There are a lot of people out there who have it in for Nigel Farage. Most are on the left but a growing number are on the right. The thing is, as far as I am aware there is no great ideological difference between Farage and his right-wing critics. So, what’s going on?
If we are looking for clues we could do a lot worse than look at some of his bust-ups. Rupert Lowe is a recent example. But you have also got Ben Habib, Douglas Carswell and – if you go back far enough – Alan Sked, the founder of the United Kingdom Independence Party.
My theory is that Farage is incredibly jealous of his position. If he detects a threat to it – real or imagined – his instinct is to react with fury, to remove the threat as completely and as loudly as possible and damn the consequences.
That is not to say that Farage is a one-man band. Clearly he has had a very effective working relationship with Richard Tice over the years. I suspect that Tice knows that he could not do what Farage does. And I suspect that Farage knows that he knows.
I have some sympathy with Farage. The prospects for UKIP did not look great in the early 1990s. Or for a long time to come. But Farage stuck at it. It was a lonely existence. He suffered all that – well, a lot of what – the establishment could throw at him and in the Brexit referendum – with a bit of help – humiliated them. And now, he is on the cusp of becoming Prime Minister. And some people think that they can take it away from him when it is he, Farage, that’s done all the bloody work!
There are consequences of Farage’s jealousy. The upside is that Reform does not have to worry about factional in-fighting. There is only one faction, only one opinion that matters: Farage’s. The downside is that it is Stalinist in nature. No one is allowed to disagree. Anyone who attracts the attention of the media or Hope Not Hate – the supposedly anti-racist pressure group – is out. In my local branch the chairman was recently removed for “something” – we were never quite sure what. And then he was brought back. And then fired again. And then brought back.
What it means is that talent is being driven away. This could be really quite serious. Dominic Cummings – former advisor to Boris Johnson – and someone I think is well worth listening to has expressed his scepticism of the effectiveness of “one man and an iPhone” when dealing with an institution as vast and hostile as the British government.
It may be the case that Farage has been listening to us and the plan is to close down vast parts of the British state: education, NHS, Ofcom, FCA. That would make the government more manageable. But I think that unlikely, in which case Farage will be able to do very little given that – due to the size of the task – he will have to delegate to people who have been promoted on account of loyalty rather than ability.
It may be the case that we have to look to Farage’s successors on the right. The good news is that there will be plenty of them.
Both Ben Habib (the former Deputy Leader of the Reform Party) and Rupert Lowe (who was one of the five Reform Party Members of Parliament) have explained why they are concerned about the direction the Reform Party, under the leadership of Nigel Farage M.P.
Mr Farage could address these concerns by, as a good start, removing Mr Yusef.
Whilst Mr Farage continues to condemn “Islamophobia” (although he does have a different definition of the term than the government does) and talks of removing some, rather than all, illegal immigrants – concerns will continue.
However, elections are not about voting for an ideal political party (no such thing exists – or ever has existed) they are about voting for the least worst political party that has a chance to win the election.
Unless the Conservative Party can really turn things around, firmly present “right wing” policies that are a real break with the last period in office, then the main party “on the right” at the next election is likely to be the Reform Party led by Mr Farage.
Of course, four years is an enternity in politics – but that is how things look presently, if one looks at the opinion polls and-so-on.
Can Mr Farage reverse the growth of the state in Britain – I do not know, presently there is little sign of that – but things could change.
Can Mr Farage reverse the demographic transformation that threatens to destroy the British, especially the English – again I do not know, and such a task would be incredibly difficulty as the main driving force of this transformation is no longer “immigration” (although immigration, both illegal and legal, is certainly very important) – the main driving force of the destruction is now natural increase, births. Both the lack of births among the British population, fertility is now well below replacement level, and the number of births among other population groups – the largest of these other population groups being hostile (yes – hostile) in basic beliefs – principles.
How does one even start to deal with all that? The words “I would not start from here” spring to mind.
It may be that things are just too far gone, both in the growth of the state (government spending, regulations, the Credit Bubble monetary and financial system – and so on) and in the demographic transformation, for things to be reversed.
Still that sounds too much like the “conservative” academic who told me that “history does not have a reverse gear” – and that was a despicable thing to say (it would mean that all we can do is kill ourselves), I do NOT want to adopt that position.
So I wish all true “reactionaries”, all people trying to save Britain, well.
But I think that unlikely, in which case Farage will be able to do very little given that – due to the size of the task – he will have to delegate to people who have been promoted on account of loyalty rather than ability.
Loyalists of average ability can be given a simple algorithm for their tasks as Ministers :
1. Minister : “am I required by law to do this ?”
2a. Civil servant : “No, Minister”
3a. Minister : “OK then, don’t do it.”
2b. Civil servant “Yes, Minister.”
3b. Minister : “Have a draft law on my desk tomorrow morning which repeals whatever law obliges me to to do this. Let’s return to this in the morning.”
The government can then produce a monthy Repeals Potpourri Bill.
That seems obvious. Tice was leader while Farage was ‘retired’ and wasn’t an impressive leader. I remember Reform came 6th in the Rochdale by election that George Galloway won. I think had Farage stayed on the sidelines Reform would have won zero seats last year despite the Tories being godawful.
I don’t like the purging of individuals to the right of Farage/Tice, especially those that had been slandered by deep state rats like Hope not Hate. This is doubly frustrating when you see them field ridiculous wet characters as candidates. For example at the above mentioned Rochdale by election they had an ex -Labour MP who had been drummed out of Labour for sending explicit text messages to a 17yo girl. How he got allowed to be a candidate but others who had said un-PC stuff on Twitter got kicked out doesn’t sit right.
On the other hand, a Reform government would face enemies from all institutions and other parties and will need strong party discipline and severe firmness towards enemies. If Nigel can direct some of his ‘Stalinism’ towards the civil service,the judiciary and human rights industry, Hope Not Hate etc, that might not be a bad thing.
It’s been years since I’ve read it but I think Sean Gabb’s book Cultural Revolution, Cultural War has some good ideas for a British counter-revolutionary government.
It’s not jealousy, it’s a burning desire to not see Reform go the way of UKIP & get taken over by unhinged nutters & fools.
I’ve met Rupert Lowe & whilst we agreed on many things, he is not a thoughtful savvy operator, this is someone who struck me as driven by prejudices & lazy assumptions.
I am sympathetic to what I take to be Perry’s point, which is that to win a governing majority, Reform needs to impose message discipline on its candidates, and in the event that Reform were to win a governing majority, continued discipline is more important than brilliance.
The Tory party survived for a couple of centuries as a powerful political force, with two third of its MPs no more brilliant than the average country gent or retired Army officer. But they had some discipline. What cooked the Tories after Cameron flounced out was the collapse of all discipline. They became a rabble. No one re-elects a rabble. Which is why Kemi cannot bounce them back. It doesn’t matter if they come up with sensible policies – who would trust them to deliver ?
Sensible proto-mavericks in Reform would be well advised to simmer down and win, before sounding off.
I think one of the reasons that Farage is being attacked from the right is that the established right, (Tories, I am looking at you) have let the country down and they know that they have let it down. They cannot bear the thought that an interloper like Farage could do a much better job of governing the country, in tune with what the people desire.
Whether he would make a good job of it remains to be seen, I would like him to at least have a chance at it, there is no one else remotely possible waiting in the wings.
As an aside, it appears that the Australians are kicking off about uncontrolled immigration.
@Lee Moore
Absolutely.
Farage gets under their skin in a way that nobodys else even remotely comes close to. Why is this?
He is not fighting on ground of their choosing but of his own, and this is the ground on which people want to fight. They’ve been saying so for years and they have been wilfully and contemptuously ignored.
Yes, reform has to win first, and Farage is probably the only one who realistically can.
Nigel Farage gets attacked from the right
Not just any Right but the Establishment Right, comfortable with their place on the gravy train.
“…it’s a burning desire to not see Reform go the way of UKIP & get taken over by unhinged nutters & fools.”
Carswell a nutter? Habib a nutter? That isn’t to say that Farage isn’t desperate to keep Reform close to the Overton Window if not actually inside it and right to do so. Mind you, the speed at which the Overton Window is moving…
I can see I was insufficiently clear on where the attacks are coming from. I didn’t mean the Telegraph right – they’ve been attacking him for years. I meant the non-establishment right of which Carl Benjamin would be a good example.
Everything is about moving the Overton window in politics. That is the purpose of voting Reform. Also, by maximising the number of seats Reform wins there will be a whole cadre of MPs who are well to the right of Farage, who is in the left of the party (membership, don’t know about MP candidates). If a Reform government crashes (highly likely) there will be people to pick up the baton of the right.
Oh, and even though Reform are incredibly weak on the immigration question (and de-naturalisation question), they are pretty clear about energy policy and Net Zero – that’s reason enough to vote for them.
Carswell isn’t a nutter but Habib, who I’ve also met & do not dislike I admit, is a prima donna. I agree with Carswell, Habib & Benjamin on many things, but their inability to stay laser focused on what is required to take power from a deeply hostile establishment means I think Farage is right to avoid such people.
Mr Farage himself admits that there is a long history, in various political parties (as he has been involved with at least three) of people breaking with him – but he argues that this is them falling out with him, rather than him falling out with them.
People need to read both sides, both Mr Farage and his former friends – now opponents, and make up their own minds on the matter.
I have started to refer to him as Nigel Mirage.
Nothing about him is what it seems. The same for the Reform (party?) company or whatever it is.
I do not agree with Carl Benjamin (“Sargon of Akkad”) on liberalism – I think he lumps modern “social” liberalism in with Classical Liberalism (the liberalism of people such as John Bright, or Gladstone in the United Kingdom, or Senator Conkling or President Cleveland in the United States), but it would be folly to “avoid” him.
To “avoid” Carl Benjamin, Ben Habib, Rupert Lowe, and the others – is basically to avoid the anti leftists in the United Kingdom.
That is not going to work.
By the way the opponents of the so called “woke right”, such as James Lindsay, would be on far stronger ground if they made it clear that what was called “liberalism” in the 20th and 21st centuries is NOT what they mean by liberalism.
The word “liberal” in the 20th and 21st centuries was used to describe people like Presidents Wilson, or Johnson or Barack Obama in the United States, and Prime Ministers David Lloyd-George and “Tony” Blair in Britain – unless James Lindsay, and others, make it clear that this is NOT what they mean by “liberal” they lose the argument at the very start.
The last Liberal Party Prime Minister in Britain to actually be a liberal was Lord Rosebury – and he found himself very much out of favour with the people becoming dominant in he Liberal Party, he ended up “plowing my lonely furrow” against the growth of the bureaucratic state.
And even in the 1920s real Classical Liberal American Presidents such as Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge – were being DENOUNCED by the people who (falsely) called themselves “liberals”.
James Lindsay and the others need to make this clear – they need to make clear what is liberalism and what is not liberalism. They need to define-the-term – does “liberal” mean rolling back the state, or does it mean expanding the state?
If they just carry on as they are, basically accepting that the people who called themselves “liberals” in the 20th and 21st centuries, i.e. the people who undermined Western societies, actually were liberals, then it is no wonder that more and more people reject liberalism.
In short, to give an American example, if “liberalism” is Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and-so-on – then “liberalism” is evil and must be defeated, as it is just Collectivism by the Installment Plan.
Fabianism.
Hmm, I think I see what happened.
Perry used the term “nutter” to refer to people whom he considered to be wasting time and other resources on lower priorities. Brendan was taken aback, because when he saw “nutter”, he thought Perry was accusing them of having the sort of genuinely nutty beliefs that the Left acts like we all have; i.e. wetting ourselves whenever we see a kebab store.
That could just be me projecting myself onto Brendan, since that’s how I interpreted the term “nutter” in this context. Using it the way Perry did feels like hyperbole… but on reflection, not so much so that it’d be unreasonable on a blog.
Am I getting closer to understanding what’s going on?
If Farage’s touchiness and arrogance prevents him from listening to Dominic Cummings then that is a win for Reform. I wouldn’t want that lockdown and state oppression-loving creep* anywhere near the party.
I like Lowe, Habib and Benjamin but he first two are everything the OP says about Farage and could start a fight in a phone box. Any association with Benjamin would just bring unneeded flak.
* I say creep only because I know we like to moderate the language here….
“Dominic Cummings – former advisor to Boris Johnson – and someone I think is well worth listening to has expressed his scepticism of the effectiveness of “one man and an iPhone” when dealing with an institution as vast and hostile as the British government.”
On the other hand, the Taliban had no chance against the military might of two global superpowers, yet beat them both.
Paul,
I consider myself essentially “liberal”. Sort of. The word hasn’t just been stolen but lost all meaning.
he will have to delegate to people who have been promoted on account of loyalty rather than ability.
I’m not expert on British politics, but this sentence jumped out at me. Because on the surface it seems quite a reasonable critique, but I think it misses a HUGE point. Britain is in such a deep hole that it needs a radical realignment. The worst thing that could happen is if that radical realignment opportunity is provided and then it is diluted by people who are not committed to the cause. Thatcher would have been dramatically more successful were it not for what she called “the wets”.
Trying to fight against the overwhelming power of the civil service, the state and all institutions to bring back sanity, to dramatically address immigration, slash government spending, restore freedom of speech, exit the EHRC, and many other things will be a herculean task. And when you are fighting better to have loyal competent soldiers at your back rather than SAS level turncoats who think the enemy might have a point here or there.
If I might compare to American politics: Trump’s second term is being much more successful for a few reasons, but one of the big ones is that his cabinet is EXTREMELY loyal to him, very much on HIS side, rather than the turn coats and the “this guy doesn’t know what he is doing so I’ll fix it surreptitiously” guys he had last time. As an example, Rex Tillerson, who surely had the resume to be a great Sec State, described Trump as “dumb as hell” and “lazy as hell”. This is not the guy you want in the trenches with you. Rubio, who I had my doubts about, seems a passionate fighter for the MAGA agenda at State and a huge supporter of Trump.
If you are leading a revolution often loyalty is more important than being the smartest guy in the room.
It is also worth saying that Farage has been through the wars. He has fought and clawed his way to where he is. He has already lead a successful revolution with regards to Brexit. He is, in my opinion, Britain’s last hope. “Warts and all” if you will and recognize the historical reference. All these people who haven’t achieved much in politics but who look good on paper — perhaps their expertise isn’t all it is cracked up to be.
Like I say, I’m no expert on British politics, and I have a fairly shallow understanding of Farage’s position, so I could be wrong.
I actually agree with Fraser Orr!!!! There’s a first time for everything I guess…
Samizdata August 29: Where Soft Paternalism has Led Us
Samizdata August 30: We Are Ruled By Lies
Samizdata August 31: (sniff)Farage will have to delegate to people who have been promoted on account of loyalty rather than ability(/sniff)
Although a big Farage fan, extending to my autographed Brexit party poster, I suspect he prefers and is better suited to the challenge of a campaign than the mundane business of governing – an interesting contrast to DJT who thrives on both. That being the case I can easily put up with policy pronouncements which do not sit well with my preferences. They’re an opposition party FFS and anything promised now is far from certain to be implemented.
I’m 100% with Fraser in believing he and Reform are our last chance. I just hope schisms seized upon, mis-reported and amplified by the quisling media, do not scupper them in what will be a dirty, corrupt and hugely tactical 2029 election.
The modern conservative liberals don’t want to risk their mission by shining light on their inherently unstable position, because neither the left nor right can take them seriously as intellectuals any longer – they supported the roots of our present problems but reject the rest of the tree.
The big conclusion of late 2000s through late 2010s conservative discourse, as illustrated by factions like the alt-right and NRX, was that modern liberalism is the logical consequence of classical liberalism. Liberalism is a slippery slope or a planted seed. Once the system is set up in reality, its political dynamics automatically drive it to the modern far left.
On the left, the progressive storyline dates back a century or more. In their analysis, the smart and pragmatic liberals became leftists, and the unfashionable, corrupt or dumb ones stayed in the old world – same history as the right, different spin.
Iyeguda.
It is precisely the thesis that “modern liberalism is the logical consequence of classical liberalism” which is FALSE.
Modern “liberalism”, i.e. statism, is the opposite of Classical Liberalism – the anti statism of such people as John Bright or (in America) Senator Conkling, or Edmund Burke for that matter.
For, contrary to the “alt right” Edmund Burke was very much a Classical Liberal (although the term was not used at the time)- standing for individual liberty and property against tyranny, whether tyranny by a King or by a mob.
Classical Liberals did NOT support “the roots of our present problems”.
For example, the “roots of the present problems” in the United States go back to Woodrow Wilson, Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt and Richard Ely (Richard Ely the great corruptor of American academia) – and they all detested Classical Liberalism.
The “alt-right” position that the alternative to the present “liberal” (often now Marxist) Collectivism is Fascism or National Socialism, is false – indeed it is absurd. As Fascism and National Socialism are also Collectivism.
Neither Fascism or National Socialism make sense economically – see F.A, Hayek “The Road to Serfdom” and “Omnipotent Government” by Ludwig Von Mises.
And Fascism and National Socialism are NOT really conservative socially, they are not really traditionalist – Erik von Kuehelt-Leddihn on their social radicalism, their anti traditionalism.
Of one thing I am certain, we will not get the moral improvement of the people via the acts of the state – Gladstone. Indeed such interventions lead to the moral corruption of the public.
And Edmund “little platoons” Burke (a century before) would have fully agreed with Gladstone on this.
Conservatism that breaks with Edmund Burke on such vital matters is not conservatism at all.
Any more than someone can be a “loyal American” and be opposed to the philosophy of the Bill of Rights.
The alt right hero “Justice” Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was not a conservative – he was a Progressive, like his totalitarian friend Harold Laski in Britain.
These people were not the result of Classical Liberalism – they were its fanatical enemies.
Just as Mussolini was in Italy.
The question is why does James Lindsay not write such things as my above comment – it is not difficult or complicated, yet he does NOT do so.
He seems to want to keep in with the people who consider, for example, Franklin Roosevelt to be a liberal.
But one can not have BOTH Franklin Roosevelt and, say, Warren Harding or Calvin Coolidge as liberals – because their philosophies of government were diametrically opposed (and NO the one does NOT lead to the other – they are opposed). You have to make-a-choice.
Any more than one can support both Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater – one wanted a bigger government, the other wanted a smaller government. They want to go in opposite directions.
In the name of reason James Lindsay – please define-your-terms, you call yourself a “liberal” but refuse to tell us what a “liberal” is.
Thus leaving yourself, your position, totally open to attack – whether from the left or from the “alt right”.
Define-your-terms – explain-what-you-mean.
The first thing that President Franklin Roosevelt did was violate all contracts, public and private, and steal, by the threat of violence, all privately owned monetary gold (he let people keep such things as their wedding rings – how kind of him, sarcasm alert).
If this is “liberalism” then Louis XIV (the “Sun King”) was a liberal – and so was the Emperor Diocletian.
Far from being opposed to Franklin Roosevelt as a “liberal” the “alt right” should love him – as he had so much in common with their own Mussolini, who, indeed, many New Dealers admired – although they tried to cover-up their admiration later.
Ronald Reagan used to, rightly, point this out – remembering how his own father (a New Deal “WPA” person) and many other New Dealers. used to admire Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Mussolini.
As F.A. Hayek pointed out concerning Carl Schmitt (another hero of the alt right) – yes Carl Schmitt was a brilliant intellectual, but his basic conclusions were FALSE – as can be seen in his support of one the worst tyrannies of his time, the National Socialist regime in Germany.
And that is not a “smear” it is a fact – and people who support Carl Schmitt are either ignorant of this basic fact about him (his support for the National Socialist regime), or do not care because they support the same sort of tyranny.
Just as one can not get to the philosophy of the Bill of Rights (British or American) from the philosophy of Bacon, Hobbes, Hume and Bentham, one can not get to it (to basic liberties from Natural Law) from the philosophy of Carl Schmitt or the “Pure Theory of Law” of the socialist Hans Kelson.
This “choice” between Carl Schmitt and Hans Kelson, between “right and left”, is a FALSE choice – as both roads lead to the same place, tyranny.
Something from the inside, back in Ukip days. Back when the BNP was winning – a few – elections.
There was always a vast and ongoing battle to make sure that this party of the – roughly, you understand – liberal right didn’t become infiltrated by the illiberal right. I don’t mean that the occasional policy would be not to my taste, not at all. Rather, if anyone who had ever been NF – or BNP for that matter – joined Ukip because that would be better then and therefore the BBC would have cut off all media access for us.
Now, Reform is too large for that. No one can “cut off”. But the same basic idea still stands. There really is a racist, vile, wholly fascist right out there (no, not making a claim about anybody at all). The moment that right is within Reform is the moment that everyone not actual racists etc flees – and Reform will die. There’s a delicate balancing act therefore. Yes, to be of the right, to have policies which are correct, to have policies which appeal. But a part of that is still having those others further right who are howling into the void. As an example, bringing Tommy Robinson in would gain perhaps tens of thousands of votes. And whatever anyone might think about him or his ideas it would also lose hundreds of thousands, if not millions, from the other wing. Whether this is right or wrong large portions of the public think Tommy’s a Boot Boy and therefore won’t associate with or vote for a party that includes him.
Note that I’ve not said anything at all about Farage’s personal beliefs (which I do think I know BTW).
The reason there’s a left over right not inside Reform is that that’s good electoral politics.