, is only going to make things worse.

As I walked back through the village of Ton-Pentre a few days ago, I met an elderly lady who used to work in the local library. That has now been closed down, like most other amenities and public services. An educated woman, she told me of her concerns, and how she marks each passing year by counting more boarded-up shops or the appearance of another vape store, fast-food eatery or tattoo parlor on the high street. Those streets used to be at the heart of local communities, and at least tempered poverty with a sense of belonging. She said she barely leaves her home any more.

We spoke of the flag incident, which she said was outrageous and caused a great deal of harm to the elderly. Then, to my surprise, she told me that as a life-long Labour supporter she would be voting Reform in the next election. It seems she won’t be alone. Polling data continually shows Reform leading in these towns, sometimes with margins greater than the 10-point leads frequently reflected nationally.

While some commentators will be quick to draw immediate connections between the Nazi flag and the rise of Reform, speaking to people here tells a different story. Yes — there is some concern with migration if people are asked. But that concern is really about local economic conditions, and a belief that the more money the Government spends elsewhere, the less there is for any chance of recovery here. And let’s be fair: the Labour government hasn’t presented the argument any other way.

Suggested reading

Welsh nationalism is on the march

By Joel Day

To understand the rise of Reform, then, it is crucial to understand the failures of Westminster and how people are now finding meaning in their message that claims to be working for the working classes. While I don’t like the politics of Reform and have stated on many occasions my suspicions of Nigel Farage, I do understand why local people in places like the Valleys would exercise their democratic right in that way. That does need to be respected, or else we just become another external voice denying poor people theirs.

Reform may be feeding off the anger poor communities like those in South Wales are feeling today, but they didn’t cause it. The Valleys of South Wales have been in a state of economic depression for nearly a century. And the people there have always belonged to a particular class — the disposable of history.

As we look across the political landscape today, we know it has been increasingly marked by intolerance and a simple inability to sit down with people we fundamentally disagree with and have an open and respectful conversation. Should we therefore be surprised to see a swastika in South Wales? We would hope there would be universal revulsion against Nazi regalia, given the horrors that symbol of fascist power undeniably evokes. Those who fly such flags should be condemned. But that doesn’t mean we should turn away from the anger that lies beneath. History teaches us that’s the most foolish and dangerous of all the paths to take.

Beneath the ground of the Valleys of South Wales, there remain many empty tunnels and discarded mining shafts, which are still full of coal, damp, seeping toxic chemicals and even traces of floating gases. But the people there are also sitting on a social and political bomb, which is just waiting for somebody to come along and light a match to prove it was there. If we are to prevent places like the Valleys from exploding, a serious change in attitudes is necessary, starting with those in Westminster.

A good place to start is to listen to local people, especially their struggles and concerns without condescending them. If not, all the current debates about the St George’s Cross may pale in comparison.

For all its purely domestic malignities, British politics is, like that of the European Union, merely a provincial outpost of those of America’s imperial center. A large part of Europe’s current woes is attributable to our leaders reshaping our societies according to the model both inspired and imposed by American hegemony in the Nineties, before being left in the lurch as our masters change course. Believing that, under the Pax Americana, globalization would dominate the future, our leaders entirely reshaped our economies and societies for the world they saw coming into view. Industry was allowed to wither in the certainty that cheap Chinese goods would sustain our lifestyles; international human rights law, in reality a fig leaf for American military intervention against geopolitical rivals, was elevated above national interests in a way the hegemon never once countenanced for itself; destructive energy policies were written into law in the illusory belief of a shared global mission to ameliorate climate change. Through a misreading of America’s early 20th century experience, mass immigration was actively encouraged, in the genuine belief, still intoned as a mantra by Labour at its conference, that ethnic and cultural diversity, contrary to historical precedent, would soon become an inherent strength.

But now the hegemon has radically changed course, leaving its regional middle managers in Britain and Europe stranded in their Nineties fantasy world, and the political parties which adopted this worldview facing collapse. Globalization was always just a superficial Americanization, from which America itself has now withdrawn. Trump’s UN speech, in which he declared that the “entire globalist concept of asking successful, industrialized nations to inflict pain on themselves and radically disrupt their entire societies must be rejected completely and totally, and immediately” is a direct attack on the worldview of our leaders. So too his criticism of “uncontrolled mass migration” — which, he says, is an “assault on Western countries”.

It is difficult to think of an arc of client states surviving for long in direct ideological opposition to their imperial patron: rightly, Reform’s new signing Danny Kruger has characterized the insurgent party’s domestic foe as simply “late-stage liberalism”. In Britain, at least, the result is likely to be the diminution of Labour and the Conservatives to minor regional parties centered on London, the last ideological stronghold of the old regime. A year ago Keir Starmer delivered the Conservative Party a historic defeat; today he is the most detested prime minister in modern British history. There is no prospect of Starmer winning the next election, and little prospect of him leading the Labour Party into it.

More from this author

Why Farage is a Burkean

By Aris Roussinos

Yet Starmer, devoid of an individual personality, ought not take any of this personally: he is simply a stand-in for the collapsing Nineties System, of which he is the robotic final avatar. Everything that Starmer represents, even if presented in human form, would be just as roundly detested. Blair himself has transitioned from the fantasy vision he imposed on British politics to the technocratic, enlightened despotism of his proposed Gaza Mandate, in which a combination of economic growth and digital surveillance will contain the volatile nationalism of the Palestinian people: in his plans for digital ID, it is not hard to see Starmer following suit, albeit without the growth.

Trapped between loyalty to a collapsing imperial ideology, and the upsurge in nationalist sentiment its implementation produced, the Labour front bench, disconsolately waving the various flags of the United Kingdom for the cameras, finds itself forced to spout incoherent slogans. The country is not broken, and to claim that it is is dangerous rhetoric: but the country also requires total renewal, indeed reforging into a “New Britain”. Reform stokes division, and yet the country is also at a “fork in the road”, from which Labour will conjure up unity from diversity. The Boriswave was a terrible mistake, but to undo it would be fascism; nativist sentiment is the preserve of a tiny internet minority, but also of the country’s most popular party; Reform is racist but its voters are not. The Home Secretary declares that “ethnonationalism” is a societal evil to be defeated, while Starmer endorses its basic principle in asserting that Israel and Palestine require two separate nation states to prevent their two peoples from slaughtering each other. If only they could have bonded over slicing half-time Jaffa oranges together, perhaps things would have been different.

The party’s messaging, as it enters full election mode just one year into its term, is entirely incoherent because it must triangulate between the roundly despised, and entirely illusory worldview of its leadership on the one hand, and the newly aggrieved mood of the country on the other. The central axis of British politics is now the basic, essential stuff of national identity, which is not a battleground favorable to Labour. Indeed, there is something late-stage Soviet in Wes Streeting vowing to defeat the combined forces of English, Scottish and Welsh nationalism through a “return to the spirit of 1945”, even as he waits to lose his seat to a “Gaza independent”. But then all British politics in 2025 has become the fantasy pronouncements of those waiting to lose their seats, in what is now merely a series of rearguard delaying actions before a Reform government.

Through having implemented its worldview, and forcing the nation to live with the results, the Labour Party is doomed. But for the Conservative Party, the immediate outlook is just as grim. Having rid his party of conservatives, that self-described “Heir to Blair”, David Cameron, condemned the Tories to share Labour’s fate: the collapse of the two parties, viewed in narrow partisan terms by the Westminster lobby, is more accurately the collapse of the shared ideology they undertook, between them, to impose on Britain.

Suggested Reading

Britain’s wage slaves are revolting

By Jonny Ball

Starmer’s assertion that the Conservatives are the less threatening rival is based on the perception that they are, if not technically the same party as Labour, the product of a shared worldview. There is no threat, for Blairism’s last disciple, of them rolling back New Labour’s constitutional and demographic vandalism. Indeed, considering the party’s governing record in deepening and accelerating New Labour’s cultural revolution, Starmer’s backhand compliment to the Tories could just as easily be a withering broadside by Farage. Such is the shifting popular mood, Labour now even feels free to attack the party’s governing record of excessive liberalism. In disparagingly deploying the online-Right term “Boriswave” to critique Tory governance, no doubt to the despair of his remaining supporters on Bluesky, Starmer has at least put paid to any lingering ideas of a Johnson comeback.

Like a nation, a party can survive many setbacks: but enough of them together and the result is fatal. While Kemi Badenoch was evidently the wrong choice for leader — as I warned at the time of her election — it is far from clear that a belated Jenrick coronation can now do much for the party’s near-term fortunes. A counterintuitive case, though not a strong one, could perhaps be made that Badenoch’s laissez-faire attitude to management has at least allowed the Jenrick wing to experiment with forging a harder-edged, more Right-wing faction within the party. The modernizing, developmentalist, even self-proclaimed Anglofuturist faction around him, now calling themselves the “New Centre Right”, present a compelling vision for 2020s Conservativism. Their greatest appeal is that they can present the same offer of radical reform as Reform itself, but with more competent implementation: but it is a difficult task to campaign on renouncing your own party’s record, and in any case Reform can now convincingly argue that a vote for the Conservatives will be a vote for continued Labour rule. Besides, whatever its strengths, on current polling trends many of the New Centre Right’s brightest stars cannot expect to keep their seats.

The options available to the party last year are no longer on the menu, and those that remain are unappetizing. A gamble could be made that Reform will rest British politics onto a plane more amenable to future Right-wing governance, and that the losses of the next election may in time be recouped by the rump party that survives. One plausible future, at least for Jenrick’s wing, by far the most energetic and convincing Conservative faction, is playing a similar role in relation to Farage to the one Farage himself once performed against the Tories: as a purist pressure group, punishing any deviation from Rightist principles from the luxury of the sidelines. Another is as a more successful SDP, a predominantly internet-based party, with more support from commentators than voters, producing high-quality policy documents to be plagiarized by their electorally successful rivals. Yet if it wishes to remain in Parliament, the New Centre Right faction also presents, for Reform, the only attractive set of potential Tory defectors, in a path already smoothed by their erstwhile ally Danny Kruger. Extinction or co-option? Neither prospect is attractive, yet both now seem more probable than renewal. Outpaced by history, the politics of the ancien régime has another four years to further discredit itself, with every grim daily headline passing verdict on its failure. Gathering in a city that, this week, bloodily displays the UK’s very worst dysfunctions, the Conservative Party’s only chance is that our current path of extreme political volatility may still, against all the odds, extract the party from the grave it so eagerly dug itself. The old UK regime is dead in office: the time is running out to shape the Britain that will replace it, in anything other than Farage’s image.

The period between 1688 and the 1740s was roiled by culture wars and economic change as dramatic as our own. Long before today’s keyboard warriors stereotyped their enemies online — either as skinhead flag-shagging gammons or spittle-flecked blue-haired harpies — Grub Street partisans were doing much the same. Instead of mocking lager louts in England shirts, Whig propagandists attacked a target that was, in many ways, the 18th-century equivalent: the ruddy-cheeked fox-hunting squire who made up the backbone of the Tory Party.

Urbane Whig essayist Joseph Addison depicted the average Tory backwoodsman as being a savage boor with a passion chiefly for dogs, inebriation and xenophobia. He was depicted as a bluff, insular patriot hostile to travel (good only to teach a man how to “jabber French”) and foreigners, whom, he splutters, “will never be loved in England”. With Addison presenting the squire as a half-educated gout-ridden oaf, it’s not far off those online progressives sneering at the “Raise the Flag” movement today.

Such political caricatures, then as now, were rooted in the passionate hatreds inspired by both cultural divides and clashes of economic interests in a time of disorientating change.

Suggested reading

Reform is tearing the Tories apart

By Tanya Gold

The Tories had, in the period following the Glorious Revolution, become classic provincial “populists”. Their base — the staunchly Anglican landed gentry and their rural dependents — not only despised the Whigs for being the defenders of their religious enemies, the more radical Protestant Dissenters outside the Church of England, but also for material reasons. The Whigs, partisans of the new Dutch King William III, supported their new master’s expensive wars with France, wars which gave rise to higher taxes, rising state debt, and a new web of corrupt state clients in the form of government contractors, “stock-jobbers” and army officers. The cost of all this fell disproportionately on the Tory squires while a new financial elite prospered.

As a result, in the 1690s there was a dramatic political realignment as the old party of state authority and monarchy — the Tories — became the “country” party, hostile to the depredations of the central state. All the while, the old libertarianism of the Whigs faded as they became the party of a new, courtly “progressive establishment”.

The parallel with now is obvious. Just as the triumph of post-revolutionary Whiggery created fresh culturally inflected classes of economic winners (financiers, speculators) and losers (the rural gentry and their tenants), globalization over the past 30 years has created urban-progressive economic beneficiaries and provincial small “c” conservative economic casualties. Back then, Tories and Whigs clashed on the status of the Church of England and religious toleration, whereas now we debate trans rights and Net Zero. But if these debates are separated by hundreds of years, both nonetheless pitted “rooted” cultural conservatism versus the radicalism of a new “Anywhere” class. Then as now, meanwhile, such bitter divisions also reflect the material resentment that economically “left-behind” groups — the Red Wall and angry farmers now, the gentry interest then — have for their urban, “sophisticated” rivals who benefit from both economic openness and state patronage.

Both periods saw a new division — put crudely, nation and tradition versus international economic entanglements and cosmopolitan openness — replace the old political binary. What matters now as then is a dichotomy between those championing national cohesion, rooted in the ways of the provinces, versus those championing new paths of global dynamism rooted in innovation and “progress”. It’s Tory versus Whig all the way down.

There is, however, one major contrast between the two eras. As the Whigs went from being libertarian opponents of state overreach to defenders of a new economic status quo, one dominated by financial interests, so Labour has gone from being the champions of the provincial working classes to the party of socially liberal cosmopolitan graduates. That political realignment has its limitations for Labour, given urban progressives are always in a minority. But the modern Conservative Party has an even bigger problem: they have not made the “populist” transition that their ancestors did. Married to a world of globalization and neoliberalism, thanks to their donor class and backbench Thatcherites, they missed their chance to exploit realignment under Boris Johnson.

This mantle has instead been grasped by Reform. Farage’s revolt against the Blairite state resembles the populist Tory rebellion against the post-Glorious Revolution Whig settlement. Starmer, for his part, looks like a Whig desperate to hold back the tide against the dangers of an insular reactionary neo-Tory backlash. These parallels, in their complexities, hold lessons for both Reform and Labour.

The strength of the appeal of the “country” Tories of the early 18th century was that they combined all the energies of a provincial populist insurgency with a deep sense of tradition. They wanted to dismantle what they saw as illegitimate and alien innovations that were distorting the traditional constitution and endangering liberty — the power of a new breed of financiers and a new class of parasitic state toadies that leeched off the bloated post-revolutionary state — without mostly abandoning the essentials of the post-1688 constitutional settlement. They were genuinely skeptical about the destabilizing implications of incipient financial capitalism, and prepared to countenance major “radical” reforms to ward off its ill effects, while still remaining the party of the church, constitution and squire. In other words, then, the Tories were both profoundly radical and profoundly conservative.

The contrast with Reform seems glaring. Firstly, there is every risk that Reform will be nobbled by the same donor class that rendered the Tories irrelevant, with the power of capital transforming Reform into another appendage of the uniparty. Secondly, elements within Reform appear to be ultra-liberals, albeit of a Right-leaning kind, who want to sweep away the Lords (or perhaps appoint their own cronies to it, Farage isn’t clear) and allow non-parliamentarians to sit in a US-style “cabinet”. They give the impression of skepticism towards a “woke” monarchy and of holding a desire to trash many of our institutions. Either or both of these tendencies may prove far from popular with precisely the marginalized provincial voters Reform is banking on, especially if they win power and the white-hot resentment of voters against the old two established parties fades with time.

This is why the defection of Danny Kruger seems surprising, but perhaps also hopeful. He is, after all, a Tory of the old school: a communitarian Christian and no “Right-Jacobin”. Given all this, he seems well-placed to help Reform negotiate these contradictions and channel the strengths of 18th-century Tory “country” radicalism. That there might also be more than an element of political calculation in the move as Kruger seeks to save his seat is probably true. Principle and pragmatism are, of course, not necessarily enemies, although he might find it a struggle to overcome the very different instincts of men like Richard Tice. We shall see how such a tension plays out.

Suggested article

The decadence of Kemi Badenoch

By Alexander Pelling-Bruce

Meanwhile, Keir Starmer (or whoever succeeds him) will not avoid being swept away by a provincial populist backlash in the way that the original Whigs did: by the accession of George I, a king more than prepared to rig the political game in the Whigs’ favor. Nonetheless, Starmer might learn a lot from the man who helped secure Whig hegemony back in the early 18th century: Robert Walpole. Walpole wanted the Whig settlement to be truly secure, and he knew that the best way of doing that was to dampen down the deep economic and religious divisions that, when provoked, tended to work against the Whigs and in favor of the Tories.

So Walpole managed his new Whig economic and religious settlement very carefully. He gave the Tories much of what they wanted: he scrupulously avoided foreign wars and entanglements, kept taxes low and left the Church of England mostly alone. He reined in radical elements on his own side — defying his supporters from the ranks of Protestant Dissent who wished to curtail the privileges of the Church of England further — and compromised. In short, the economic and cultural wounds of the preceding generation were given time to heal. Political partisanship certainly didn’t disappear. But the temperature dropped, and Walpole remained in power for 20 relatively stable years.

The same principle could work today. There is no majority in the country for neo-Whig policies of open borders and neoliberal globalization. But Labour could — in theory — do what Walpole did and make his peace with the provincial patriots who otherwise look likely to power Reform to victory. He could give them what they want on immigration, just as Walpole gave the gentry what they wanted on peace. Starmer could also take real steps to assuage the economic pain of the hundreds of small cities and towns decimated by globalization, as Walpole reduced the land tax and bolstered domestic manufacturing. Starmer and Reeves could actually pull some of the economic levers available to the government: an industrial strategy with teeth and resources behind it, capitalizing regional investment banks, and a return to protective tariffs for key industries.

Alas, one fears that Reform will end up as a debased version of the current Tory Party and Labour will be unable to respond in any convincing way to the electoral tsunami that threatens to engulf them. The result could be a never-ending spiral of voter discontent and rising provincial fury. Let’s hope that Starmer and Kruger get mugging up on their 18th-century history, and soon.

As I sit among the crowd at an event called “Strengthening the Rule of Law”, an over-loud PA system cuts in to tell us, “Nigel Farage will be signing shirts [for £60]”. Otherwise, his party looks like the Tory Party in Sunday dress: Barbour jackets; Union Flag suits; cocktail dresses; a Panama hat, worn by a man telling a story of how he once met Nelson Mandela. On the first day, the More in Common think tank launches its analysis of Reform’s support base. Their current ceiling is 42% of the vote; supporters are socially conservative but tend Left on wealth distribution and nationalization; most define politics as “broken”, and 59% of them do not believe Britain is a real democracy. New supporters are female, less radical and less online; those who have switched from both Labour and the Tories may switch back; potential supporters do not want the end of Net Zero, do not trust NHS reform, and fear Farage’s fondness for Donald Trump. Reform’s real dilemma is: as their coalition grows, their vulnerability grows with it. Voters want different things, and triumph is hard.

At “How to Reverse the Boriswave and Clean up the Other Parties’ Mess”, I watch the pollster James Frayne hurt his audience by telling them the truth. “Prepare for the first six months of a Reform government being a complete shambles,” he says. “Getting into government is hard enough, but actually being in government is more difficult.” He rebukes Reform’s dreamers and culture warriors: that is, much of the activist base here. “The party cannot rely on bullshit sound bites and ‘everything will be alright on a day,’ and ‘we’re just going to try hard, and we’ll face everybody down. We’ll fight people we don’t like’”. Reform must also, he says, “grow up out of this sort of tub-thumping stuff that sounds great somewhere like this” — he waves his arm at the room that sometimes hosts Crufts — “but when you get into government, the public will despise you within six months, unless you’re getting stuff done”.

I suspect it is no coincidence that Frayne is sharing a stage with Matthew Goodwin, the GB News presenter and tub-thumper who looks like an angry Lego man. Goodwin says the British state and the civil service — “let’s just say ‘the Blob’” — are going “to go to war with this movement. Including the Lords.” His gut instinct, he says, is that “they are just going to use every trick in the book to slow [Reform] down”. Expectation management will be essential, he says. But first win the battle, “where actually you do need a bit of tub thumping”.

Reform is not being propelled into government on a wave of joy, but on a wave of fear, and the fearful are combustible. Voters look to Farage on immigration, Frayne says, but they are nervous about a “perceived lack of competence, a perceived sense of extremism — less around Farage but around the margins of the party — [and] also a pervasive, to use a slightly and politically incorrect term, madness. There’s more than a whiff of eccentricity about the party.” It is true: Farage compares the UK to North Korea, which is absurd, and many activists are in costume, as if wearing their grievances. They love hats. But Reform is not the first political party to be held hostage by its own activists. It happened to Labour under Corbyn; his new project Your Party is the next installment. At heart, Reform have done the same: this is the vengeance of the Tories on themselves, though others will get hurt.

Frayne cites Liz Truss; her budget initially polled OK. “When it unraveled within five days the public were apoplectic, and they have been burned so badly that they now know that they need to look for detail.” The other parties don’t have the answer either: “If you put a microphone in front of Yvette Cooper’s face, it’s laughable. It’s clear that she doesn’t know what she’s doing. So, what we might end up with next time is a real sense [that] nobody can sort this stuff out, and at that point, it makes the next election very difficult to predict.” And the one after that, even harder. I used to think about Britain after a Boris Johnson government. Now I think about Britain after a Nigel Farage government.

Some in Reform, though, fear anything that feels like conventional politics — including detailed polling — because to collude with convention is to lose yourself in it. Zia Yusuf, head of Reform’s DOGE, and the party’s most prominent figure after Richard Tice, the deputy leader, and Farage himself, says: “Certainly, while I was chairman, we never commissioned a single focus group. Our focus group was talking to voters on the doorstep.” Yusuf talks about politics less as a national project than a personal journey, though this tendency is hardly singular to Reform. He walks his anecdotes from stage to stage, the cult of individualism on legs.

More from this author

The battle for Runcorn

By Tanya Gold

Reform supporters talk about betrayal the way drug addicts talk about heroin because they have the same sickness they accuse the Left of: over-dramatization. Boris Johnson — who Dorries wants to join Reform to smash Labour — betrayed them. The Fabian Society, higher education, the civil service, the media, the judiciary, the RNLI, which plucks migrants from the sea, and the Labour Party all betrayed them; the Motability scheme and toothbrush coordinators in schools betrayed them; soon the House of Lords will betray them too. Nothing is sacred but their aggrievement.

They want to send illegal immigrants to the Falkland Islands; they would ban public sector workers from striking because they think there will be a General Strike within two weeks of a Reform government; they want to abolish MPs’ expenses, and therefore MPs’ offices.

I listen to James Orr, a professor of philosophy of religion at the University of Cambridge, and a major intellectual figure in Reform. He looks like a Merchant Ivory hero and talks like a romantic. “With every Government scandal, Reform gets stronger,” he says. “With every Conservative hypocrisy, Reform gets stronger.” At some point, momentum may turn into hubris — only a third of voters think Reform will actually improve the country — but not yet.

I hear stories of hiring thousands of workers — a parallel civil service — but, four years from an election, they hesitate to commit to policy: it is always painful easing a dream into reality. Richard Tice is asked what three things he would do on his first day as Chancellor. Tice, who mimics Farage’s cadences these days, replies that he can’t know the state of government finances; the civil service — the Blob — is not helpful. Essentially, he doesn’t answer the question. Wait for the manifesto, and until then, blame the media.

But some, at least, are hungry for facts: you cannot expect people who want their country back to wait forever. Last year, I am told, members, “spoke of nothing but immigration”. This year, according to one political analyst, “not one mentions immigration”. He thinks Reform know they have won this argument. Now they are talking about “gilt yields, the national debt and welfare. Some people are getting a bit frustrated. ‘We like Nigel, but that [his speech] was all fluff, really. Where’s the plan?’” As far as I can see from the fringe, it is this: tax cuts will be paid for by cutting waste, not public services. Jam for everyone you like, then; no jam for those you don’t.

“They need,” one man tells me, “To flesh out their economic policies: to show their workings-out. Because there is an inconsistency.” He adds: “They cannot be all things to all people”.

“I don’t think the depth is there,” another man tells me. “This is not an intellectual party”.

Even so, the next day, the historian David Starkey and Jacob Rees-Mogg, both Tory exhibitionists, headline an event called “How Can Reform Succeed in Office?” They are here to counsel crowds with their wisdom: this is how bad things are. Starkey says, “The thing that really matters is to understand: we’re all conservatives. What [Tony] Blair did was fundamentally — to use a technical phrase — to fuck Britain up. Our job, ladies and gentlemen, in another technical phrase, is to unfuck Britain”.

It will not be easy. “My great fear,” Starkey says, “is, at the moment you are riding to victory. There is simply no doubt about this, but there’s a terrible danger.” Starkey’s melodrama stirs the room. The reason Keir Starmer won, he says, “was simply they [the electors] got tired of Jacob [Rees-Mogg]. It took 14 years to get tired of Jacob. Jacob is endlessly entertaining.” Rees-Mogg does not flinch. If Reform win, he says, “and a Nigel-led government does not succeed in changing things within six months,” he fears the nation will be, “so angry that we will then be in real, real trouble. There will be nowhere else for them to go.”

Suggested reading

Farage has no plan for power

By James Sean Dickson

The plan, Starkey says, is this: appoint five hundred new peers to the Lords. “We will have to neutralize the Lords, otherwise all of what we want to do will get lost in a Sargasso Sea of amendments”. I like his phrasing. Jean Rhys’s novel The Wide Sargasso Sea is about the first Mrs Rochester of Jane Eyre: the raving subconscious of every human being. “We have to be ready with both a blunderbuss and a scalpel. You need the big and the precise, and without that, we will lose.”

“What Reform has got to be is what Disraeli said,” he tells us. “‘The Conservative Party is a national party, or it is nothing’”. Starkey looks around at the sea of faces that look like Tories, and I think he is right: these are, at heart, just angry Tories. This is evidence of both a glut — in communication and entitlement — and an absence here: of compassion, and of hope. “I would hope,” Rees-Mogg says, “that everybody in the Conservative Party is as conservative as everybody in this room”.

“We’re not,” a man shouts at him, but Rees-Mogg laughs the heckle off, and it was the only fringe event which brought the people to their feet with cheers. Despite the pollsters and the Tory grandees attempting to finesse the brand, this is a race to the end: to a Britain none of us yet knows. I leave thinking that Reform is the Tory split over Brexit, reanimated yet again, and its bloodiest manifestation yet.

When, three years ago, she put herself forward to be party leader, the impression was of someone callow — and, in person, she was surprisingly bashful — but she did have that vanishingly rare ability to make her followers cheer. There was an electricity in the room.

By the time of her second go, a year ago, things had changed. The atmosphere was staid. Tory journalists, who ought to have been animated, looked on nonplussed. The careerists were lined up on the front row; they, too, displayed little liveliness. Perhaps they were still in shock from the flagellation they had received from the electorate — even though certain Tories are given to that sort of thing. Badenoch tried to coddle them with the sorts of abstractions that usually make Conservative MPs salivate — personal responsibility, citizenship, equality under the law, the family, first principles. She struggled with the autocue. Had the public been listening in, they would have yawned.

Ever since, her polling has gone from bad to hideous. To Badenoch’s credit, she is unfailingly honest — perhaps to fault. She pleads she will get better, yet has slipped into the party’s reverie. Under her leadership, the Tories are displaying the worst instincts of an ancien régime: excessive self-regard and the unwillingness to understand the conditions which have given rise to their downfall.

This much was confirmed by one of her advisers, who reminded me, with remarks which could have been prefaced with “You know, dear boy”, that being leader of the Conservative Party is not like being leader of Reform, that the party has been around for 100 or however many years, that it encompasses local associations, the National Convention, councilors, parish councilors, and people who have been on the scene since the time of Thatcher. “It’s an enormous institution with a very grand history and we do have to look after it.”

Consequently, Badenoch has chosen a decadent strategy: first, reform internal party structures and set up internal policy commissions; then face the public when it is all complete. I know, because I was recently shown the strategy document itself, a management consultant’s breakfast entitled “The 3+5 Plan”. It lists three phases: 2025 is for “rebuilding trust”, 2026 for “demonstrating credibility”, and 2027 for “getting ready”.

The three phases have five objectives. “1. To win the election, 2. To re-build, 3. To compete, 4. To win the trust of the British people (disconnecting from Labour & winning people to us) 5. To jump ahead.” The party wishes “to become a best in class political organization”. With the replacement of a few words, this could be a strategy for any political party, in any country, in any universe; it does not take into account anything happening in politics now. It gives no indication of what the party stands for.

Suggested Reading

The deep rot of the British state

By Tom McTague

Badenoch’s public appearances yield similarly little insight. It used to be convention that Leaders of the Opposition would put themselves up for ritual slaughter by the press, and ridicule by some quarters of the public, by taking stances on the main issues of the day. The convention had the obvious benefit of allowing the public to see who you are, who you speak for and how you think, even as it ran the risk of causing convulsions amongst the Adullamites of the party when they realized their policy darlings were going to be killed. Badenoch, however, is pursuing the politics of procrastination — while convincing herself that she is taking the harder road of coming up with policy quietly and methodically.

Meanwhile, politics continues around her. On the same day in June as Nigel Farage held a morning press conference to introduce a quirky policy on non-doms to benefit the poor, Badenoch was at the Policy Exchange think tank for a gentle midday tête-à-tête with Charles Moore about Margaret Thatcher. Throughout the summer, Reform ran a six-week law-and-order campaign, with weekly press conferences; Badenoch, perhaps responding to criticism that she has not been sufficiently visible, furnished us with the facts that she no longer identifies as Nigerian and was a snitch at school.

Behind closed doors, some in Badenoch’s team questioned her silence as far back as December. The Tories, they argued, were essentially allowing Reform to speak for the Right. Others now mutter darkly of her being in thrall to fawning deputies who have turned her into a politician who dutifully reads the lines she is given. (This is denied by her team, who say that “Anyone who knows her well would testify that she is the last sort of person who would just read out anything put in front of them.”) Someone who has worked with her previously describes her as unwilling to hear criticism; her allies, on the other hand, say it is myth she is cliquey, and instead, though being resolute, is open to challenge. The team, buoyed by Badenoch’s Commons performances before recess, is more upbeat than after the local elections catastrophe. At Wednesday’s PMQs, though, the first since the summer break, Badenoch failed to land a decisive blow on Angela Rayner, who has admitted to underpaying stamp duty. Lord Frost, a senior Tory, retweeted a claim that “Tories have their heads in their hands after that performance from Kemi Badenoch”.

Her camp is convinced that all the Tories need is time, and that memories of the Truss mini-budget, and other misadventures, will eventually fade. As one told me, “When the public start going, ‘I don’t like Labour but I’m not sure about Reform’, we need to be ready.” He insists that the public, at this point, will see “that Kemi has done the hard thinking to put the Conservative Party back in the right place”.

It is true, in the normal run of things, that the British people easily forgive; they do not regard political parties as continuous living persons in the way analysts do, and so it can be reasonably assumed a stay-at-home voter will go back to his flock.

However, a dyed-in-the wool voter who switches party is like a monk who decides to fornicate — he ceases to be a monk. Just as it was wrongly assumed that Labour voters who “lent” the Conservative Party support to get Brexit done in 2019 would return to their old habits, Tories who voted for other parties in 2024 are likely to keep indulging in pleasures of the flesh unless a substantially more attractive proposition is offered. Even projecting competence and offering a coherent set of policies is not going to do the trick unless they have already been shown a lot of leg. On all the issues of unique concern — law and order, immigration, deindustrialization of the British economy — to the 2019 coalition of voters, the only pool from which the Tories could conceivably win a parliamentary majority, Reform is practically tossing garters left right and center. As deindustrialization and dispossession deepens, this cohort grows only larger.

What next? The present predicament of the Tories increasingly resembles the fate of one of Britain’s great country houses — with a modern twist. Its occupants are too foolish to find new sources of income to maintain it, too proud to open it up to the public, and too blind to see that an aggressive developer under the name of Reform 2025 Ltd is about to demolish it and put up newbuilds. They crowd in the one room they can afford to heat, telling themselves comforting tales in denial of the changing world outside. “We understand government”, “It’s too early to say what will happen”, “The Reform lot are a rabble”.

Since the Reform barracks can have no titans of previous generations staring down from gilded portraits — one presumes they might have a few generic prints of the London skyline, as in a city slicker’s flat — the Tories think they are rootless. Yet they are born of a tradition; there is a line of men from Lord Randolph Churchill to Joseph Chamberlain to Enoch Powell who have attempted to dominate the Right by giving vigorous expression to the sentiments which command working-class support. Nigel Farage is but the next. As such, he has a strong whiff of vulgarity for many Tories — and indeed the middle classes.

But in the prevailing conditions, might they hold their noses? Conservatives love to believe that the natural mood of the country is always conservative. Now it is revolutionary. Though the British people may not be able to describe in detail the progressive web of constitutional innovations, human rights and equality legislation and regulatory compliance which is ensnaring all democratic action, they can sense that the practice of governing is characterized by stasis and inertia. They can also see the visible decay of their towns and on social media the sorts of horrors which inspire the most mild-mannered of folks to want to administer brutal punishment.

Farage’s appeal, therefore, cannot be explained alone by his campaigning on immigration. Not discounting fellow-feeling among compatriots, the issue is of little immediate relevance to the pockets of Scotland and the corners of Wales where Reform merrily marches on; pushing it appeals insofar as it marks him as being against the consensus of the other parties. In these Powellian conditions, it follows that Badenoch, however hard it may prove, will have to distinguish herself as being against the consensus in different ways from Farage if she is to have any prospect of power. But with all the careerists in her shadow cabinet, she is paralyzed by the perceived necessity for party unity from repudiating all the shibboleths she would like to. The truth-telling pugilist of 2022 is nowhere to be seen. Badenoch now wants to be the standard bearer of the Conservative Party, Farage of the Right itself.

Suggested Reading

Nigel Farage has thrown down the gauntlet

By Mary Harrington

Up to this point, the apparatus has never existed for the British people, having grown exasperated with their politicians, to line up behind the one apparently honest man. Farage is putting it together. His genius lies in the recognition that the lifeblood of any political party is not its membership, campaigning machine, corporate structure, or policy formation process, but popular support in the country. All of these must follow, but are secondary. Having cannibalized the Conservatives’ heart and liver, he is making sure they stay down.

In direct contrast with Badenoch, as he builds his party, in a style wholly unusual to politicians, he gives intelligible progress updates as well as commentary on his foes. Policy is drip-fed, which gives confidence to supporters and keeps the media spotlight on the party. The impression is that while Reform work hard in public, the Tories waste time in private.

Meanwhile, in public, at the dispatch box, the Prime Minister has accused Badenoch of not being a serious politician. This criticism has some accuracy, for she lacks the quality which is necessary for political success above all others: guile.

Political guile can take the form of cunning, boldness, ruthlessness. Not without it could Margaret Thatcher have wrenched her party away from an economic consensus shared with Labour. Guile enabled David Cameron to turn the Tory party from something ossified into something skeletal. Guile enabled Boris Johnson to withdraw the whip from 21 of his MPs despite it leading to the loss of his majority. There is no more visible example that she lacks it than in her tolerance of Robert Jenrick. Gone are the days when the party regarded merely encroaching on another minister’s or spokesman’s brief as being as ungentlemanly as poaching the next man’s pheasants on a shoot. But even in these ungallant times, permitting a fellow shadow cabinet member to openly campaign for the leadership is extraordinary. She claims she wants to change everything “without destabilizing my party”. Can she not see that as stab follows back, one naturally follows the other?

For now, though, her position is safe; party rules do not allow a formal challenge until November, and next year’s local elections are likely to deliver further punishment. Knowing this, her rivals consider it too early to strike. But like the king who preceded Robert the Bruce, she has already been mercilessly rendered a Toom Tabard, another forgotten figure in the procession of the mediocre. All that remains to be seen is whether in 50 years’ time her name is the answer to the pub quiz question, “Who was the last leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party?”

As a country on the front line of migratory waves from Western Asia and North Africa, popular opposition to mass migration in Greece is a given — I once had my camera thrown into the sea by angry locals who presumed I was working for an NGO — but the issue has been largely neutralized by the hard approach to extra-European migration displayed by the Right-wing government. The adoption of national-conservative stances has brought none of the liberal opprobrium which targets countries like Hungary; certainly, none of the affluent British tourists crowding the local beaches and tavernas, who would view Farage as a threat to their nation’s deepest values, appears to view Greece as a benighted pariah state.

What passes beyond Greek understanding, then, is the pose of assumed helplessness displayed by British governments: it is generally assumed that in a democracy, for a government to survive, it must do what its voters wish. Nigel Farage’s unveiling this week of Reform’s policy of detention and deportation of illegal migrants represents Britain lurching towards this European mainstream status quo, and not the one which parochial British pro-Europeans would wish it to be. For everything that Farage announced is already being implemented in Greece, under the stern eye of the country’s new Minister for Migration, Thanos Plevris, a convert to Greece’s governing and notionally center-right National Democracy party from the national-populist LAOS party, far to the right of Reform.

Suggested reading

Nigel Farage has thrown down the gauntlet

By Mary Harrington

The Greek coastguard has managed to stem the flow of migrant boats from Erdogan’s Turkey, which openly uses migration as a weapon against Greece, by the simple expedient of pushing them back, illegally and often forcefully. It deals with European and NGO criticism by blankly denying it is doing so. Facing a new migration wave from eastern Libya, which overwhelmed the southern island of Crete this summer, the Greek government suspended the right to claim asylum for any migrants arriving from North Africa. In what the Washington Post, with the solipsism of American journalism, describes as the country’s “Trumpian turn”, migrants are now detained on arrival, and held in prison-like internment camps until they can be deported. Those who accept deportation will be sent on their way with a €2,000 stipend: those who refuse face prison terms of between two and five years. In Greece, it is now a criminal offense for NGOs or anyone else to help migrants reach the country’s shores. Such hardline measures balance “the rights of third-country citizens to seek asylum and the right of Greeks, who cannot see boats coming and a government not reacting”, Plevris has declared: “Greek citizens should know that under no circumstances are we going to become a country of open borders or a country where those who come will be welcomed with flowers.”

Like Poland, whose new liberal government suspended asylum claims from its eastern, and now heavily militarized, border in February, Greece’s suspension of the asylum process is taking place within the ECHR which Farage has vowed to leave — in both cases citing the provision for overriding the right to asylum in the event of “in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”. Poland’s confrontation with Belarus, and behind it Russia, eases the process within the context of Europe’s embroilment in the Ukraine war. For Greece and Plevris likewise, the migrant wave from North Africa is an “invasion” and a threat to both Greek and European security. The European Commission’s migration spokesman has merely stated that “We are in close contact with the Greek authorities to obtain necessary information on these measures”, citing Greece’s “exceptional” situation. Indeed, as Greek officials declared to Politico, “neither EU ministers nor the Commission raised any objections regarding the suspension”, but instead “the new Greek legislation has aroused particular interest among [European] ministers, as it is seen as the strictest ever submitted at EU level”.

Returning to Britain’s more parochial debate, it must first be noted that the detention and deportation of irregular migrants is now the stated policy of both conservative opposition parties as well as, credibly or not, the Labour government. The same Farage who a less than a year ago declared he would not be “dragged down the route of mass deportations”, because “it’s a political impossibility to deport hundreds of thousands of people”, is now promising the mass deportation of 600,000 irregular migrants in his first term. The Conservative Party is accusing Reform of “copying its homework”, declaring its ownership of mass deportation as a policy, while the Prime Minister vows: “If you come to this country illegally, you will face detention and return.” The entire framework of Britain’s heated and decades-long migration debate has been changed, perhaps irrevocably. Contrary to the fantasies of the migration extremists who have brought us to this point, Britain’s political parties have not weaved a dark spell of extremism over a pliable electorate, sadly unenlightened by their Bluesky threads. Instead Britain’s politicians have been dragged here, against their will, by a popular anger now uneasily straddling the line with open civil disobedience. As in the old coarse joke, now that the principle has been firmly established, all that remains is to haggle over the details.

And it is the details we may rightly quibble with in Farage’s dramatic announcement. As Poland and Greece have shown, while Reform’s stated policies are provably achievable, it is not necessary to leave the ECHR to do so. Indeed, attempting to do so will likely mire Britain in a second coming of the interminable Brexit crisis, with low-information liberals declaring that the ECHR is all that stands between the ordinary voter and the return of slavery, torture and summary execution that apparently typified British life before 1998. Given the convention’s political importance to Irish Republicans distrustful of unencumbered Westminster rule, leaving its purview would likely return Northern Ireland from its current position of an irrelevant anomaly to its traditional role as a baffling and unresolvable irritant to mainland British governance. As with so much of Britain’s tangled and unhappy relationship with continental legislation, the issue at hand is not so much the ECHR itself, but rather the problem of factions within the Westminster state, in its courts and civil service, using it as an excuse to pursue their own ideological ends against the will of the British people, for decades expressed democratically to no effect, and now in the streets with sudden, startling success.

More from this author

The populist revolt isn’t over

By Aris Roussinos

As the venerable American observer Christopher Caldwell recently observed of Britain’s increasingly unhappy and volatile state, while “Blair enshrined the European Convention of Human Rights in British law and empowered a Supreme Court to vet parliamentary decisions”, the “democratic prerogatives of the British Parliament are almost absolute”, such that “Britain’s proudly (or notoriously) sovereign parliament could abolish these Blairite guardrails in an afternoon”. Both simpler and more transformative than leaving the ECHR, the obvious course open to the now probable incoming Reform government, preparing for a landslide victory, represents something closer to the transition between political regimes than winning an election. It is indeed the reversal of Blair’s own constitutional revolution, now sanctified as an ancient pillar of the state by the apparatchiks it empowered. When even New Labour grandees such as Jack Straw and David Blunkett propose sacrificing the ECHR, we must view it as we would a general’s ceding of an already untenable border fort to preserve his deeper lines of defense.

To preserve the British state, Farage must strike deeper, and return its institutions to democratic control. The alternative to total political reform, as the not-especially excitable historian Robert Tombs observes, is not an endless continuation of Blairite high summer but the gathering stormy clouds of an “English Revolution”, whose ramifications for the British state and the various peoples it claims to represent are impossible to predict. Just as Tombs declares, a period of political transformation “as momentous as the 1832 Reform Act”.

In his Oxfordshire aircraft hangar, unveiling his mocked-up departure board, Farage presents the country, and is himself presented, with the choice between a controlled descent from a disastrous course or an uncontrolled crash landing. The nation’s stability increasingly rests on his unproven ability to take back control, returning Britain from its parochial isolation to the European mainstream. If those who brought us here fear Farage’s course correction to the Britain of the 1990s, the prospect of his failure should frighten them more: if the British state cannot reverse its mistakes, the logic of events will cast them on a far more hostile shore.

It’s long been an assumption of that international order that national and international interests are naturally coextensive. For Farage, though, the effect on national migration policy of international human rights law proves that the latter is the enemy of the former. So, in the name of British women and children, international law has to go.

Reform’s “Operation Restoring Justice” would see illegal migrants securely detained in former military bases, before deporting them without any right of appeal, even to countries currently deemed “unsafe”. Reform would, Farage pledged, use persuasion and, if necessary, clout to force countries to accept returnees, while negotiating “fallback” deportation options in third countries. Destroying identity documents would be criminalized, as would returning after deportation. The whole operation would be powered by a new deportation force, driven by enhanced data-sharing between bodies such as police, social services, DWP, HMRC, and the DVLA.

If this feels vastly more radical than any Tory proposition to date, this is thanks to the structural changes Reform has proposed to Britain’s legal and institutional frameworks, in order for the program not to be killed by lawfare. Farage proposes to do what neither Labour nor the Tories has to date been willing to attempt: repeal or disapply every international law, treaty, and membership whose provisions might obstruct deportations. This would, he pledged, include leaving the European Court of Human Rights, repealing the Human Rights Act that entrenches ECHR governance in British law, and disapplying treaties governing treatment of refugees and people at risk of torture or human trafficking.

More from this author

What is wrong with the Right?

By Mary Harrington

If Farage is now proposing to go goblin mode on Britain’s legal and institutional architecture, this is surely downstream of the political and sociocultural permission structure created by Trump’s unapologetically nationalist “America First” second term. In particular, this has included far-reaching measures to close the southern US border, and to deport those currently working in the USA illegally. At the policy level, this has naturally invited reflection among British migration restrictionists on what measures would be required in order for something equivalent to be implemented here; but the impact is also cultural. Online, British and American public conversations are effectively one undifferentiated Anglophone discourse. And in this space, the post-Trump gulf between British and American approaches to border enforcement has inflamed our simmering migration debate.

This issue was already contentious. It played a central role in the Brexit vote, and has since only grown in salience as successive governments have sought to offset faltering growth with the economic sugar-rush of population increase. The actual scale of Channel migration is dwarfed by the legal kind, especially since the so-called “Boriswave”. But as the volume of illegal small-boat migration has increased year-on-year, leaders’ apparent inability to prevent the boats arriving, or expel their passengers from the country on arrival, has become as emblematic as EU “free movement” once was, of the way government after government promises to curb migration, only to admit that sorry no, we can’t control the borders after all because reasons.

Pent-up public frustration at this studied inertia now bubbles up with ever-greater frequency, and in ever more frankly race-delineated terms. It lay behind last summer’s Southport riots, and fanned renewed concern earlier this year over the persistence of largely Pakistani rape gangs in many British towns. Starmer is now evidently so concerned about the ambient condition of Britain’s “community relations” that as Baroness Casey prepared to publish her report in June that some active grooming cases include alleged perpetrators who are asylum seekers, Labour sought to anticipate and defuse public disorder by rushing out a slew of new mitigatory measures. But the mood since has continued to sour, and a steady flow of headlines this year, documenting sexual attacks on British women and girls by migrants hasn’t helped. One such attack triggered this summer’s wave of asylum hotel protests.

The contrast between Starmer’s thus far ineffectual efforts to “smash the gangs”, and the online feed of viral Trumpian border-control content, also lends credibility to Farage’s claim that the failure of successive British regimes to grip this issue is a matter not of political possibility, but political will. Though he stopped short of calling Starmer a traitor, in his speech Farage accused the Labour PM of taking the “side” of international courts over that of the British people. The small boats crisis, Farage thundered, “poses one fundamental question. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of women and children being safe on our streets, or are you on the side of outdated international treaties, backed up by dubious courts?”

Suggested reading

Is Nigel Farage a man of the people?

By Terry Eagleton

In presenting the question as a Schmittian one of “sides”, that pits vulnerable women and children against abstract treaties and impersonal courts, Farage has launched a fresh broadside in the metapolitical battle that’s raged since before Brexit, between particularists and universalists. The choice of women and children makes the picture more emotive, but in its most general terms, the divide is between those who imagine “citizenship” as drawing an imaginary line around a subset of people in order to define the political in-group, and those who wish to expand the in-group to include everyone on the planet.

For those most committed to the universalist vision, it’s obviously right and just that universal human rights should take precedence over national ones, even where foreign criminals are concerned. This outlook tends to cluster at the top of the social scale, and in its home-grown form arguably has roots in the globe-spanning mentality typical of the erstwhile British imperial ruling class. In its modern, postcolonial form, the regime it produces is — pace Farage — still very British, whether in its generosity to outsiders, its punctilious respect for rule of law, or its assumption that everyone in the world is as individualistic as we are. It is also deeply British in the exceptionalism underlying its core premise, that it’s only by an accident of birth that most people didn’t have the good fortune to be born in Britain, and this unhappy predicament should be treated with sympathy.

Many otherwise quixotic-seeming features of British policy in areas such as migration, naturalization, social housing, and “community relations” make perfect sense in the context of this Anglo-universalist mindset. But the difficulty, for its adherents, is that people are generally much more willing to be generous about who counts as “us” under conditions of abundance. When resources grow scarcer, people naturally prioritize those closest to them. In this sense, the Left is correct to argue that austerity is a driver of anti-migrant sentiment; but they are mistaken to imagine it’s the driver. Some people are simply more interested in their immediate community than “all of humanity”. And even in relatively individualistic cultures such as Britain’s, this instinct will loom larger as scarcity bites, as it very much has after decades of deindustrialization, financial crisis, austerity, trade chaos, pandemic, rising taxes, flatlining wages, inflation, and political instability.

But even as the particularist muttering has grown louder, it’s done so within a legacy policy environment that institutionalized the optimistic, expansionary universalism of the End of History, back while the good times were still rolling. And this institutional setup is tended by the kind of comfortably-off politicians, lawyers, and journalists who are generally less affected by scarcity than those they govern, and thus still willing to be generous. Whether through this simple lack of awareness, institutional conservatism, moral conviction, or who knows what other motivation, this class has clung to a political regime designed for a more optimistic age, even as the British electorate has begged repeatedly at the ballot box for leaders willing to change tack and prioritize the in-group, even in such simple symbolic acts as deporting serial criminals to their country of origin.

One can fill endless Right-wing column inches with arguments over how exactly to define that in-group. The deeper Schmittian battle, though, is between those who accept in principle that some boundary must be drawn, and those who think “us” means all of humanity. That the media class still skews to the latter view is attested by the fact that three of the first four press questions, after Farage’s press conference, focused on the danger to asylum seekers in being sent back to unsafe countries. To a universalist, the interests of those coming to Britain from around the world should obviously weigh equally with those of the people already here. To a particularist, meanwhile, this seems at best impractical if not actively disloyal to the in-group.

Even Brexit didn’t dislodge the universalists, though the presence at Farage’s press conference of reporters from every major mainstream paper suggests that their worldview no longer sets the agenda quite so effortlessly as it once did. But even if the mood has unmistakably changed at the level of the electorate, so far the only Western leader to make more than symbolic efforts to undo the internationalist regime has been Donald Trump. Results have, so far, arguably been mixed, and most of America’s vassal nations have responded by reiterating their commitment to America’s pre-Trump program of internationalism, presumably in the hope that things will go back to normal after he leaves office. But should Reform be elected (a big if) and actually deliver on Operation Restoring Justice (an even bigger if), this would make Britain the first major American imperial ally to set about re-ordering itself in the image not of the old, internationalist America but the new, Trumpian particularist one.

This prospect faces many hurdles, not least Farage’s personality, Reform’s to date relatively thin talent pool and (unless something unexpected happens) four more years of Starmer’s lawyerly devotion to the very human-rights architecture Farage wants to destroy. Even so, this week Farage’s uncanny ability to catch and capitalize on the public mood effectively shunted “human rights” another step away in popular perception from axiomatically positive, and another step closer to general opprobrium as a Schmittian enemy of the British people.

It’s too soon to call when, but I have every expectation that even if Farage doesn’t achieve it from No. 10, this consummate politician will eventually score his second Brexit. This time, it wouldn’t be from entanglement with Europe; it’d be from an international system of rules and ideals that, underwritten (until Trump) by America, set the terms for 75 years of Western geopolitics. What comes after that is anybody’s guess. For the sake of public order, though, we have to hope that when it does happen, this second Brexit is more successful than the first at reducing immigration.

The finesse of how to govern well can wait — for now, Reform can simply ride the wave, propelled by the euphoric high of political momentum. Realism and political temperance comes second to whether “The Establishment” is running scared. The old playbook is simple: identify ruling power structures that feel distant and aloof, be they parties or institutions, and campaign against them in an uncompromising, boisterous fashion — all washed down with an (imperial) pint of blokish bonhomie.

But Farage’s script, refined over a political career spanning more than a decade, is changing: “I’m not mucking about — I’ve got one goal, and that is that Reform wins the next general election,” Farage told assembled party members at the launch of Reform’s local election campaign in late March. That’s quite a shift in political aim: from outsider revolutionary to governor. Thursday’s local elections are being spoken of as a mere staging post, before the march onwards to No.10. If we are to take Farage’s stated ambition seriously — and we need to, with a recent gold-standard MRP poll putting reform ahead of Labour and the Tories in seats — then we need to ask what a detail-light party might look to actually implement in power. Policy is harder than it looks.

More from this author

Sunak's platitudes won't save Britain

By James Sean Dickson

One of most effective tools in Farage’s arsenal has been his tight, clear messaging. But, as recent history tells us, marrying rhetoric with reality is a challenging business. It wasn’t so long ago that “stop the boats” was launched as a short, simple and seductive slogan. Stopping the boats in practice? Well, just ask Rishi Sunak for just how challenging three short words can be to put into effect. Recognizing the challenge of governing actually requiring policy, senior Reform operatives are working to set up a politically aligned think tank to support policy development, modeled on the US think tanks that serve as ideological outriders to the Trump presidency, the FT has reported. It cited an internal document that declared the planned organization would “support Reform with policy development, briefing and rebuttal” and seek to “change opinion around key issues and provide technocratic competence”.

But the very act of defining a policy platform will reveal tensions simmering beneath the surface. The prevalence of foreign money in British think tanks is quite limited — especially when compared with equivalent American outfits and their vast endowments, payrolls and genuinely global influence. But the FT reported that Reform’s proposed think tank would seek funding from “US donors from MAGA, tech [and] religious conservatives”, in addition to more regular UK sources of funding. No wonder Farage is looking abroad — the sheer scale of US political money embarrasses our own campaign and political research spending. Looking for dollars from the United States, the new Right certainly fits the pattern of Farage’s regular cross-Atlantic visits — and his genuine star appeal at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a jamboree of American Right-wing politicians, broadcasters and influencers.

But Reform are seeking inspiration and funding from a country which has an entirely different political culture could become their undoing. Reform’s online activists too are steeped daily in the disputatious politics of the American Right. Emboldened and energized by a fresh Trump-MAGA victory, the American new Right might look like a winning template for populist-Right parties worldwide. But Reform should exercise caution in the lessons it draws from abroad. There is a discordance between a more pedestrian party of suburban, coastal England, and the radical libertarian-conservative ideology of Silicon Valley tech elites like Peter Thiel and Musk that leads the American new Right. They may align on attitudes to immigration and share the culture war skepticism of anything “woke”, but it doesn’t take long to find grit in the oyster between the two movements.

Reform’s existing voters, and those it is most likely to attract in the future, are predominantly older — just under two-thirds are over 50. The upside of donations from wealthy US Right benefactors is clear, but what about a wider ideological alignment — taking on the political approach and talking points of a foreign political movement? In the UK, voters look upon MAGA’s mercurial radicalism — typified by the tech elite’s “move fast and break things” approach in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — with bemusement. Whether you consider it a national fault or not, Brits are simply less culturally or ideologically invested than the average American in radical, sweeping changes in the scope of the state.

Unlike the United States’ robust recovery from the financial crisis, Britain remains stuck in nearly two decades of economic stagnation, meaning the headroom for change, as Rachel Reeves has found out, is limited. What little remains in most council budgets, which bore the brunt of the austerity period, is now overwhelmingly dedicated to adult social care — something Reform’s older voter base would certainly notice if fiddled with. But, taking the US Right as his inspiration, Farage said he is looking to bring DOGE to local government regardless.

At his local election campaign launch, Farage said Reform had submitted 3,000 Freedom of Information requests aimed at identifying and rooting out wasteful government spending. “When we win these county councils, we’ll send in the auditors, we’ll get rid of the fraudulent contracts, we’ll cut spending and we’ll do our utmost to fulfill all of our promises,” he added. It’s a glimpse behind the curtains at his personal Thatcherite past. But this is politics, not policy. Unless he’s proposing cutting adult social care, this is all talk. And while Farage and his followers may occasionally lean and speak libertarian, repeated history tells us that whatever pleases populist conservatives will come first in any party he leads.

A nod to this tendency — later denied by an insider to Politics Home — was the floating of an anti-housebuilding campaign in the launch documents for the proposed think tank — a caveat emptor for any young Reform activists with aspirations to own a home of their own. Farage, like many of his populist Right contemporaries, might be very good at courting a young audience on TikTok. But just as with the Conservative Party, the middle-to-late age, home-owning voter base will dictate the direction of Reform policy, not the well-intentioned frustrations of young activists.

Countering house building might make sense if you view housing as a subset of immigration policy, with each newcomer making the housing shortage even more acute — even if cutting net migration to zero tomorrow would still leave one of the most acute housing shortages in the world entirely unresolved. But the suggestion not immediately being thrown out demonstrates a real cultural difference between Reform, and the ideology behind any money sourced from the more libertarian and radical US Right.

The Siren call of American money will be welcome to a movement without established labor union or business funding routes, but Reform will have to watch itself, and avoid trying to push radical American libertarianism on its more staid, less provocative voters. Labour will be watching like a hawk for any more attackable comments in this space, having finally found an argument capable of taking the wind out of Reform’s sails. It’s not the only foreign policy risk of cosying up to the US New Right — the Trump team’s open disgust for Europe, and its politics and values, is becoming clearer by the day.

Trump’s economic policies, in the wake of the tariff announcements, are a stormcloud on the horizon too. “10% tariffs from the USA are bad news, but better than 20% for EU members,” Farage said — looking to play down his visceral, Thatcherite disapproval of the huge, sweeping changes to global trade policy of his political ally. He increasingly resembles a contortionist, stealthily adapting his message for a skeptical British audience, while desperately trying to appear loyal to Trump.

Suggested reading

Could Elon Musk make Farage king?

By Tom McTague

The undeniable strength of the Reform and Farage brands can paper over a lot of these contradictions on the way up in the polls. When you don’t fill the policy space, voters imagine what they like, and project it onto parties they culturally identify with. But as Reform professionalizes, media scrutiny intensifies, and the general election draws nearer, policy positions, influenced by think tanks, will have to start crystallizing, exposing the ideological cracks in the party coalition. Farage will need to decide soon if he wants to continue to be the revolutionary leader and terrorizer of institutions, or start to work out a framework for actually steering them as a leader. If he doesn’t decide on the latter before long, experience will soon find him out in Downing Street.

Ideological tensions between the donors, membership, voters and leadership of parties are nothing new. But if Farage is serious about preparing for power, then British politics will have to come before American money and ideology. It’s the same question Farage needs to face as leader — making the choice between raging against the machine, or grasping the levers to control it. If these tensions aren’t addressed, expect a bumpier ride in the near future. The Rupert Lowe row and expulsion is evidence enough that ambitious senior Reform operatives will inevitably seek to push their vision into any available policy vacuum.

At their core, Reform–supporting Britons are voting against the radical, disorienting pace of social and economic change experienced in recent decades. Society has moved too fast for them, and they don’t understand it. But unlike their American equivalents, they want to ease off the accelerator, not stamp hard on the brakes. Farage the impressionist can paint feeling but a government needs blueprints, budgets and hard choices. With the local elections near and expectations set sky high, it’s Reform’s first big test to see if they can actually solve the litany of problems that face the British state, when given the opportunity to do so. It’s hard to resist the wealth of American money, but Reform should never forget that even if we share a language, we do not share a culture — and there has rarely been a time more in need of solutions over vibes.

Just as with Easter, marked this year by booming church attendance and a perceptible new air of politicization, the day when the English people take stock of who they are has taken on a new political salience. Politicians now both chase, and attempt to pre-emptively shape, a public mood very different from that of our recent past. A close reading of St George’s Day political messaging, ahead of the Government’s inevitable drubbing in next week’s English local elections, reveals a population increasingly ruled by Westminster as a sullen and borderline rebellious tribe.

More from this author

Leftists should relish Trump’s revolution

By Aris Roussinos

For the ruling Labour Party, St George’s Day was commemorated as an apotropaic ritual undertaken to ward off evil. “There are people trying to sow division in our communities, people taking the red and white of our flag with them, as they throw bricks at businesses and our police,” Starmer lectured the nation, with all the stern appeal of a substitute teacher faced with an unruly class. His reference to his predecessor as “an English Hindu” was an explicit nod to the weeks-long debate earlier this year as to whether or not Rishi Sunak is meaningfully English, a topic of political discourse unthinkable just a few years ago, and the product of the newfound ethnic consciousness unwittingly accelerated by mass immigration and its advocates.

Indeed, the governance of Britain in recent decades has functioned as an unintentional experiment in forging an angry ethnic nationalism where none previously existed. Like Sunak’s place within the English nation, what until recently seemed settled certainties have become, for the first time in my lifetime, sources of contestation. Accusations of two-tier policing and anti-white racism leveled by the Conservative opposition, chasing the public mood, have the air of a civil rights movement for what is still, for now, the majority in its own land. Catastrophic misgovernance has brought us here: progressive overreach has brought about reaction, and perhaps soon overreaction; while uncomfortable truths left buried to maintain social order now threaten to emerge in an uncontrollable form.

The most violent scenes in last summer’s riots took place, after all, in Rotherham, a name now indelibly associated with state failure. There, the British state’s apparent collusion in a decades-long campaign of sexual exploitation approaching the scale of war crimes, the product and accelerant of a Northern English urban landscape as segregated along ethnic lines as that of Ulster, has placed a time-bomb beneath the foundations of its own legitimacy. For its own survival, torn between a controlled explosion now, or an uncontrolled one later, the governing party can neither reveal the full extent of the horror nor long actively suppress it. Labour’s Mirpuri vote bank has now outgrown the party, while the buried secrets of its once-unchallenged Northern governance have made fertile ground for a growing nationalist Right. Soon, the party looks destined to be ground to dust between the tectonic plates of these two newly assertive identities.

For Sadiq Khan, whose video’s chosen imagery of elderly Pearly Kings and Queens in their tribal finery conveyed much the air of an American land acknowledgment, footage of multicultural celebration sat uneasily with a sombre warning against “the rise of populism and prejudice around the world”. Instead, “our patron saint,” Khan told us, “stood up for what he believed in” (whether this meant Christianity or killing dragons went unexplained). “England is a tapestry of different cultures, faiths, histories and ideas, woven together to tell one story,” Khan intoned, as the video showed his “London Welcomes Refugees” posters on the Tube and a happy multiracial crowd dancing hokey-cokey in the spring sun. As with Starmer’s attempt to divert English identity onto the more comfortable plane of football and Fabian decency, or the almost parodically bloodless patriotism of the Dover MP Mike Tapp, endlessly shrouding himself in the Union Flag and Brown’s state-mandated British Values, the ruling party’s St George’s Day communications were simultaneously anodyne and heavily politicised.

All of this was the direct product of Labour’s fear of a growing Right flirting with ethnic nationalism to chase the public mood. Writing for Labour List, the Blairite former MP John Denham, long an advocate of a Fabian English nationalism kept within careful bounds lest it escape onto more volatile territory, made the implicit anxieties marking Labour’s St George’s Day explicit. “The Southport riots and grooming gangs have disturbed our cohesive society, requiring a new national story,” Denham wrote. “As we confront the populist right [a bracket which for Denham, perhaps correctly, now includes the Conservative Party] we can’t be spectators. Whose idea of England will win?” Judging by the polls, the answer is not Labour, with the party of government now hovering as England’s third most popular. Like the intellectual Left, reduced by historical circumstance to writing footnotes on a newly-energised Right, the governing Left is pursued by an amorphous, rapidly evolving Right whose deathly grasp it cannot escape. As for a character in an M.R. James ghost story, doom approaches with the awful, slow-motion certainty of a nightmare.

For a decade now, the country has been engaged in a slow-burning, chaotic period of democratic revolution, from Brexit’s violent rupture with Westminster’s decades-old political consensus to the electorate’s wild and desperate lurches between any party pledging to break the trajectory of decline. Northern England has emerged as the neglected kingmaker in British politics, delivering ephemeral landslides to Johnson’s Tories and then Starmer’s Labour before violently rejecting each in turn. Soon, if the polling is accurate, it will be Reform’s turn to be rewarded, and perhaps rejected, by this volatile and angry electorate. A Westminster lobby entranced by the drama of the new party’s rise has yet to grapple with the consequences of its likely failure.

More from this author

Could Anglofuturism liberate Britain?

By Aris Roussinos

Writing in 1977, the Scottish nationalist writer Tom Nairn foresaw a future where the pressures building up beneath a Westminster system shared between two parties of only cosmetic difference, incapable of reform, would eventually lead to that system’s breakdown. “Only the combined pressures of external collapse (e.g. the breakdown of the currency) and internal upheaval (whether as nationalist or as social revolt, or the two at once) will be enough to unseat this resistant system,” Nairn wrote. The immediate result, he believed, would be a new “Gaullism” of the English Right, which “while of course manipulating the symbols of tradition and extolling the ancient virtues, will be forced to go beyond a transitional, or ‘caretaker’ role. It will desert the sacred continuities even as it hymns them.” For “its principal purpose is laid down in advance: the forcible, breakneck achievement of that successful modernization which has eluded all United Kingdom governments in this century (except in time of war). For this, a new constitution and state are needed (even if they retain some vestments of the old).” For Nairn, “this will be that long-awaited ‘revolution from above’”.

This is not the cause of Nigel Farage, the genial, careless Mr Toad of British politics, but it does speak to a growing current on the Right. Nairn’s prediction of a modernizing, “Gaullist” English nationalism, which remakes a sclerotic Westminster state whose ancient essence it claims to defend is perceptive: it is, perhaps, an Anglofuturism avant la lettre. The St George’s Day messages of the Conservative Party’s most energetic asset and de facto leader, Robert Jenrick and of his ideological ally beyond party lines, Rupert Lowe, speak to this current. In Jenrick’s video, England is not just “a great nation” but “a great people” too: an appeal to an identity Labour cannot comfortably utter. Its paeans to historical glory, a modernity-defining legacy of scientific and technological advance, and unapologetic declaration that remembering England’s past “will give us the dare and determination to build a better England still” are a spine-tingling reflection of this developing political current. Its pointed inclusion of Cromwell is both a hint of the almost revolutionary nature of the necessary reform, and a nod to the internet Right increasingly driving mainstream conservative discourse. In the same way, Lowe’s video, made by the anonymous propagandist of the internet Right “Brewgaloo”, prominently features Jenrick over Lowe’s stirring speech calling for a Great Repeal Act of Westminster’s maladaptive laws, as the first act of “national restoration”. Concorde, red squirrels, Glastonbury Tor and King Alfred whizz past, near-subliminally: this is what Nairn predicted, and feared. It may yet be what the nation demands.

Writing now, in the quiet lull between St George’s Day and England’s local elections, the political contours of the near future are taking solid form. If Reform is ascendant now, few seriously see in Farage’s charismatic solipsism a serious party of government: instead, Reform’s historical purpose is to break Labour, just as last year it helped break the Tories. The Conservative Party has found a new voice, if only to rail against the consequences of Conservative governance. In its Jenrickian incarnation, allied with its fellow traveler Rupert Lowe, it speaks to a project beyond mere conservatism, but instead of systemic reform in the service of national restoration. Where Labour seeks anxiously to divert this energy towards its comfortable, chosen ground — the now nostalgic Fabian multiculturalism of the Blair era — this ascendant Right seeks to ride the bottom-up nationalist wave created by decades of state failure. For the first time in living memory, this St George’s Day felt different, energized, as English politicians addressed their rebellious people. Like the May elections following at its heels, it was a way-station on the road to a different England — one way or another.

Right now, it feels particularly difficult not to harden our hearts to the governments of our recent past. Layer upon layer of political failure has consolidated into a deep rock of mismanagement which grows more obdurate by every passing generation. Britain is just so bleak: the sense of decay and neglect is palpable across the country. Everyone knows something is fundamentally off; that things are out of kilter.

Was anyone really that surprised by the report published earlier this week which found parts of Birmingham and the North East are now among the poorest places in Europe? You only have to walk around these places to know they are profoundly poor.

During my last trip to Birmingham, the city of my birth, I watched a group of Bayern Munich fans wandering aimlessly through the town ahead of the match against Aston Villa. What were they making of our second city as they compared it with their German hometown? Britain must have seemed so much poorer. This wasn’t because of anything dramatic — boarded up shops or jarring poverty — just an unmistakable feel.

More from this author

Keir Starmer has no dream

By Tom McTague

The city’s problems run particularly deep, of course: failures of local government exacerbating failures of national Government. I’ve been reading David Lodge’s Nice Work, set in the depressed Birmingham of the Thatcher years. What is so striking about that novel, written almost four decades ago, is just how relevant it remains. That sense of decline and neglect captured by Lodge in 1988 has, if anything, only become worse.

Governments have come and gone, new ideas have been tried, grand promises made. And yet, here we are, Birmingham among the poorest places in Europe, a failing city at the heart of England: once Tory, then Labour and then Tory once again, but now, potentially, Reform. It should be no surprise that Nigel Farage chose the city for his party’s “BIGGEST Event Yet” last night.

But as deep as Birmingham’s problems go, they are far from unique — and it is this which goes at least some way to explain the national popularity of Reform in the polls. Even in London, which cannot be said to be a failing city in any real sense, there is now a sense of listlessness and decay in the air. As someone recently said to me, “It feels defeated.” London gambled on globalization before 2008, and now, like the rest of the country, seems lost.

Everything here seems to be out of sync. What were once seen as basic life expectations have become aspirational luxuries; three-bed semis, family doctors, functioning A&Es, pleasant town centers and simple family holidays. Those jobs that once guaranteed a comfortable standard of life and status, no longer do: teaching and medicine, social work and military service. A friend of mine calls this the crisis of the “downwardly mobile professionals” — the DMPs or dumpies. These are not the “left behinds” of lore, but the quietly seething dumped upon, unsure who or what is to blame, but aware that something is wrong.

Who should the dumpies blame? In one sense, it’s easy: the Tories. There is a strong empirical case that the government from 2010-2024 was the worst in Britain’s post war history; a period of rule almost entirely without merit. Not only did the Conservative Party leave office with taxes at record highs but public services were at record lows and people’s living standards had barely improved since they took power. The country’s prisons were full, its military power reduced, its police forces cut and utility companies disgraced. Heathrow was not given its third runway, HS2 was not finished, the Northern Powerhouse was abandoned, and old-age care left to rot. The failure is almost impressive in its totality. Not a single prime minister or senior figure from this period emerges with credit: from David Cameron to Rishi Sunak via Theresa May, Boris Johnson and the Liz Truss moment.

Such is the Tory record, it is fanciful to think Badenoch might have turned things around in the short time she has been limply in charge of the party. Yet, brother man, for the sake of honesty, we should not harden our hearts too much. The Tory record is disastrous, but it was book-ended by crises beyond even its own ineptitude. No one serious can account for the years of Tory failure without acknowledging the crash of 2008 and the pandemic of 2020. We continue to live with the seismic consequences of those two events, as well as the stains of the 2016 Brexit crisis, which Cameron, May and Johnson cannot so easily wash from their hands.

But things go even deeper. It is not possible to travel around the UK without seeing not only the failures of the last period of Tory rule, but also the failed promise of the Blairite years of plenty before that, and the epoch of upheaval under Thatcher before Blair and Major. Andrew O’Brien, from the Council for National Resilience, has calculated that in 1975, when Thatcher became Tory leader, the country was spending around $19 billion a year in today’s prices on support for nationalized industries and employment programs. Today, we are spending $41 billion on unemployment assistance alone. We have few nationalized industries ensuring that the essentials of advanced economic life — like steel — are produced in Britain.

Given our current predicament, O’Brien believes it would be sensible for the Government to abandon decades of Treasury orthodoxy and begin subsidizing British industry all over again. That we are even contemplating such things is telling. Old answers no longer make much sense. The country today is walking around in a daze, like those Bayern Munich fans, dimly aware that something isn’t right, but unaware how to fix it.

Suggested reading

Rearmament is a noble lie

By Aris Roussinos

All certainties are gone. In the Conservative Party, the children who worship at Thatcher’s feet have suddenly found their assumptions turn to dust. The transatlantic alliance, which was the alternative to Europe, is crumbling along with America’s commitment to free trade. What, then, is supposed to take its place? The Labour Party, meanwhile, has inherited a state which does not work in the way it assumed; it is unable to deliver either the improvements in public services or the economic growth necessary to begin to shift the malaise which is powering Reform into contention at the next election.

And yet, even Reform — Westminster’s disruptors — still cling to old Thatcherite orthodoxies which no longer make sense in a world where Trump and Putin hold sway and national resilience is the key, not just nationalism.

The failures of four decades have combined in this moment of profound national malaise. But Mantel’s plea for the compassion of future generations, contains a profound truth about life — and politics. It is too easy for us to pass judgement on those who made decisions in the past. Who, though, has the political bravery to try something new today? We should not harden our hearts to those who fail, only to those who never bother trying.

It might sound absurd to the casual observer. These men hold wildly varying beliefs and, in many ways, define themselves in direct opposition to each other. McSweeney’s entire project is predicated on the idea that Blair’s “radical centrism” is not only out of date but politically objectionable for not taking seriously the working classes Labour exists to represent. Blair, in turn, remains eyerollingly dismissive of McSweeney’s “blue” Labourism and his attempt to win back the disaffected old voters lost in the years of high Labour liberalism. Both men, in their different ways, reject out of hand what they would see as Cummings’s brand of anarcho-conservative populism. Cummings, meanwhile, believes that McSweeney and Blair are both achingly anachronistic in their understanding of the modern world and what is necessary to make the British state function.

And yet, there is much that binds these three figures together. Within weeks of entering No. 10, McSweeney had come to the same conclusion as both Cummings and Blair: the British state, in its current form, is not fit for purpose and needs what Keir Starmer has since called “a complete rewiring”. Of all the influential figures in British politics, Blair and Cummings today are among the most convinced of the seismic nature of the coming technological revolution, not just for jobs and wages, but for politics itself. All three are also convinced that without fundamental reform, the duopoly which has ruled Westminster since Labour broke past the Liberals in the Twenties may not have long for this world.

With the election of Donald Trump in November, and the rise of Elon Musk as a figure of epochal power, Westminster has entered into a tailspin of speculation about the prospect of Nigel Farage being the figure who might finally put this teetering political system out of its misery. Despite having only five MPs to Labour’s 402, there is now open speculation that Farage may not simply expand his party’s presence in parliament at the next election, but win the next election, becoming prime minister himself.

More from this author

Trump's new world order

By Tom McTague

Farage himself plays up such speculation for obvious reasons. “We are about to witness a political revolution the likes of which we have not seen since Labour after the first world war,” he told The Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year awards. “Politics is about to change in the most astonishing way. Newcomers will win the next election.”

It is worth stressing at this point that the barriers to a Reform victory remain enormous. To win outright, Farage would need to double the party’s vote share and see both Labour and Tory support collapse. Reform now lies in second place in 98 constituencies, 89 of which have a Labour MP. The Tories, meanwhile, are in second place in 292 seats, 218 of which have a Labour MP. The fundamentals of British politics, in other words, make it far harder for Reform to win the next election than the Tories.

Historically, too, it is hard to find any precedent to bolster the idea that Reform can go from five MPs to a majority in one term. The Labour Party won its first seats in 1900. By 1918 it had increased its representation to 57 seats and then 142 in 1922, when it finished second for the first time with 30% of the vote. Still, it was not until 1923 that Ramsay MacDonald became prime minister at the head of a minority administration, and 1945 before Labour won a majority.

Yet what is remarkable is how many serious political operators and insiders in British politics now believe that there is a plausible (if still unlikely) chance of Farage becoming prime minister in 2029 or 2034 because the old rules no longer apply.

Blair’s view, for example, is that just as the industrial revolution gave rise to new political movements, so too will the technological revolution we are now entering. A world of automation, AI, Silicon Valley and China simply cannot sustain the same political divides which existed at a time of industrialization and mass trade unionism. In Blair’s view, only if the two main political parties reform to reflect the reality of the world that now exists — or will soon come into being — can they hope to survive.

Cummings, similarly, believes the conditions are coming together for a period of far deeper and darker upheaval; the failure and corruption of the old order will become so systematic that it breaks down at rapid speed. Brexit, in his view, was an attempt to get ahead of this change. The revolutionary nature of AI, which may wipe away the industries on which Britain depends — law, accountancy, finance and the creative arts — will only accelerate the implosion, Cummings suspects, releasing forces as unpredictable as they are unmanageable.

These forces could combine to squeeze the life out of British industry just as Donald Trump sends the US economy into overdrive with his program of massive tariff increases, tax cuts and spending reductions. It is a perfect storm. And at this point of chaos, a Trump-light alternative in Britain, fueled with money from Elon Musk, could sweep Farage into power. Given the right funding, senior figures in the wider Conservative movement believe that Reform could launch a hostile takeover of the weakened Tory party, like a spider crab shedding its old shell as it grows.

In one sense, it is possible to see Blair and Cummings as the yin to the other’s yang. Cummings sees history as a dark, chaotic process of disorder and renewal, while Blair cannot escape his faith in progress. Both, though, see the world entering a period of climactic change which may result in something entirely new coming into being.

Enter McSweeney, whose politics are less sweepingly visionary than either Blair or Cummings, rooted in the grind of British life rather than the sweeping historical forces which will or will not overwhelm the country. Yet he too recognizes the global move towards conservative populism, and believes, for Labour’s part, that only tangible improvements in people’s everyday lives will be enough to hold back the Faragist advance. His party’s campaign strategy for 2029 is already set: don’t risk a return to chaos with Farage and Badenoch.

Earlier this year, in advance of the election in June, McSweeney and his team in Labour HQ analyzed every possible threat to a Labour victory, including from Reform. All potential vulnerabilities were identified and, where possible, closed down: Green pledges abandoned, spending plans watered down, and language around immigration and Brexit tightened up to leave no doubt in voters’ minds. As part of this work, the party’s most senior figures delved into the danger of Farage’s insurgency. McSweeney had two essential observations which guided Labour’s strategy: first, in the election in 2024, Reform would probably help Labour by splitting the Conservative vote; second, that this story could change dramatically by 2029.

The truth is that Reform remains more of an existential threat to the Tories than Labour. It is far from impossible that Labour will limp through both this term and a second because the Right has split in such a way that even with less than 30% of the vote, Starmer remains in power with Liberal Democrat support.

More from this author

The village that made Nigel Farage

By Tom McTague

But the nature of Britain’s electoral system means that once a threshold has been passed, the barriers which once held an insurgent party from growing can suddenly accelerate its rise. The model here is the SNP in Scotland, which rose from six seats out of 59 in 2010 to 56 in 2015. Those looking for straws in the wind point to the recent council by-election victory for Reform in St Helens in Merseyside, one of the safest Labour constituencies. In a ward where there was hardly any Tory vote to cannibalize, Reform topped the poll in a first past the post.

The central reality of British politics today is that the window of possible outcomes appears to be widening at an astonishing speed. We have never before been in a position where an insurgent political party is level-pegging with both main parties while being supported by both the richest man in the world and the most powerful.

Nigel Farage may finish the next election in second place in the popular vote and fourth in terms of actual MPs. Alternatively, he may follow in Ramsay MacDonald’s shoes by leading his party into second place in a hung parliament and become Prime Minister of a minority government. But the most remarkable fact of British politics today is that the best observers I know are no longer able to say which one of these two scenarios is more likely.

Looking at where the McSweeney-Blair-Cummings venn diagram overlaps, we can draw one central conclusion: revolutionary change is coming. The question is: who will thrive in the chaos it unleashes?

It’s a crusade Farage knows only too well. Despite Conservative Party infighting, the political battle ahead won’t be between competing factions on the Right. As Reform has stated and Trump has clearly understood, the real fight will be between those who feel disillusioned and alienated, and those spared such suffering. Farage’s choice to launch Reform’s manifesto in Merthyr Tydfil in the South Wales Valleys was symbolic: not only is the town synonymous with the birth of revolutionary socialism, but it was also the constituency held by the founder of the Labour Party, Keir Hardie in the early 20th century.

If the Labour Party is to counter the threat of Reform in Britain’s abandoned and despondent communities, it will need humility. And it must begin by once again respecting working-class Britain. This means taking its concerns seriously, not dismissing its anger or conjuring up fancy theories to explain voter choices away. We can’t present working-class people as uneducated and highly susceptible dupes. They know more than any social scientist about the meaning of impoverishment.

As the recent election made clear, we live in an age of deep political mistrust, where old loyalties and political allegiances based on the class system are breaking apart, where a large percentage of the electorate veers between anger and apathy, and where new forms of media have transformed the political terrain. But there has been another dramatic shift: the Americanisation of our political system, which has brought about a new political and cultural milieu in which identity has replaced class. As we can see from Reform’s success, the performative politics of emotion now reigns supreme.

Suggested reading

Nigel Farage's post-democratic revolt

By Mary Harrington

Before this visit, watching Farage weighing up whether to run in Britain’s most recent election or help Trump secure a second term was not incidental. It takes us to the heart of the politics in which he thrives. Of course, characters such as Farage are not entirely new to our political scene: just as a wealthy Oswald Mosley presented himself as a man of the people, Enoch Powell, whose family had roots in the mining communities of South Wales, made a career by demonising immigrants and prophesying “rivers of blood”. Farage, however, is a different breed of politician, who speaks of British values and sovereignty, yet who takes his political and strategic ideas from beyond these shores.

Despite his “anti-woke” rhetoric, Farage speaks more about identity politics than anyone else in British politics. In this, he takes after his bloodied friend, whose 2016 election victory inspired many of Reform’s campaigning methods. Identity politics thrives on mobilising negative emotions, from general anxieties of an insecure world to amplifying each and every sense of injustice or verbal wounding to keep politics operating at skin level. That is the appeal, and it is also the reason why our elections have become so volatile. And as the past days have shown, it has bred a new species of violence that can’t be ignored.

We have a new category of floating voters today who, unmoored from traditional ideology and allegiances, no longer neatly sit in what we once thought of as the centre ground. Again, the United States is instructive here. Take the case of McDowell County in West Virginia: a former mining region and one of the poorest areas of post-industrial America, topping many of the league tables for social deprivation. In 2008, 53% of the community voted for Barack Obama and his message of hope and change. Yet in 2020, 79% voted Trump. The warning for Labour should be clear: when disappointment prevails, any change is welcomed, and it is those who feel that their lives are stuck in a deep-seated statis whose choices are the most volatile.

All this would suggest that immigration is only really a problem when an economy is doing badly. And let’s be honest, for many who live in traditional working-class areas in Britain, things have been grim for quite some time. But immigration is also a highly emotive smokescreen: Trump was the first to realise that, by provoking the culture war on social media, he could distract from his actual policies.

The Left should ignore Reform’s distracting rhetoric and instead focus on the substance of their policy agenda. I am at a loss as to why a single journalist didn’t asked Farage during the campaign what he thought of the banking crisis of 2008, which due to fraud, negligence and greed was the catalyst for the following age of austerity that decimated the living standards of the poor. A former city-trader who worked on the commodities exchanges, we can surely guess his loyalties?

Behind all the bluster, there is a clear set of policies Reform stands for. It is clear it wants less taxes for the wealthy, greater powers for multi-national corporations, less worker rights for those in gainful employment, lower social security benefits, and a doing away with all those unfair inherence taxes on two-million-pound properties. No wonder they would rather seek to evoke the negative emotions of the electorate, for these are hardly policies that will liberate the forgotten on Tyneside.

To his credit, Keir Starmer has just appointed what is arguably the most working-class cabinet in history. But the party will need to go much farther to regain the trust of those communities that birthed the Labour Party more than a century ago. That means delivering upon policy promises to help the underprivileged, and most importantly shifting away from the identity politics sewer in which Farage continues to swim. This can be swiftly done by showing an absolute commitment to freedom of speech, thereby leaving concerns about cancel culture to the hyper moralists.

More from this author

Will Starmer discover his Romantic side?

By Brad Evans

This would require a willingness to defend the right of others to stand for what they believe in. I engaged in a conversation earlier this week with David Bull on Talk television not because I agree with anything Reform stands for, but because perhaps the most radical thing we can do in today’s climate is to listen to those we fundamentally disagree with and show we can move beyond a divisive and dismissive stance.

Challenging Reform therefore means changing the terms of the debate so that poor, white communities feel they can exercise political agency. One unfortunate recent development has been the imposition of the term “privilege” upon broken communities that clearly have none in any meaningful sense. I was first properly sensitised to the common usage of the word in a university setting during the pandemic. By coincidence, I also happened to be reading a biography of the American singer, actor and black activist Paul Robeson. I couldn’t imagine for a second that he would have used that term as he marched in solidarity with hungry miners from South Wales on London’s wintery streets in 1928, in a spontaneous scene that would become the start of a beautiful friendship.

Of course, campaigns for racial and gender equality have been hugely important and the ongoing fight for justice in the face of racial violence remains necessary. But if the introduction of race and gender were important correctives in recognising the plight of marginalised groups, something has been lost along the way. What concerns me is how conceptual saviours have used race to castigate poor white Brits — often heterosexual men — who vote for Reform. Rather than labelling all Reform voters as intolerant racists, the Labour Party must speak to voters about why the Reform narrative is so appealing.

Beyond this, the Labour Party must have a more honest conversation on the question of racial politics that is open to its complexities. The realisation that among the most vocal supporters of the Rwanda Bill were second- and third-generation immigrant politicians such as Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel should be enough to temper enthusiasm for the uncritical deployment of intersectional analysis. Racial politics has never been straight-forward. And the relegation of class background in the intersectional schematic only supports the idea that identity politics is just a bourgeoise version of victim Top Trumps, where on every occasion the white heterosexual male comes bottom regardless of social status. One strategy to disarm the allure of Reform could therefore be to positively rethink what diversity means so the working classes feel their presence is recognised and their voices are heard.

In his first speech as Prime Minister, Starmer called for “a bigger reset”. Part of that reset should be to take a step back from believing social media in any way represents the views of what we might dare to call “the people”. Social media has become so toxic that it is leading us all into a dangerous abyss. Besides, if recent events in France have taught us anything, it’s that the countryside is bigger than Twitter.

Come 4 July, the Scottish Nationalists are in danger of losing badly, having become bound up with a militant current of minoritarian social liberalism which undermines the collective and civic basis of classical nationalism, as it has historically existed on the Left. Meanwhile, the national project of the Brexiteers, which lives on the Right, fell short of its own lofty expectations: its architects in the Conservative Party (set to fare even worse than the SNP) proved unable to deliver on their promise of a Britain secure from the ravages of economic and cultural globalisation. 

In short, Britons seem unable to do nationalism with any success or conviction, that is, to put it into practice beyond its merely performative aspects. So, as the election day approaches, where can the British political establishment look to form a coherent nation-based system?

There is, one place that anyone aspiring to a functional nationalism, in Britain or elsewhere, can take notes from: a forgotten corner of its former empire, where the people happen to do a decent job of maintaining themselves both as a nation and a state, even if it isn’t actually a state in the Westphalian sense. I’m talking about Quebec, a Canadian province that is also a nation unto itself, and one with its own fraught history of holding referendums. Today is Quebec’s own Fête nationale: Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. And what better occasion to survey the trajectory of nationalism there?

Suggested reading

Will the English ever revolt?

By Aris Roussinos

The animating fact of Quebec politics and history is that of survivance, the desire of its people to survive as a distinct society of Francophones in the midst of an overwhelmingly Anglophone continent. Though Quebec’s identity is rooted in the French language and descends from a heritage that stretches back to New France, modern Quebec nationalism was forged in the Fifties and Sixties, in a time of immense social change known as la Révolution Tranquille (The Quiet Revolution). It saw the conservative and pro-clerical regime of Maurice Duplessis replaced by the reforming government of Jean Lesage, which nationalised utilities and took over education and welfare services from the Catholic Church; these measures established the modern contemporary incarnation of l’etat québécois or the Quebec state, looked to by its people as the supreme institutional expression of the Quebecois nation.

In the Seventies, desires arose among both the political-intellectual elite and the broad populace to make that Quebec state sovereign: their leader was journalist-turned-Lesage cabinet minister René Lévesque, who executed the utilities nationalisation scheme. His Parti Québécois (PQ) would lead the push for independence from Canada with the referendum of 1980; though it was rejected by a 60-40 margin, Lévesque’s government nonetheless largely shaped the character of Quebec nationalism for decades to come: Left-wing, pro-union, secularist, feminist, environmentalist, and aligned with global anti-colonial currents. It was under Lévesque as well that Quebec passed legislation to enshrine French as its official language, cementing the Quebec state’s role as defender of the national character. 

La Révolution Tranquille, however, also spawned a divergent and opposing tradition: federalism, which may be understood formally to mean an acceptance of continued membership in the Canadian federation. But in Quebec, it also has deeper philosophical underpinnings: a kind of radical emancipatory individualist liberalism developed in the pages of the Duplessis-era dissident journal Cité Libre. Its great champion was Pierre Trudeau, who as prime minister of Canada prevailed in the 1980 referendum, but whose subsequent actions sowed the seeds of the knife-edge second referendum of 1995, when Quebec nearly seceded, had it not been for a 54,288-vote margin (1.16%) in favour of “Non”. 

For 40 years, Quebec politics was a struggle between the two poles, nationalist-sovereigntist and federalist, with “soft” or semi-nationalist compromises sometimes gaining ground. By the 2010s, however, something different was happening, a depolarisation of the old sovereignty debate and the emergence of a new alternative: firmly nationalist but agnostic or neutral on independence. Such a stance meant that the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) could attract both soft nationalists and sovereigntists, amounting to a majority of the Francophone electorate. Indeed, this was the formula that its founder and leader François Legault used to win power in the elections of 2018 and 2022.

Suggested reading

What Farage can learn from Canada's Reform

By Michael Cuecno

The CAQ has pledged to leave behind the quest for independence, treating it as a settled affair (Legault was a former PQ minister). But it has never hesitated to brandish its nationalist credentials in other ways, namely its aggressive agendas on language, culture, and migration: these can be discerned in a bevy of new regulations expanding French-language requirements for businesses, immigrants and English universities, in addition to raising the latter’s tuition costs. Legault has also routinely squared off with Justin Trudeau’s federal government, pressuring it to act more decisively in halting the flow of refugees through Quebec’s borders, as well as proposing a referendum — not on independence — but on strengthening immigration powers. 

Though what is significant from a historical point of view is what the CAQ represents: the re-emergence of Right-wing nationalism as a dominant force. Indeed, the intellectual implications of this tendency are only now being fleshed out by a new generation of thinkers, led by the likes of Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard, Legault’s 23-year-old speechwriter, who published a treatise Le Retour des Bleus (“Return of the Blues”) attempting to revive the conservative or bleu strain of Quebec nationalism; this would entail a rehabilitation of figures such as Duplessis, whose legacy remains anathema to the largely progressive sovereigntist movement.

Just as interesting is the recent resurgence of the PQ as the chief opposition to Legault’s CAQ. After having been written off as a dying Boomer-era artefact, the sovereigntist party has risen in the polls under an energetic young leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who has threatened to hold a third referendum on independence. However, tough support for the PQ has not actually translated into support for the idea of sovereignty, suggesting that this boost in the PQ’s fortunes has more to do with voicing dissatisfaction with Legault than with Quebecers wanting to revisit the issue. 

All of which means that Quebec politics now appears to be a contest between two vigorous but antagonistic nationalisms; a fact highlighted by the decline of the federalist Quebec Liberals. Though the tension is genuine, these two variants of nationalism are nonetheless united both in their recognition of the Quebec nation as a civic-collective entity, as illustrated by their common resistance to the minoritarian social liberalism that’s taken hold in the rest of Canada; and in their shared readiness to deploy the powers of the Quebec state as a means of safeguarding that nation (leaving aside whether that state should be sovereign), as shown by the activist policies of the nationalist parties, Left and Right. As a result, for instance, Quebec’s language regime may seem absurd or even vindictive to outsiders and non-Francophones, but it starts to make a bit more sense when viewed as part of a larger historical project, that of ensuring national survivance. 

These linguistic and cultural differences aside, we can glean the operative principle for those — in Britain, America or Anglo-Canada or elsewhere — who find themselves drawn to the nationalist persuasion after years of hyper-globalisation: the nation-state only makes sense if both its constituent terms are taken seriously. 

For those on the Left, reclaiming the nation requires promoting unifying bonds and symbols of nationhood over and above the subaltern identity politics that’s become fashionable across the West, for the nation is ultimately what legitimates the state. For the Right, meanwhile, a constructive nationalism in the post-Brexit era will have to rest on restoring the state and its capacity to act in defence of the nation, most of all with respect to borders and rebuilding industry. It will involve a rejection of that odious and long descredited combination of free market-ism and flag waving that’s been the standard of the Anglo-Saxon Right for decades.

For as many a Québécois can attest, without a powerful state to act on your behalf in a hostile world, any nation, no matter how historically great, is liable to be reduced to, in David Starkey’s phrase, a “feeble little country.”

This may sound like the current general election campaign in the United Kingdom but it is, in fact, an account of another campaign in another country and in another decade: Canada’s historic 1993 federal election. The Tory government in question was that of prime minister Kim Campbell and her Progressive Conservative Party (or PCs); the centre-left opposition was the Canadian Liberal Party; and the Reform insurgency belonged to Preston Manning, who went on to achieve his ambition of displacing the PCs as Canada’s Right-wing alternative.

The government was reduced from 156 seats to two (a “mating pair”), having been devoured on all sides. It is this aspect of the 1993 campaign, the spectacle of near-total annihilation for the Tory establishment, that so entices Farage and his supporters. 

Though the analogy is not exact by any means, Farage has repeatedly invoked the Canadian model of populist transformation in his campaign’s opening phase. As he told the Sunday Times: “Why do you think I called it Reform? Because of what happened in Canada — the 1992-93 precedent in Canada, where Reform comes from the outside, because the Canadian Conservatives had become social democrats like our mob here.”

More from this author

Is Mark Carney eyeing Trudeau's throne?

By Michael Cuenco

But what exactly does following this model entail? The answer would depend on which standard of success Farage holds: if he wishes to influence political discourse by moving the Overton Window in the direction of certain ideas, such as dramatically curbing migration, then he could reprise the role he played as the leader of Ukip: as an ideological trendsetter rather than a wielder of power.

At the launch of yesterday’s Reform manifesto — or glibly labelled “contract with the people” — we saw glimpses of this. Pledging to “stop the boats” in 100 days is clearly not a political possibility, but suggesting you can will inevitably draw in voters’ attention. Similarly, Farage claimed his party would massively cut taxes for people on all incomes — a proposal which, when faced with the reality of public finances, is a fantasy. But for Farage and Reform who will never actually have their hands on the treasury pursestrings, it is an easy way to shift the conversation to the Right on taxes.

If he truly wishes to take the path to political hegemony laid out by Canadian Reform, then it will require considerably more work and perseverance on the part of Farage; and it will be far from certain whether he will be the one to reap the spoils of such a strategy, or whether he will end up like Manning, who paved the way for the populist Right only to be displaced by the younger and more astute Stephen Harper. In other words, the Canadian model has its pluses and pitfalls. 

Canada in the early Nineties was a country — not unlike Britain in the 2020s — reeling from a bout of political post-traumatic stress disorder, having just gone through a highly divisive and exhausting period of existential debate over the nature of Canadian federalism and sovereignty, and in particular, the question of Quebec’s status. Just as with the post-Brexit years in the UK, Canada’s leaders promised grand schemes of constitutional renewal only to fall short each time while practical economic issues, like spiralling debt and declining business confidence, seemed to go unaddressed. In addition, the Western Canadian provinces felt as if metropolitan elites in places like Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal held a vision of national unity that came at their expense. The fact that the country had been ruled by Brian Mulroney’s Tories since 1984 seemed to make little difference, for they had appeared to be just as out-of-touch as Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals had been: this was the Canadian equivalent of what is today called the “Uniparty”.

The perceived lack of attention to the concerns of ordinary voters, especially those in hinterland regions, opened up space for a new option in Canadian politics, one which could reset the terms of debate in favour of those who felt left behind. This was the gap that Preston Manning aimed to fill when he founded Reform in 1987, his goal being a “New Canada” grounded in the “the common sense of the common people”. Even as he worked to build grassroots networks out of scratch, he was for all intents and purposes the lone face of the party; the son of an evangelical former premier of Alberta, he brought a preacher’s zeal to his quest to rein in the size of government, decentralise the federation and, as he saw it, end the privileges of the Ontario and Quebec-centric metropolitan elite. Manning and Reform also raised stringent criticisms of bilingualism, multiculturalism and what it regarded as lax immigration policy. Though Manning aspired to a universalist populism, Reform was largely seen as the vehicle of Western Canadian alienation. 

Suggested reading

Farage's army is on the march

By Tom McTague

And on election day, the West came out heavily for Manning’s message of revolt, trading in Tory seats for Reform en masse, just as Quebec voters lodged their protest vote with the new separatist Bloc Québecois, hollowing out the precarious Tory coalition and and handing power to the Liberals. From the opposition benches, Reform would galvanise Canadian politics Rightward, outshining the Tory rump and eventually mounting a reverse takeover of the Progressive Conservatives by merging with it a decade later in 2003.

This was the foundation of the reunified Conservative Party of Stephen Harper, a Manning lieutenant, who governed as prime minister from 2006 to 2015. Under Harper’s insistence, the new party dropped the “Progressive” moniker — and with good reason, for the post-2003 Tories are ideologically and temperamentally a different party: much more hard-edged, libertarian and rooted in prairie populism. (Its current leader and likely next Canadian prime minister, Pierre Poilievre, got his start as a young Reform activist in Calgary.)

In hindsight, it is easy to recount what happened with Canadian Reform, as Farage so often does, and imagine that its victory was preordained, with the implication being that Reform UK faces a comparably straightforward path to realigning the British Right. But Farage should take note: the opposition years were no cakewalk for either Reform or the old-line Tories.

As Canada’s Liberals governed for over a decade, it proved to be a gruelling stretch for the Canadian Right, wracked as it was by dissension, demoralisation and uncertainty. The tribal differences between the two parties were real enough that it prevented meaningful cooperation for years. Furthermore, as the Liberals won one majority after another, thanks in large part to conservative infighting, they appropriated parts of Manning’s agenda on fiscal retrenchment, debt reduction, and balanced budgets — and even dramatically tightened immigration requirements — taking the wind out of Reform’s sails and blunting its immediate appeal. It was not at all clear if Canadian conservatism would make it out of the Liberal epoch alive. Now faced with his own long odds, can Farage navigate his party through a similarly treacherous time in the wilderness? 

Much will depend on how the two camps of the British Right will regroup once the present general election campaign yields its expected result on 4 July: a Labour-majority government. Owing to the very different electoral and geographic dynamics in the UK, it is unlikely for Farage’s party to come close to anything like the clean sweep that Canadian Reform obtained when it stole the bulk of Tory seats west of Ontario. Yet it is also probable that defeat under Rishi Sunak will empower and elevate a new breed of hard-Right Tory leadership candidates who can potentially match Farage in their commitment to populist concerns around migration and law-and-order issues: the likes of Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch come to mind. In such a scenario, there is no guarantee that Farage will have a monopoly on populist energies and loyalties in the years of opposition that lie ahead.

And just as Manning’s Reform opened the political space for Canada’s Liberals to move Right on fiscal policy, so too could a highly vocal Reform presence in Westminster do the same with respect to the next Labour government’s approach to migration. For all the talk of Labour’s metropolitan base as being intractably liberal and maximalist on immigration, a restrictionist strain has arguably flowed in the party’s veins for much of the last decade, going back to Ed Miliband’s 2015 promise to restore “controls on immigration” (famously plastered on a red mug) to Keir Starmer’s current pledge to outflank Sunak and cut “sky-high” net migration. Indeed, this is generally how populist revolts work, by exerting pressure rather than exercising power directly. This was, after all, how a previous incarnation of Faragist populism got the Cameron government to hold the 2016 Brexit referendum. 

So, where could it all end for Farage? By the 2000s, Manning was seen as tired and lost a leadership race, giving way to a generation of his protégés, including Harper, who went on to take the Conservatives to electoral victory. Manning was relegated to a respected but sidelined role as elder statesman. Perhaps Farage’s fate will play out in similar terms. The British Right is said to be undergoing a profound generational shift in ideas and outlook, which he helped to make happen: Farage’s contribution to history may well be in charting a course of political realignment that will ultimately be completed by someone younger, cleverer, and more disciplined than he could ever be. 

Hidden away from the din of excitement, I ask if he regrets not standing to be an MP. He mumbles something about the Tories shafting him in 2015, about the work he is already doing. And then a pensive silence.

It was, as we now know, scenes like those outside the Rifle Volunteer that prompted Farage to change his mind and stand for election. In his press conference last week, Farage mentioned the weekend he spent first in Skegness and then Ashfield. “Something is happening out there,” he warned. But what exactly? As the election circus pitches its tent in Clacton-on-Sea, a far better yardstick for Reform’s chances nationally — and Labour’s chances of building a dynasty — can be found in Ashfield, the home of Reform’s only current MP.

Squatting between Nottingham and Mansfield, Ashfield was once surrounded by coalfields. These days, it’s Amazon warehouses and quiet industrial estates. There are things called Library Innovation Centres, a planetarium built with Levelling-Up money and streets where people die 10 years younger than the rest of the country. In response to the statement “there is no political party I actually like”, only one constituency was more in agreement.

Come 4 July, it will be a three-way fight. For Reform, it is one of their top-10 targets; for Labour, a chance to prove they can win in a place where people still talk fondly of Boris Johnson. To complicate things, there’s also an independent candidate — Jason Zadrozny — who came second to Lee Anderson, then a Conservative, in 2019. A Brexiteer sympathetic to the 70% who voted Leave in the constituency, Zadrozny is, depending on who you ask, either a “corrupt nonce” or the “best thing that’s happened to Ashfield”.

The crowd gathered to see Farage and Anderson give a taste of Reform’s base in the area. “The red wall,” a Reform strategist tells me, “is not a geographical location but a feeling.” Many here dismiss cliches about the “left-behind”, the “somewheres”, and older disaffected working-class voters. Here middle managers, accountants and dentists rub along with builders and former miners; on age too, first political memories range from Arthur Scargill’s 1984 visit to Nigel Farage’s appearance on I’m a Celebrity. If this group is indeed united by a feeling, it is one of a nation on the brink.

“He says in public what everyone is thinking in private,” a woman in her 30s tells me when I ask her to explain Anderson’s popularity. “There are parts that used to be traditional. But now its kebab shops, vape shops, it’s completely lost its identity.” Suhael, in his 40s, points to people queuing up to take photos with Farage. “My friends would probably sneer at this,” he says. He, by contrast, is drawn to Reform’s hard-line stance on immigration: “I worry for the country’s future, particularly in terms of integrating newly arrived migrants. We came to this country for its Britishness but I feel that’s under threat.”

Suggested reading

Farage's army is on the march

By Tom McTague

It’s a feeling shared by the tweed-jacketed Zoomers gathered to see Farage. “If you live in clown world long enough, then a backlash among the young is inevitable,” says Robert, 25, who plans to stand for Reform against Angela Rayner in Ashton-under-Lyne. He is representative of one of the more interesting polling developments that has got Farage looking ahead to 2029. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, Reform stands at 12%, with much made of his Zoomer-savvy social-media presence on TikTok. But it’s a phenomenon that only gently chimes with an electoral breakthrough on the continent, where a much bigger cohort is voting for Le Pen’s National Rally, Geert Wilders and the AfD.

I ask Farage if this is a continental model for his latest insurgency. He describes Europe’s Right-wing populists as “trailblazers”, but insists that “we want our own island brand”. Robert seems to agree with Farage when we discuss Jordan Bardella, the 28-year-old president of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally: “We are more controlled and less extreme in our views. We present them in a more positive way.”Sat in the Costa Coffee in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Jason Zadrozny rolls his eyes when I mention the gathering outside the Rifle Volunteer. After winning 28% of the vote in 2019, he is convinced he can become the populist doge of Ashfield. “People here have given up on party politics,” he says. “People are so angry with the Tories and are just voting Labour to get rid of them.” And this extends to Lee Anderson, with whom he has a long running feud. He claims Anderson begged him to join the Tories alongside him, bringing with him the strong connections to local businesses that has been the bedrock of his populist localism. He refused. He has since had to apologise for calling Anderson a “moron” in a council planning meeting. “Lee is an angry man pointing and shouting. He’s stuck in an echo chamber on Facebook.”

Zadrozny is leader of the council and one of the most successful independent politicians in the country. His localism is in many ways an end-of-the-pier tribute act to the ambitious but now seemingly tokenistic era of Johnsonian levelling up. An ice rink, a manufacturing centre and an observatory are his achievements (Anderson, he claims, didn’t want the latter which he described as “woke”). And he seeks a slither of that coalition who voted for the former prime minister in 2019. But such success is also overshadowed by allegations of corruption and cocaine possession, charges he insists are at the hands of embittered Lee Anderson’s supporters. “It’s like the Olympics; every four years they try to outdo last year’s accusations to bring you down.”

Out in Ashfield’s suburbs, meanwhile, Labour are busy knocking on doors of what desperate CCHQ strategists are calling “Whitby woman”. This is the older, home-owning Tory, let down by immigration, turned off by Sunak, and apparently enticed by proposals such as national service. Retaining her vote is key to stopping the annihilation of the Conservative Party.

Rhea Keehn is the Labour candidate trying to rub salt in the wounds by winning them over. A compliance officer who admires Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper, she seems over eager to prove she will not go native in Westminster. “National politics, done locally” is her catchphrase, something she riffs on as she consoles elderly ladies who have had ornaments stolen from their front garden. Occasionally, between campaign speak, she will go off-script and say things like: “Smuggling gangs are mugging Britain off.” “I’m deeply proud to be British,” she makes a point of telling one woman after a long and painful conversation about immigration that stretches back to Tony Blair. Keehn is unable to convince her to vote Labour.

Suggested reading

Nigel Farage's post-democratic revolt

By Mary Harrington

Do the people of Ashfield understand Labour’s vision for the country? Keehn and her fellow canvassers insist they do. And their endless list of Tory failures goes down well on the doorstep. “There’s toxic waste in Mablethorpe!” shouts one angry woman from her bedroom. But the name of the leader rarely comes up. In fact, it is hard to find anyone in Ashfield who likes Starmer or knows what his Labour government will actually do. “He seems to be like the others,” says one mum on the doorstep. “I can just tell there will be a lot of talk, but no follow-through.”

Come election night, Morgan McSweeney, the grand strategist of Labour’s campaign, will have a close eye on Ashfield. His manual for this election is Electoral Shocks: The Volatile Voter in a Turbulent World. It is a book that explains the political landscape of places like Ashfield: where partisan party affiliation is dead, folk memory of party politics is non-existent, and apathetic voters respond collectively to mass immigration and financial shocks. A big Labour win not just here, but also in 2029 and beyond, will be a test of the McSweeney project, which holds that the populism and apathy that defines Ashfield is not a product of “anxiety” in response to growing “openness’” of the world, but a measure of Labour’s disconnect.

And this is not just a disconnect to the “red wall”, but to the entire electorate. In Ashfield, after all, we can see extreme reactions to national problems that have only deteriorated since 2010: housing, immigration, the NHS and the cost of living. “Politicians don’t like coming here,” says Rob. “It’s too much a reminder of reality.” But they will have to come. Not just in the next few weeks, but over the next decade. For understanding the reality here is a precious political resource. In it lies the energy behind what are now the two defining movements in Britain’s politics: the future of its populist Right, and Labour’s plan to ensure it doesn’t have one.

“You’re all freedom fighters!” the party’s candidate, Rupert Lowe, boomed enthusiastically last week to the room of 50 or so supporters who had gathered at the Rumbold Arms. Smiling politely back, the Reform party activists nursed their coffees and early morning pints. They did not look like a revolutionary battalion.

And yet, this week some of the country’s leading pollsters are not simply forecasting the expectedly comfortable Labour victory, but an extinction-level event for the Conservatives — and one caused not by unprecedented support for Labour but an unprecedented implosion in support for the Tories, much of which is moving directly to Reform.

This is partly thanks to Rishi Sunak’s astonishing political ineptitude. His decision to call the snap election was disastrously misjudged. But the idiocy in cutting short his involvement in the D-Day commemorations, days after announcing plans for national service in order to win back wavering Reform voters, defies all explanation. Even Liz Truss would have got that one right.

The decision to elevate Sunak to the premiership, it is clear, was a catastrophic mistake. He is lost. It is not enough to act as though you are simply a more important Chancellor of the Exchequer, or national head boy. The job of prime minister is a role you have to play — consoling the country in times of sorrow, explaining in times of strife, and representing when the occasion demands. Being “across the numbers” is not enough.

Suggested reading

What Starmer can learn from George Smiley

By Tom McTague

But the public had abandoned Sunak long before Thursday’s D-Day catastrophe. In Yarmouth, I was struck by the venom felt towards him. “He’s a little weasel,” said one Reform supporter who still longed for Johnson. “Boris told too many lies,” he said. “[But] I would’ve trusted him. He would’ve got this country back.” This man didn’t care about the lies; he cared about the message. And as a result, he cares about Farage.

Is this “populism” in action, then? Is this evidence of a Great British underclass who cannot see the errors of its ways, who like a dog keeps returning to its vomit? This certainly seemed to be the assumption lying at the heart of much of the commentary in recent days. Take Emily Maitlis’s line of questioning when she quizzed Farage after his announcement to run in Clacton-on-Sea. “Would you apologise for what Brexit’s done to Clacton?” she asked, as if the area were a thriving land of opportunity before the 2016 referendum.

Maitlis is certainly correct that Clacton is poor. In Tendring, the district where Clacton belongs, a third of the population between 16-64 are economically inactive — 50% higher than the national average. But a third of the population was also economically inactive 10 years ago. And between a quarter and a third were economically inactive 10 years before that. Clacton’s problems run deep, just as they do in Great Yarmouth and much of the rest of the country. Maitlis and everyone else knows this, of course, which is why there was something particularly revealing about her exchange with Farage. What immigration is for the Right, Brexit has now become for the Left — an easy and ultimately populist explanation for Britain’s current woes. But it does not explain why voters wanted to rip up the status quo before Brexit.

And here is the crux of the matter: the status quo is failing. It was failing before Brexit and it hasn’t stopped failing. Maitlis knew her question to Farage was bogus on Tuesday. We all did. We can see it happening before our very eyes: even as we apparently get richer, our surroundings deteriorate.

Yarmouth is a perfect example of this. Much of the town centre is filled with once-grand Edwardian villas or Victorian terraces, which have been broken up into slum-like HMOs to house poor migrant workers, many of whom work miles away in appalling conditions. Meanwhile, just like Clacton, almost a third of the town’s working age population is out of work.

Suggested reading

The McSweeney Project

By Tom McTague

According to a recent study by Cambridge professor Catherine Barnard, Yarmouth’s migrant workers spend so much time working in factories without a single British employee that many cannot speak English even years after arriving. Meanwhile, those who moved to Britain in the early 2000s after the eastern expansion of the EU are now reaching an age where they are so broken by the physical demands of their work that they will soon fall back on the state and local services to pay for care. We have, in effect, created a giant human Ponzi scheme whereby we import workers to fix the systemic contradictions of our economy, only to have to find even more migrant workers to care for them when they retire in ill health.

Here is a system which is so morally broken it produces unacceptable results for both the migrant workers, who deserve far more protection, and the locals, who have seen their town transformed by a demographic upheaval which has done nothing to improve their lives.

At the Reform rally in Yarmouth one man stood out amid the sea of white faces: Ebenezer Amoah, a good-looking, smartly dressed, 33-year-old teacher in the town who had only recently arrived from Accra in Ghana. Ebenezer was a striking presence in the Rumbold Arms, strolling through the elderly crowd, AirPods in ear, to take his seat at the back. I grabbed him afterwards, keen to find out how he had become a Reform supporter. “I went onto the website and checked their policies,” he explained straightforwardly, as if everyone did that. But what did he make of the party’s one-in, one-out immigration policy? “You cannot illegally come to England, you have to go the right way,” he replied. “If Reform is bringing out a policy that will restrict immigration then, of course, it is for the betterment of the people. Citizens of England deserve to live their lives in a better way.”

Talking about how he had settled into Yarmouth, he told me there was certainly a different attitude to discipline in English schools. And towards our attitude to fishing. “We have a huge fishing community in Accra,” he said. “Each and every government that comes in tries to have a way to better the life of the fishing community.” This, he said, was different in Britain. “I think that is very unfortunate.” What really struck me, though, was his surprise at the liberalism of the British state. Four months after arriving in Yarmouth from Ghana, Ebenezer had concluded the British government needed to be more British.

June Mummery, the Reform party candidate for Lowestoft, had the same message. June’s anger at the Conservative Party’s betrayal over Brexit was deep and heartfelt. She ran the fish market in the town and believed sincerely that restoring full control of the country’s fishing waters was the key to restoring lost glory to Britain’s seaside towns. Once the fishing fleets were repatriated, the food production jobs, the markets and the restaurants would also return. Boris Johnson had told her he would deliver, and she felt a “fool” that she believed him.

Suggested reading

The village that made Nigel Farage

By Tom McTague

The political scientist Christopher Browning understands the psychology of this sort of revolution. He has written about the economic and cultural changes that can take place in a country where many people had been made to feel like “strangers in their own home”. Those who once saw themselves at the nation’s “heartland”, he wrote, “have not only become alienated, they have also been socially stigmatised and shamed”. These people are now marching in Farage’s rebel army. Brexit, in this telling, was an attempt to recover an older Britain — and a lost status — which had disappeared. The inevitable result is further alienation and radicalisation.

June’s fury with the Government for abandoning Britain’s coastal communities had similarly grown since Brexit as Lowestoft and Yarmouth continued to suffer. “Yes!” she exclaimed. “Because we had it in our hands. We had great plans. It was wonderful and they just destroyed it.” Now she wants to destroy the Conservative Party in return.

“They had a wonderful majority and they squandered it.” It’s hard to argue with her. A ruling party elected four times to reduce debt, taxes and immigration has instead overseen an explosion of all three. And at the same time, living standards have barely grown since 2008 and public services have deteriorated. Is it any wonder voters keep pressing a button to blow up the system, and get angry when they discover the dynamite never seems to work?

“[If] the town and the tide had not been quite so much mixed up, like toast and water, it would have been nicer,” Charles Dickens wrote of Great Yarmouth in David Copperfield. Something similar could be written about Brexit and this election today. Although Brexit is neither the cause of the country’s problems, nor on the ballot paper on 4 July, the great revolution of 2016-2020 continues to define our politics. The Conservative Party needed a Napoleon. Instead they got Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. No wonder Farage’s revolutionary army is again on manoeuvres.

***

Don’t miss Tom’s podcast special on Farage’s rebel army. Listen here.

It was the first interesting thing to happen so far, in an election that has hitherto felt like the uniparty talking to itself while flinging other people’s spare change at OAPs. The interest doesn’t have much to do with Reform’s policies, which mostly read like a Tory manifesto, if the Tories were still a centre-right party instead of an agglomeration of corporate lobbies plus a granny annexe. Rather, Farage’s return is interesting for what it tells us about a wider trend: the demise of the franchise as our principal mechanism for political representation, and in its place the startlingly medieval return of “interests”.

But isn’t Farage the shadily post-democratic one? That was the thrust of numerous questions following his announcement on Monday, several of which mentioned Donald Trump, or focused on Farage’s power to make leadership decisions and backroom deals at the drop not just of a hat but also, at very short notice, of the existing Reform candidate for Clacton.

It’s true that Reform doesn’t conform to the 20th-century template for mass-membership political parties. It has, according to Farage, more than 30,000 paying members, but these are recruited online, rather than via local associations. It is also a limited company, and doesn’t have any obvious formal mechanism for forming, debating or voting on policies. Its critics make dark accusations about the motivations of its larger donors.

In all these senses, Reform UK is a political entity of some kind, but doesn’t adhere to the older template for party politics. Does this make it anti-democratic? To this, one might respond that it’s a bit rich to accuse Reform UK of ignoring the wishes of the masses, when its whole raison d’être is remedying just this indifference to electoral wishes among the mainstream political parties. We’re on our third Tory Prime Minister since the party was last voted into power, and the last one wasn’t even elected by the party membership. No vote apart from Brexit has changed anything very substantial in my adult lifetime. Even Brexit only happened against years of shrill establishment resistance, and failed to do the one thing voters wanted it to do.

In this context, we might reasonably ask: what would be the point of forming a mass-membership political party along early 20th-century lines? It should be obvious by now that bottom-up political activism aimed at directing the universally enfranchised voting public doesn’t reliably produce results in line with what that public wants. But if this is so, it raises the question of how different groups are to have their voices heard at all, in the wider political conversation. For it’s not as though even autocrats always get their way over the wishes of the masses. As the political scientist Julian Waller has shown, even regimes that don’t embrace formal democracy typically don’t last very long, unless they have some feedback mechanism for responding to different power blocs.

Prior to the universal franchise, indeed well into the early 20th century, it was common to talk about such blocs as aggregate political “interests”: groups such as the working classes, landed gentry, church, and so on. Further back still, the medieval formulation understood these as “estates”, all of which were — in theory if not always in practice — represented according to their needs and obligations.

More from this author

The end of the Conservatives

By Mary Harrington

Prior to mass democracy, though, no one thought the best way to represent each “estate” or “interest” was “one man, one vote”. Indeed, opponents of the franchise argued that flattening interests in this way would warp the overall political fabric to everyone’s detriment. But they didn’t get their way, and now we have the universal franchise — a franchise, indeed, that is set to become even more universal under Keir Starmer.

Does this mean everyone is now better represented than before? Perhaps not. For at the very moment the universal franchise was granted in the early 20th century, extra-democratic bodies such as NGOs and international regulatory entities began professionalising and proliferating, and in the process draining ever more power into pre-political fields closed to the democratic process. It’s possible that this was a coincidence, of course. But perhaps it wasn’t. Perhaps the patrician preference for keeping popular opinion at arm’s length never really went away, meaning that the arrival of the popular voice in the halls of power necessitated new mechanisms for routing around that voice where necessary.

Certainly, it was striking to see this lordly attitude at full volume, in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, as the Remainer great and good united in defence of their beloved, extra-democratic, supranational technocracy. And I’m sure you remember, as I do, every well-connected such individual insisting the referendum should be struck down because people didn’t know what they were voting for, and had been duped by the side of a bus.

Since then, though, I’ve started to wonder whether the technocrats were at least partly right. Given that a great many Tory MPs still don’t seem to understand EU regulatory mechanisms, it’s is at least plausible that no one else did either. Hence, the Remainers may have been, like Cromwell in 1066 and All That, “Right but Repulsive”.

The question nags at me: what if post-industrial society really is too complex for elected generalists to grasp its operations in anything like the detail required to make sensible governing decisions? Well, even if this is true, you may accept in principle that technocrats are a necessary evil, spreadsheets and chinos and all — but in practice, you don’t have to be a technocrat with five PhDs to make reasonable inferences as to whether life is getting better or worse. And on most of the metrics that matter, to most people, life under the Conservatives has been getting worse, with the process accelerating with every change of Prime Minister and attendant slide toward spreadsheets-and-chinos “centrism”.

So even if we do accept in principle that without technocrats things would be even more dire, and hence that the problem isn’t technocrats as such, we may still be dissatisfied with the ones we have. And hence, logically, we still need some mechanism for holding to account whichever technocrats are now tasked with steering this wildly overcomplicated ship of state. But the whole point of technocracy is that it is impervious to such outbreaks of democratic feedback. So how do you course-correct your cadres of unaccountable wonks?

Enter Nigel Farage. My sense is that most of Farage’s supporters don’t want to wield power themselves, and that Farage himself doesn’t really want to be a constituency MP. Rather, Farage’s supporters seek representation, in something more like the medieval sense, as an “interest” or “estate” to be taken seriously. And not without reason: they’re a significant subset of the English polity.

Broadly speaking, Farage represents the English petit bourgeois that lives in villages and small towns, values cultural homogeneity and social trust, and intuits (accurately) that the end of the carbon economy spells disaster for their social class. This group, currently almost entirely voiceless within contemporary politics, would perhaps have been characterised by the now-very-cancelled high imperial writer Rudyard Kipling as the “Saxon” side of the Norman-Saxon hybrid people that has long made up England’s class hierarchy.

As Kipling saw it, the Saxon is generally uninterested in large-scale political power, and content to be governed provided this is done fairly. But the modern-day equivalent of Kipling’s Saxon is ill-served by the modern “Norman”, and is grumbling en masse. Worse still, the Saxon senses the contempt modern Normans have for him, as they sneer at the “bigots” and “gammons”.

More from this author

Nigel Farage is a gameshow king

By Mary Harrington

This group’s anger was temporarily assuaged by the political realignment we were, however briefly, promised in 2019. But in the end, the realignment we got accelerated the trends that impelled Brexit in the first place: hollowing out the social fabric, draining away real-world jobs in favour of placeless knowledge-work that mostly benefits Normans, and trading in the nation-state and its people for an economic zone populated by fungible, interchangeable human work units — in which the English people have grown increasingly displaced and alienated.

Now, the Saxon is angrier than ever — but, as a consequence of that realignment, also more voiceless. And Farage is variously loved or loathed for his effortless ability to give them a voice. He has become a figurehead and avatar for an entire class, with a role that’s at least as much about symbolic embodiment as it ever could be about the dry legislation-and-policy aspect of politics.

The last time I wrote about him, it was in the context of his appearance on I’m A Celeb. And his return to Reform UK now is a continuation of his I’m A Celeb trajectory: pragmatic recognition that mass politics is both radically defanged, reduced to a branch of entertainment with little to distinguish it from reality TV — and that it nonetheless, paradoxically, still provides avenues for exerting popular pressure on an otherwise untrammelled technocratic class.

What, then, are these avenues? Farage’s modus operandi isn’t grassroots constituency work, canvassing, local associations, policy development and all the other ponderous architecture of universal-franchise-era mass politics. Our obdurate post-Brexit return to uniparty consensus illustrates how resistant such mechanisms have become to deprecated “interests”. Against this, Farage has waged an insurgency on behalf of the English petit-bourgeois class — one now extended, judging by his recent social-media game, to Right-leaning zoomers — via a cocktail of media spectacle, meme activism, plus hacking formal political systems. The endgame isn’t bums on Commons seats, but forcing reluctant technocrats (whatever their formal political affiliation) towards policies that better reflect those outside the charmed circle. To date, Farage has proved a startlingly effective politician despite being yet to enter Parliament as an MP, purely via such para-Parliamentary methods. And it’s ironic that he should point critically at the “sectarian” political activism now emerging from Muslim groups in Britain, many of which increasingly employ much the same MO as Farage, to get their “interest” on the table.

It remains to be seen whether Farage can pull the Brexit stunt again, or indeed how the Saxon will fare, as an “interest”, against the increasingly politicised British Muslim community. Farage may well succeed on his own terms, with an MP or two and a vote tally that delivers a smack to both cheeks of the uniparty backside. Even if this does happen, though, the “interest” he represents within British post-democracy is unlikely to succeed in tilting policy very far in their preferred direction. But with Farage as their avatar, they at least stand a chance of not being entirely disregarded.

He needn’t worry, of course, since there’s no such thing as British values. No country has a monopoly on justice, tolerance, integrity and compassion. It’s true that some nations are better known for certain values than others: the Arabs and Irish for hospitality, the Americans for freedom, the British for decency and fair play and so on. But this doesn’t mean that there aren’t any inhospitable Arabs, just as there aren’t many Swedes or Nigerians who believe in indecency and foul play. Cultural differences of this kind shouldn’t distract us from the fact that the most fundamental moral values are universal. Indonesian peasants or Jamaican motor mechanics want much the same for their children as English stockbrokers. They’re no more likely to be lusting for blood or genetically inclined to robbing banks than Fiona Bruce.

Those who doubt this should take a look at world literature. Having spent much of my life reading the stuff, I know of hardly any significant piece of poetry or fiction from anywhere in the world which advocates rape, torture or genocide. This is such a remarkable fact that it passes largely unnoticed. The mythical law of averages would dictate that buried in the millions of novels, poems and plays churned out from every corner of the globe, you would find quite a few pernicious moral agendas. With the odd exception like the Marquis de Sade, however, this simply isn’t true. There are no great fascist novels.

Perhaps this is because the Huns and Vandals were too busy sacking and pillaging to write poetry. It’s also true that there’s a rift between the largely civilised values of Virgil or Horace and the atrocities perpetrated by the empire they served. In the modern era, however, with the gradual spread of humanitarianism from the 18th century onwards, it’s hard to find many people eager to defend crucifixion or mass murder. You might claim that these things are regrettably unavoidable from time to time, but not that they’re inherently good or morally indifferent. This is one way in which the age of Gladstone differs from the era of Caligula. We may not be ethically superior to the ancient Romans, but at least we feel bad about it. We are aware that there can be a discrepancy between what we value and our actual behaviour, a gap which most of us are conscientious enough to regret.

A good deal of political life involves what philosophers call a performative contradiction, where what you say is at odds with what you do. This is more bluntly known as hypocrisy or lying through your teeth; but it’s actually more complex than that, because people can believe that they believe something without actually doing so. (They can also believe something while not knowing they do.) To determine what someone in this situation really thinks, it’s advisable to examine the beliefs implicit in their behaviour rather than rely simply on what they say. If I profess to love white mice but spend all my free time dissecting them without anaesthetic, then it isn’t true that I love white mice, whatever my protestations. Compassion is a matter of what you do, not what you feel. It doesn’t diminish the value of handing a coin to a beggar that you don’t feel a warm glow as you do so.

There is, then, a surprising degree of global consensus about what constitutes sound moral values. As far as I’m aware, there are no political parties anywhere in the world fighting for inequality, injustice and a callous indifference to the suffering of others. Plenty of political organisations promote these values in reality, but we haven’t yet reached the point where they inscribe them proudly on their banners. We have yet to witness the emergence of the Screw the Poor party or Put All Women On the Moon campaign, though this could still happen. There may come a time when the desirability of genocide is once again touted, as it was with the Nazis. In the meanwhile, however, vice pays homage to virtue by denying its own nature and masquerading as a form of righteousness, or at least as an unfortunate necessity.

Surely, though, there are regimes, perhaps autocratic Islamic states in particular, which flagrantly flout much of what we in the West hold dear? There are indeed such set-ups, but we should recall that one of the most regular offenders against so-called Western values has been the West. What of the atrocities committed by the British in Kenya, the Belgians in the Congo, the French in Algeria and the Americans in Vietnam? The list could be extended indefinitely. Some Islamic countries preach intolerance, but those who abhor this bigotry should try being a communist in some parts of the US or a Muslim in some areas of France (one might soon have to add: a Catholic in Ireland).

Suggested reading

Keir Starmer and the triumph of the middle class

By Terry Eagleton

Tolerance is a rightly limited commodity: Britain doesn’t tolerate those who practise hate speech, or those who blow up children for ideological reasons. In any case, the values of authoritarian regimes are largely rejected by the people forced to live under them, which is why we witness regular outbreaks of rebellion in such places. They are a sign that these men and women are just as devoted to justice and freedom as the citizens of the West, and that many of them, like Alexei Navalny, are ready to give their lives for them. When there is no dissent, it doesn’t mean that men and women are delighted to be locked up and beaten but that they are fearful of voicing their own views.

It isn’t that some people think that mass beheadings are a splendid idea while others don’t, still less that these groups correspond respectively to the West and the Rest. The United States may not celebrate mass beheadings, but it certainly believes in mass electrocutions. The true difference lies in how we justify our values. Almost everyone objects to rape and murder, not just flag-waving British patriots from Hampshire or Sussex, but we can’t agree on why we agree on this. And this is a genuinely novel historical situation, one which would have struck a citizen of ancient Athens or 14th century Florence as bizarre in the extreme. The modern age is the first in history which must acknowledge that we disagree on the most fundamental of questions; that we shall probably never achieve a consensus on these matters; that we consequently have to find ways of peacefully coexisting while radically dissenting from each other’s most cherished convictions; and that this is known as liberalism. Ethics isn’t a list of decrees but an endless argument. Oscar Wilde valued lying, indolence, insincerity, superficiality, extravagance, hyperbole and saying the most outrageous things purely for theatrical effect. The Sussex flag-wavers may find this scandalous, but so-called British values demand that it be given house room.

Farage’s targeting of the young is unsurprising, given that Right-wingers like himself have a disreputable history of picking on that particular cohort. The young, and not just those of Muslim persuasion, are more likely to question the conventional mores of the time than the middle-aged, which is why they make a lot of conservatives uneasy.

Maybe national service will get them to shape up. This is really quite a smart idea from a Tory standpoint, since many of the values which young people in Britain are wary of are military in origin. Like hospitality in Arabs, they are cultural traits rather than basic moral values. Loyalty, team-spirit, toughness, honour, character, valour, austerity, self-discipline, leadership, physical prowess: the nation divides between those like the present monarch who consider these values utterly vital, and those who think they have their origin in a tiny, unrepresentative sector of society (the officer class, public schools, Boy Scouts and so on), and stem ultimately from Britain’s repressive colonial history. Why should you conceal your emotions, sometimes with psychologically devastating results? Because if you don’t, you may betray weakness in the eyes of your colonials, and in doing so risk even more devastating consequences.

Finally, there is a curious phenomenon known as family values, which are particularly popular in the US. Families centre on children, and children aren’t supposed to know about sex, so family values really means “no sex”. If children can’t talk about it or be interested in it, neither should we. Family values means a way of life permanently arrested before the 9pm watershed.

America is, of course, an intensely Christian nation, unlike Godless Britain, which makes its love of the family rather puzzling. The New Testament is consistently hostile to this institution, a fact which seems not to have been noted in Delaware or Wichita Falls. It begins with a sexual transgression on the part of God himself, who enters the womb of a Palestinian virgin. The Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph is a parody of a regular domestic unit. Jesus answers his parents sharply after he is lost in the temple, and gives a similarly abrupt response to Mary when she asks him to perform a miracle at Cana. When he is told that some of his family are waiting to speak to him, he tells them brusquely to wait. A woman who cries out that his mother should be blessed also gets the rough edge of his tongue. He has come, he declares, to set one family member against the other, pitting son against father and mother against daughter. It doesn’t sound at all like the kind of thing that would go down well at a Trump rally — let alone a party organised by Nigel Farage.

In their own ways, both David Cameron and Theresa May were undone by this threat from the Right. The success of Ukip, taking more than a quarter of the vote in the 2014 European Elections, forced Cameron into pledging an EU referendum at the following general election — a move which arguably delivered him a majority but saw his premiership unravel once he lost the ensuing vote. Then, after the following European election, the Brexit Party’s 30% share accelerated the end of May’s time in office. In 2024, another strong showing could inflict even greater damage on the Tories. For a decade, the Tories have struggled to fully reconcile with their Right wing, leaving the door open to insurgents.

Reform UK, like the Brexit Party (technically the same beast by a different name) and Ukip, looks to take votes from the populist end of the Tory spectrum. As a rule of thumb, around two-thirds of their supporters are former Tories; the rest are largely from the Eurosceptic Left. On that basis, polling at around 10% suggests they’ve gained about 6 points off the Tories, though it could be higher as some have already made the Lab-Ukip-Con journey.

This probably isn’t enough to win any seats. Our first-past-the-post system continues to work against new parties, and Reform UK’s support seems spread across too many areas to carry them into parliament. Where they are concentrated, it tends to be in heavily Tory areas where a massive swing would be needed. So far, this has eluded the Right-wing challengers. The Brexit Party didn’t make much of a dent in 2019 (perhaps because of the Tories’ embrace of Brexit) and Nigel Farage failed in every attempt to get into parliament for Ukip. Neither party has won a seat in a general election but have gained votes by grappling with issues such as immigration and Brexit where the Tories have often looked weak.

Yet this doesn’t mean the threat to the Tories is over. With a 6% swing against them, losing votes to Reform UK could mean the difference between holding on and being swept away in a bunch of key constituencies. There are a dozen or so seats on Labour’s target list where a strong showing from Reform could help edge out the Tories — places such as Kettering or Thanet North where even a good night for Labour might fall short, but where losing a couple of percentage points to Reform would be costly.

These seats in particular point to an interesting electoral pattern. They are areas not simply where old industries have died away, but old patterns of life have too. They’ve aged as towns, with the young and ambitious moving away to universities and not returning. They have born some of the brunt of austerity and feel alienated on more cultural issues such as immigration. With these shifts, older voting habits have splintered, with Labour seeming too metropolitan and the Conservatives too economically liberal. Yet the major parties have only occasionally spoken for them, while Farage has often embraced their narrative.

The return of Reform also presents a strategic problem for Sunak. The Conservative success of 2019 sits on an odd electoral coalition, built as much from anti-Corbynism as the Vote Leave success. It brought together the sort of populist Brexiteer voters who might be tempted by Reform as well as more centrist Remain-leaning voters who held their nose to keep out a radical Labour government. Now the party must be selective about who it keeps in the tent and who it chooses to retreat from: in the next election, the Tory party will face a fight on all fronts.

Many of those already fed up with Boris will be far more relaxed about letting Starmer’s Labour in than Corbyn’s. These are the type of voters who already switched to Lib Dem in Chesham and in North Shropshire, and could do the same across the Home Counties. They are unlikely to be swayed by another populist turn from the Tories. Yet abandoning the cry of “more Brexit, more police, more spending” risks sending other key voters into the arms of Reform. It’s a narrow path to the best possible outcome, a result of the Tories inability to present as truly centrist or truly Rightist over the last few years.

More from this author

How Rishi could trap Labour

By John Oxley

At the same time, the decisiveness of Reform is not guaranteed. The party is a strange beast — not even a party in the truest sense, but a registered company with centralised control. It had been a Farage vehicle, but is now led by Richard Tice, a property investor turned political agitator. It lacks much internal coherence, and often seems to be chasing social media clicks more than votes.

Since Brexit, it has struggled to pin down either a political philosophy or a policy platform. Instead, it lurches between various reactionary statements, often disagreeing with itself. It seems to have no real sense of who its target voters are or what they really want. It has continued to stoke concern about a frustrated or stolen Brexit, but struggles to convey the complex policy details this entails when the Tories so cleanly marketed leaving the EU as “done”. Elsewhere, it generally opposed Covid lockdowns and has been sceptical of vaccines — an odd line for populists to take when both measures were widely popular, especially with the older, authoritarian demographic who tended to support Brexit. Equally, the party’s attack on Tory taxes sits uneasily with their likely voters, who tend to favour higher spending. More often than not, Reform gives the impression it is driven by populists who fail to understand what is popular.

The migrant crisis is perhaps where they are closest to the national mood, but still they have failed to translate this into popular success. Farage and co. are happy to film themselves on Dover beaches being outraged by the arriving boats yet have no real suggestions beyond bedding in behind the Government’s Rwanda plan. Even more than the Tories, they seem short of ideas. This has shown through in recent electoral performances. Reform have barely made a dent in any of the recent by-elections. In December last year, Tice took 6% of the vote in Bexley, but that was a big name standing in a heavily Tory seat. This year, candidates have failed to score above 3%, and in Tiverton, a Tory seat lost to the Lib Dems, they racked up fewer than 500 votes.

Suggested reading

Where are the one-nation Tories?

By David Jeffery

All this points to the other weakness of Reform: a real lack of ground game. It’s not a mass-member organisation — it lacks local branches and councillors and appears to have minimal central campaigning abilities. Hard work on the doorstep is essential for turning voter intentions into crosses on ballot boxes. It is hard to see how Reform will be able to do this effectively. If they get this wrong, it could be a big get-out-of-jail-free card for the Tories. If they get it right, it could pin down Conservative resources in seats they would normally go easy in.

But this is all a matter for the next election — in the meantime, it remains to be seen whether the Reform surge will hold. It depends on whether Farage and Tice are able to settle on a platform beyond Brexit to sustain it, and whether that appeals to enough people. Reform’s impact also depends on how the Tory Party reacts, and whether they are able to hold their Right flank without ceding more ground in the centre. At best, a resurgent Right-wing populist party will be a diversion for Conservative strategists; at worst, it will be the final part of an electoral encirclement. And looking at the most recent multi-regression polling, released yesterday, an effective showing from Reform might not win seats but could cost the Conservatives dozens.

And yet, it’s probably more likely the threat from the Right will peter out rather than solidify. Reform seems based on unsteady ground and hasn’t found a way to deliver the electoral shock that Ukip and the Brexit Party did before. How it plays out will be the result of both parties’ electoral deftness, but strikingly little to do with Labour.

More from this author

The Tories are fleeing a sinking ship

By John Oxley

The entire outcome in 2024 perhaps rests on whom the Tories choose to alienate. All through their time in government, the party has found a way to weave together different narratives, holding together the suburban, settled and affluent — while picking up more precarious voters in the neglected North and Midlands. Now those voters have pulled apart even more, leaving the Conservative Party in the middle.

The Tories appear to be finding a narrative to ride through the country’s increasing divergence between geographies and age cohorts. So far, however, they have failed to find an answer for Britain’s deeper problems. Left-behind regions still feel left behind; many of the voters there do too. For a while, the Conservatives were able to appeal to them, largely through the lens of Brexit. Without that draw, those voters who have been abandoned first by Labour and then by the Tories may yet fall to Reform.

***

Order your copy of UnHerd’s first print edition here.