It's definitely possible that Farage could pull it out of the bag and this byelection will be a platform and sandbox for their triumphant general election campaign (which is what I think you're arguing). But it's also true that Farage is human and therefore fallible - and not everything he does is 4D chess. He looks and sounds like a desperate man looking for a way out and this byelection looks like a very big gamble indeed. It's also undeniable that Reform are in a relatively weaker position than they were, say six months ago. And you can do as much Facebook targeting as you like but these corruption allegations are real and they cut through eventually, whoever reports them first. So it's just as unoriginal to be arguing, "you're all underestimating him again you idiots" as it is to be saying, "this is a farce and he's going to fall flat on his face".
"He leads what is now a fully functioning, national, mass-membership political party"
Is Reform this? I would argue that while all three of those terms (i) fully functioning, (ii) national and (iii) mass membership are contestable, Reform is arguably none of these.
Or, if it is any of these, it is ways which are meaningless: Reform may have 100,000s of followers/members but so what? It's not a social, institutional force.
Besides, I don't think that's what Farage is aspiring to. He doesn't want to win the General Election and be PM. He clearly just wants to be "Lord Farage OG, saviour of the right" and not do the dirty work of governing.
As a non Brit, what I see is that Farage is trying to have voters validate that he is a victim, which does not strike me as a genius political strategy. There is not much difference between a victim and a loser in politics.
I appreciate analysis that seriously looks at Reform's strategy, and explores the genuine divide between the establishment parties with their institutions and rules, and Reform's attempt to ape Trump and smash the old world in their wake.
But, as with outsider commentary on Trump, there is a risk of trying too hard to apply a coherent ideology to explain simple mistakes and wrongdoings. Go too far down this road and we lose any ability to insist on standards in public life.
Whatever the wider relationship between populism and the establishment, this is happening because Farage's corruption has been exposed and he is trying desperately to escape scrutiny, not because Reform is channelling a popular against the idea that MPs should be open about their donations.
Setting this up as an establishment vs the people fight is a tactical move by Farage to buy time and we shouldn't let middle class guilt blind us to that fact.
Thanks very much for this thoughtful response. You're right to use the word mistake. This may well turn out to be one of them. But it *is* the outworking of a strategy long in the making. I don't say that to endorse it, no more than I endorse whatever I write about Andy Burnham's strategies, merely to explain why they are doing what they are doing. I think if the sum of our analysis of Reform is "they're wrong and bad" then we will end up miles away from any proper understanding of them. I also just think it's a bit boring. And I'm not motivated by "middle class guilt" – I just think a move of this significance merits interpretation on its own terms. That it's happening because of the scrutiny and standards issues I made a point of mentioning in the piece is a given.
This is a really helpful response, thank you. Western establishments have made the mistake again and again since 2016 of dismissing their challengers as too outlandish or distastefull to be taken seriously and it's clearly wrong to think that humour that plays with Guardian readers will have any hold on working class voters in Clacton.
That said, this moment does also capture a genuine challenge in covering the populist right, because it is a movement that blends truth and untruth. The established parties *are* totally out of touch with the working class, but at the same time Farage *is* lying for his own profit. How do you respond? Leaning into one angle seems to only prove the power of the other. Clearly the greater dearth in the UK though is of analysis that seriously explores Reform's critique, so keep up the good work!
If you think I am veering too far into "explaining away" territory rather than helpful explanation please do let me know.
You get to the central challenge of all of this in your second paragraph.
I think it's important that Reform are given the same kind of coverage as any other political party, which is to say analysis of their strategy and thinking on its own terms.
However, they are very consciously *not like* any other political party! There's the rub.
They are not the same as the 3 mainstream parties. They resemble Brazilian populist political parties of the 1950s. Their sheer incompetence encouraged people who never would have contemplated nondemocratic power to resort to military led government. In exhaustion at the political incompetence of populist leaders. Farage is not a latter day Vargas but a Quadros. A baleful inheritance which is taking generations to repair and cost 250000 disappeared. A far remove from the UK of the 1960s.
Interesting stuff as ever, but I'm struggling to see how Makerfield is meant to have been a good result for Reform. Yes they (slightly) increased their share of the vote over 2024, but that's in the context of Reform's national polling almost doubling over the same period and at the same time as Labour significantly increased their majority in the seat, despite collapsing in the national polls. How is that in any way a vindication of Reform's strategy and candidate selection?
Didn't mean to say it was a good result! More that key people pleased with the scope it gave them for experimentation. The consensus view in that circle was it was a sui generis Burnham-specific result and the sort of techniques they pioneered with Kenyon could work to much greater effect elsewhere. We'll see!
You said ‘He leads what is now a fully functioning, national, mass-membership political party’ but Tim Montgomerie was saying on tv yesterday that some of the things Nigel Farage promised he was going to do (appoint a chief of staff, delegate more and so on, I can’t remember the full list) haven’t materialised. So is it fully functioning yet?
It's definitely possible that Farage could pull it out of the bag and this byelection will be a platform and sandbox for their triumphant general election campaign (which is what I think you're arguing). But it's also true that Farage is human and therefore fallible - and not everything he does is 4D chess. He looks and sounds like a desperate man looking for a way out and this byelection looks like a very big gamble indeed. It's also undeniable that Reform are in a relatively weaker position than they were, say six months ago. And you can do as much Facebook targeting as you like but these corruption allegations are real and they cut through eventually, whoever reports them first. So it's just as unoriginal to be arguing, "you're all underestimating him again you idiots" as it is to be saying, "this is a farce and he's going to fall flat on his face".
Count Binface is funny though.
Indeed, he's funny and he's smart - underestimate at your peril. The Count against The Cnut!
Well yes…presumably if Farage ever becomes PM, the first thing he will do is eliminate the joke candidates at elections.
We need an honest Essex citizen in a white suit, campaigning on anti corruption. A modern day Martin Bell
"He leads what is now a fully functioning, national, mass-membership political party"
Is Reform this? I would argue that while all three of those terms (i) fully functioning, (ii) national and (iii) mass membership are contestable, Reform is arguably none of these.
Or, if it is any of these, it is ways which are meaningless: Reform may have 100,000s of followers/members but so what? It's not a social, institutional force.
Besides, I don't think that's what Farage is aspiring to. He doesn't want to win the General Election and be PM. He clearly just wants to be "Lord Farage OG, saviour of the right" and not do the dirty work of governing.
It’s a one man band. If he fails the game is up. Wafer thin on ability and experience and containing more nuts than a KP bag
As a non Brit, what I see is that Farage is trying to have voters validate that he is a victim, which does not strike me as a genius political strategy. There is not much difference between a victim and a loser in politics.
I appreciate analysis that seriously looks at Reform's strategy, and explores the genuine divide between the establishment parties with their institutions and rules, and Reform's attempt to ape Trump and smash the old world in their wake.
But, as with outsider commentary on Trump, there is a risk of trying too hard to apply a coherent ideology to explain simple mistakes and wrongdoings. Go too far down this road and we lose any ability to insist on standards in public life.
Whatever the wider relationship between populism and the establishment, this is happening because Farage's corruption has been exposed and he is trying desperately to escape scrutiny, not because Reform is channelling a popular against the idea that MPs should be open about their donations.
Setting this up as an establishment vs the people fight is a tactical move by Farage to buy time and we shouldn't let middle class guilt blind us to that fact.
Thanks very much for this thoughtful response. You're right to use the word mistake. This may well turn out to be one of them. But it *is* the outworking of a strategy long in the making. I don't say that to endorse it, no more than I endorse whatever I write about Andy Burnham's strategies, merely to explain why they are doing what they are doing. I think if the sum of our analysis of Reform is "they're wrong and bad" then we will end up miles away from any proper understanding of them. I also just think it's a bit boring. And I'm not motivated by "middle class guilt" – I just think a move of this significance merits interpretation on its own terms. That it's happening because of the scrutiny and standards issues I made a point of mentioning in the piece is a given.
This is a really helpful response, thank you. Western establishments have made the mistake again and again since 2016 of dismissing their challengers as too outlandish or distastefull to be taken seriously and it's clearly wrong to think that humour that plays with Guardian readers will have any hold on working class voters in Clacton.
That said, this moment does also capture a genuine challenge in covering the populist right, because it is a movement that blends truth and untruth. The established parties *are* totally out of touch with the working class, but at the same time Farage *is* lying for his own profit. How do you respond? Leaning into one angle seems to only prove the power of the other. Clearly the greater dearth in the UK though is of analysis that seriously explores Reform's critique, so keep up the good work!
If you think I am veering too far into "explaining away" territory rather than helpful explanation please do let me know.
You get to the central challenge of all of this in your second paragraph.
I think it's important that Reform are given the same kind of coverage as any other political party, which is to say analysis of their strategy and thinking on its own terms.
However, they are very consciously *not like* any other political party! There's the rub.
They are not the same as the 3 mainstream parties. They resemble Brazilian populist political parties of the 1950s. Their sheer incompetence encouraged people who never would have contemplated nondemocratic power to resort to military led government. In exhaustion at the political incompetence of populist leaders. Farage is not a latter day Vargas but a Quadros. A baleful inheritance which is taking generations to repair and cost 250000 disappeared. A far remove from the UK of the 1960s.
What should I read on this subject? Interested to know more!
Oh dear the grifter's going down and the rest of the grifters are getting upset.
Bollocks
Interesting stuff as ever, but I'm struggling to see how Makerfield is meant to have been a good result for Reform. Yes they (slightly) increased their share of the vote over 2024, but that's in the context of Reform's national polling almost doubling over the same period and at the same time as Labour significantly increased their majority in the seat, despite collapsing in the national polls. How is that in any way a vindication of Reform's strategy and candidate selection?
Didn't mean to say it was a good result! More that key people pleased with the scope it gave them for experimentation. The consensus view in that circle was it was a sui generis Burnham-specific result and the sort of techniques they pioneered with Kenyon could work to much greater effect elsewhere. We'll see!
Very interesting read, Patrick.
You said ‘He leads what is now a fully functioning, national, mass-membership political party’ but Tim Montgomerie was saying on tv yesterday that some of the things Nigel Farage promised he was going to do (appoint a chief of staff, delegate more and so on, I can’t remember the full list) haven’t materialised. So is it fully functioning yet?