Nigel has proved to be the most significant politician since Tony Blair. This is the second review of the book I have seen and neither mentions the main characteristic of politicians: lying. He may not have a face for TV but he is respected for saying what he thinks and not worried about the elite backlash. On the contrary to this review, his revelation that anyone in the world can fly to Britain on a one-way ticket and get £25,000 of treatment for HIV free was an eye opener as to how the elite rulers withhold information that the majority population will disapprove of.
He may have anuran looks but Brits would rather have an ugly truth-teller than a lying photogenic poster boy. He may not have a face for TV but he runs an informative nightly programme on GBNews where, true to character, he interviews people with whom he disagrees (unlike the TV tax channel with its regular cast of propaganda reinforcers).
Yes, he deserves a Knighthood; to join that pantheon of contributors to Britain: Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, Nicholas Clegg, Kier Starmer!
The sheeple aught to be ashamed of the way they treated Mr Farage, certainly the most effective politician in recent times. Even today most people I meet consider Nigel a figure to be mocked.
It was always so with the English, and now the Scots.
Not a figure to be mocked in my neck of the woods (NW). His name may well be whispered this very night as our local paper announces the closure of a large hotel and conference centre, no doubt hammered by lockdown, and the immediate sacking of all its staff. But Lo! All is not lost; it reopens next week as a centre for refugees and asylum seekers.
Ian Barton
2 years ago
You have to wonder about the constant references to Farage’s “luck”
It might be fairer to say “the harder he worked – the luckier he seemed to be”.
The Leave campaign was certainly immensely fortunate to have the complacent, incompetent and talentless chancer David Cameron as PM in the years that led up to Brexit.
What Cameron learnt from the Scottish referendum was that you bribe the Scots with English money at the last minute when they appeared about to vote for independence. It would be interesting to know what would have happened in the Brexit referendum, had the EU had the sense to bribe the English by returning some of their own money. Cameron clearly expected the EU to help him win the referendum. He was wrong.
Ian Barton
2 years ago
Be careful about assuming Farage won’t reappear.
He may campaign with another “populist” party if the U.K. government fails to “take back control of our borders”.
Not just the poor, the very squeezed middle classes, who have a mortgage and a job, but do not earn enough to cover a basic quality of life, but get no help from the state.
Matt M
2 years ago
Professional politicians rarely change anything voluntarily. They need to be forced by the threat of losing office.
Witness the role of a couple of dozen Tory backbenchers in shaping recent British history: Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless defecting to UKIP secured Cameron’s referendum pledge; the ERG Spartans held out against May’s “deal” and changed leader; the CRG pushed Boris into avoiding a Christmas lockdown and the dropping COVID restrictions.
Nigel Farage was instrumental in the first of those, complicit in the second and supportive of the third. He perfected the insurgency model which is now regarded as the way to get big things done.
As a born and bred Conservative, it took me far too long to recognise the lunacy of our continuing membership of the EU. It was my wife (we are both lawyers and she is ex Labour) who surprised me one day by telling me she had been voting for Brexit supporting parties for years and of course she was correct when she pointed out the impossibility to her of continuing to support membership of the EU whilst at the same time believing in our ancient freedoms, democracy, constitution and legal system as laid out to us when we studied our law and history.
Farage did a terrific job. The final European Parliament result was brilliant and of course the referendum result was sublime. There is no way we would have managed to get out of the cursed EU without Farage and UKIP. Suggestions to the contrary lack traction.
Kiat Huang
2 years ago
An informative, witty and ultimately entertaining article. Farage mobilised millions of people to make their secret vote – but would they have taken to the streets? If Farage had been as popular and inoffensive to the masses as peak Boris, I suspect the referendum win for Leave would have been a far greater majority. Not that that matters, but more to the importance of the popularity of leading personalities to get things done
I agree. I know a number of people who were bordering on voting leave, but whenever they saw or heard Mr Farage they wouldn’t step over that border, they found him obnoxious and really wanted nothing to do with anything in which he was involved. I must confess that I also found him so and, although I did vote leave, he nearly pushed me the other way, I just stop listening to him and switched to more reasoned pro-leave voices, of which there were many; however,Mr Farage dominated in the media, to the detriment of the leave campaign, in my opinion.
Which is why the Remain-supporting media made him the story – usually cherry-picking his more animated moments – and never offering coverage of his calm conversations.
From my perspective it is great that the Leave campaign realised this early enough – and reduced the opportunities for the BBC and others to use this tactic.
Kiat, I don’t think a larger majority would have prevented the subsequent scheming as the elites were never going to accept a leave vote with grace. Look at Scotland: a 60/40 vote for the Union and straight away plans to have another vote.
Post-referendum scheming is a separate point Peter to the one I was making which was that Farage was like Marmite. I suspect more people in the country warmed to him (and were grateful for his efforts over the past decades) than not, however.
As for repeat referendums, well those are much rarer than the repeat cycle of general elections.
Could it be that the absence of referenda (a true measure of the country’s opinion on single issues) on multiple issues, denying per-issue democratic voting, could be a primary reason for a smaller, but noisy minority to demand a revote on a rare referendum?. Not being able to vote on issues that they care about, could lead to greater frustration amongst people willng to be activists. In this regard the Swiss model works very well to discover the extent of public opinion to then formulate policy and laws.
You had to get the referendum first, and Farage and UKIP terrified David Cameron into granting one. At the time Boris didn’t give tuppence about the issue
Steve Elliott
2 years ago
Didn’t Boris Johnson once say that Nigel Farage was unfit to hold public office? Seems a little ironic now.
Team Dom can take a very long hike off a short pier too.
Paddy Taylor
2 years ago
The central plank of Farage/UKIP’s policy position was always going to attract some support in a country that has been broadly Eurosceptic for many years. The extraordinary thing, though, is that UKIP achieved their principal aim whilst their leader remained resolutely unelectable – even in seats that were strongly anti-EU – viewed as a pantomime villain by a large proportion of the country and almost all of the media. Without meaning to be rude to them, there seemed an unwillingness, among even sensible UKIP supporters, to confront the painful reality that – whilst the electoral system as it stands had a huge impact on UKIP’s chances of winning seats – the more obvious and telling factor was the calibre of its candidates and the perception of a section of its supporters. In the pre-Brexit Party days, Farage, Carswell and Reckless (and possibly a small handful of others) were viable (even if unsuccessful) candidates because they were assured enough to operate in the political world of 24 Hr News. The party’s image was tainted by the seemingly endless parade of councillors and candidates whose frankly idiotic gaffes handed ammunition to UKIP’s detractors every time they opened their mouths. A left-leaning commentariat made it all the more certain that UKIP’s faux pas would make headlines. No party can hope for success if it cannot trust its representatives to hold to the party-line in interviews or if its parliamentary candidates allow themselves to be caught saying or doing something for which their leader will then have to apologise. However strong the message, it will be lost on the electorate if the person delivering it is seen to be a buffoon or of the ‘swivel-eyed’ brigade. Farage’s focus on immigration put off a large number of potential voters, even whilst a huge number of Conservative voters – myself included – would have agreed with a lot of UKIP’s message regarding our place in the EU. But, thanks to the calibre of UKIP candidates and some of their headbanging supporters, we couldn’t bring ourselves to vote for them, and thus – despite broad support for their policy – they remained a fringe party.
It is almost a cliche to call Farage the most influential British Politician of the C21st, but to have achieved such an accolade, whilst never managing to win a seat at Westminster is astonishing.
Of course he did, I thought everyone believed that.
Adrian Maxwell
2 years ago
Will, thank you for an entertaining and informative article. Thankfully devoid of the ad hominem comments that tediously accompany the subject. History will continue to analyse the long term factors that culminated in the leave vote – who could object to controlling the production of iron and steel and, so, the production of Panzers? But many objected to the creep into federalism. In any event Nigel Farage was at the centre of the leave vote. Despite your criticism of Crick’s book I will rush to buy (after his work on Jeffery he is worth a look). I want to know more about, and perhaps understand, how Farage impacted in the way he did. I may also gain an insight into how Tony Blair can be honoured but Farage ignored.
Agree. As someone who was just old enough to vote in support of our membership of the EEC in 75 (was it?), on the assurance that we were merely voting for a trade deal, and spent the following decades realising we had been lied to, I can assure retrofitters that Farage represented Leavers rather than inventing them.
As Boris proved again, people do not expect their ‘leaders’ to be free of human frailty, in fact there are some frailties that are well understood and preferable to others. Actually having a recognisable personality makes someone relatable; people are put off by dark horses and unknown quantities.
Boris will not fail because of his personality but may do so because people have begun to doubt their assessment of it/him (and to wonder if he is indeed a dark horse). Give Farage his due, he has never surprised us with a change of direction.
Agree – plenty of us were happy with a European trade deal, we didn’t want or expect something meddling in every aspect of our lives. How naive we were!
Yes it’s a retelling of the “great man” in history theory. I subscribe more to the social movement attaching itself to an individual whose views coincide at the time. Nigel had been ploughing the same furrow for decades without much influence but suddenly met the moment.
Or to put a more positive spin on the “great men”. They are the catalysts that allow inchoate discontent to cohere into a disciplined political movement. Perhaps without Farage I would still be muttering into my beer about Brussels.
David Starkey is good on this subject. Yes economic forces etc play their part but great men (and women) have undoubtedly been on many occasions of fundamental importance. I could cite, straight up, Henry VIII and Churchill, both of whom without our history would have been utterly different. That is before we even get to Jesus Christ, St Paul, Muhammad, the Buddha etc!
Starkey is a Historian, and Historians have a vested interest in a ‘Great Men & Women’ viewpoint. All them books they write would be pretty short if they all they subscribed to a viewpoint that stuff that is going to happen, is going to happen anyway regardless of the individuals involved.
People like Farage …and Churchill are inspirational, that is their greatest weapon, but inspiration is an extremely dirty word to anyone under forty.
My grandfather sailed to South Africa twice in the late 1800s, returned joined the Black Watch and fought right through the great war. Came home married had 9 children and died in this house aged 87. He had spirit!
There is definitely something in that. I watched a few YouTube lectures by Vernon Bogdanor on the Gresham College site. The one on the EU tracing back Britain’s split on the issue to the very beginning is worth watching. I think for some people the 2016 result was a bolt from the blue. But that’s because they hadn’t realised that there was always substantial antipathy to the European project. It explains why that antipathy was latent when the project was one of mere economic cooperation (but even then many could see the implications). But the antipathy escalated after Maastricht. Hardly anyone in the UK loved the EU, even Remainers and Remoaners adopted a “leaving will cost you” “Ok it’s not great but we should reform it” or “you are just imagining that there is a political project here” narrative. The complaints that Red Tops led the people astray with stories of bent bananas is risible. The Red Tops simply reflected a mood that was always there. Maybe not the top of people’s lists of priorities, but there.
So yes, there was a movement to be realised. But that doesn’t take away that Farage was able to galvanise it. The old sports adage “the harder you train the luckier you seem to be” is applicable here. Farage was highly motivated. He rode his luck. He grabbed the opportunities with both hands and ignored the setbacks and kept moving forward to his goal.
Prashant your assertion seems trite and without substantiating proof. What of Boudicea, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Churchill, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Lech Walesa? It’s a long list…and I doubt they or their supporters would agree with you.
I think the enormous influence of individuals – and their personalities – is blindingly obvious, though I would exclude Boudicca from list, who simply raised a bloody rebellion and failed.
Of course it’s a bit easier if you are already born into the position of a divinely supported autocrat, such as Peter the Great, who undoubtedly transformed Russia and its position among the nations, but was also undoubtedly an extremely sanguinary despot! Perhaps Farage achieved less than some of these individuals, but he did a lot with little political power.
I appreciate my viewpoint is odd, but I don’t believe any of those people were responsible for long term outcomes, except in a transitory sense – they affected things for a period, but the overall ‘checkpoints’ in history are reached regardless of the individuals. Let me try and illustrate. Do you believe WWI would not have happened, or panned out pretty much the same if archduke Ferdinand had not been killed? Or that the 2008 crash would not have happened had Lehman Brothers not gone pop? Likewise I believe WWII would have panned out pretty much the same, regardless of Churchill or Hitler or Stalin or Roosevelt having existed.
I don’t know, but I cannot think of any set of circumstances under which the United Kingdom and Germany would not have gone to war, sooner or later, but there or thereabouts the same time as did happen.
David Bell
2 years ago
First prize for obsolesence goes to you, Lloyd. Brexit is unfinished business so NF is very relevant.
Last edited 2 years ago by David Bell
Jasmine Birtles
2 years ago
Good fun article but I don’t think it is true that he has no more worlds to conquer. Many look to him to front a new political party, although setting up one of those is far harder, and far more expensive, than would seem from the outside.
Billy Bob
2 years ago
Farage was a one issue politician. I appreciated the way he upset the EU, but realistically that’s just because I was dead against the EU to begin with. When Brexit was the most important issue of the day, and Farage deserves enormous credit for getting it to that point, I’d back him to the hilt. However his brand of wet dream Thatcherism is as far removed from my economic political outlook as could possibly be, so I’d never vote for him outside of an EU setting.
Like Churchill turning a blind eye to Stalin in order to defeat the Third Reich, I was happy to ignore everything I didn’t like about Farage in order to get Brexit through. Now it’s largely done so is he in my eyes
I see your point, but perhaps “net zero” will allow him a second shot at the establishment. I am aware that I keep banging on about it, but we are heading for an economic and financial implosion, and Farage is just the guy to lay the blame where it belongs – Boris and Team Carrie, in case you are wondering (There shouldn’t be a Team Carrie). Me? Well I am socially conservative, but rather wimpy on economic matters so I won’t vote for hardcore Thatcherism (Great women, but too many working class families were left to rot)
Edit: Call me canny, but Farage is in The Telegraph right now going for the jugular.
I think politicians of all flavours now lean to the left when it comes to economics, which is a reflection of society. When it all goes wrong again, and I believe it will, another Thatcher will come along. There will always be winners and and losers, we just have to make sure that the former is the largest group.
I don’t think that they lean to the left. They lean to promoting the interests of their own kind of people – which I loosely term the metropolitan liberal class. This may be described as left, but I don’t think it is.
I agree entirely that Net Zero is something I oppose, and if Farage is the only one opposing it then again it’ll be another issue I back him on, but like you I abhor Thatcherism and austerity as it simply destroyed too many working class lives in the name of ideology
That’s not how I remember it. I knew lots of council house tenants who bought their homes under Maggie. Many working class people (emphasis on ‘working’) voted for Maggie. I live near Leyland, where British Leyland was a huge employer. It was destroyed by the unions, not Maggie. Everyone could tell you stories, about the permanent bookies in the toilets (where management were banned) or employees who slept through night shifts and worked daytime fitting nicked parts to mates’ cars. My dad even employed a mechanic (full time) who had an equally full time job on nights at Leyland Motors. My mum objected, but anyone who could hold a spanner already ‘worked’ at the Motors.
I don’t think anybody is arguing the unions had became a law unto themselves, but she went far beyond reforming what was needed and turned it into an ideological battle and completely smashed them to pieces.
The reforms she bought in has led to wages being largely stagnant ever since even when company profits soared. The trickle down theory was the biggest con ever devised.
Her privatisation of public services has led to a situation whereby the many are a shambles, while still being topped up by vast government subsidies that line shareholder pockets while prices go through the roof.
Her selling off of council houses would have been fine if she had replaced them, however that hasn’t been the case. Again we now see youngsters with no hope of owning a family home stuck paying rent to private landlords, often with taxpayer help, which is leaving them no disposable income to spend on local industry.
The woman was toxic
So toxic she won landslide victories and was never rejected at the ballot box? PM for 10 years, during which she reversed the catastrophic decline of a country held to ransom, where rubbish piled high in the streets and power cuts were commonplace.
I don’t know if you witnessed any of this or have just read the ‘history’? I was a student in the early 70s, and fancied myself left wing, but my dad was an undertaker when crematoria shut and bodies accumulated… It’s quite surreal to remember how we became used to things being completely out of control. Shambles doesn’t even get close.
As it is now more than 30 years since Maggie was deposed, I think it’s a stretch to blame subsequent failure to build council houses (and every other social ill) on her interventions, which were necessary and transformative at the time.
Are you a socialist then? I’m not sure why having sound public finances should be so opposed, and ultimately it is a fools paradise, as so many examples have shown, not least Mitterrand in the 1980s.
We already have the highest taxes in peace time history, and increasing inflation – I can easily see a scenario where Labour get elected and have to make major spending cuts, as they have actually done several times in their period ls in office.
It depends what you mean by socialism, as it seems to mean so many different things to different people the label is almost meaningless.
I lean left economically, in that I believe the minimum wage should be higher. Having full time workers needing taxpayer funded assistance is simply corporate welfare allowing industry to pay their workers too little to survive on. It’s also a drag on the nations productivity.
I’d rather have higher taxes, especially on top earners, and have well funded public services such as healthcare and education than the run down ones we witnessed after Thatcher or Osbournes austerity.
The Scandinavian economic model rather than he US one is which way I’d lean personally.
I believe most of the Scandinavian countries spread their tax take over a larger percentage of the population. In the UK you have an allowance of 12,700 before income tax, whereas countries like Sweden you have around 2,000. Yes the higher earner pay a greater rate that the UK. The lower paid in Sweden pay a lot more than their equivalent in the UK.
Yes, in his role as ‘Tribune of the Plebs’ he has achieved his ‘Triumph’ and should now be made a Knight of the Garter. It would certainly enliven that otherwise moribund, archaic institution.
Sir Nigel Farage, KG.
.
James Chater
2 years ago
I can understand why Farage has a deeper, more loyal following than Johnson – even if he shares the latter’s narcissism – but maybe he could have done more good and served the whole country better if he had reined-in his anarchic, incendiary traits to yes, be a perpetual irritant to the EU and not a would-be destroyer of the whole thing?
UK ‘independence’ Party signifying that spirit, but realising that breaking the relationship would always be too costly, socially and economically.
Better to break up the Conservative Party, of course.
Like millions of others, no doubt, I voted to remain not because Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ constantly played in my head, but because one could foresee what in fact has actually happened.
I am guessing Crick’s will be the definitive biography. I am sure our local library will get a couple of copies.
Nigel has proved to be the most significant politician since Tony Blair. This is the second review of the book I have seen and neither mentions the main characteristic of politicians: lying. He may not have a face for TV but he is respected for saying what he thinks and not worried about the elite backlash. On the contrary to this review, his revelation that anyone in the world can fly to Britain on a one-way ticket and get £25,000 of treatment for HIV free was an eye opener as to how the elite rulers withhold information that the majority population will disapprove of.
He may have anuran looks but Brits would rather have an ugly truth-teller than a lying photogenic poster boy. He may not have a face for TV but he runs an informative nightly programme on GBNews where, true to character, he interviews people with whom he disagrees (unlike the TV tax channel with its regular cast of propaganda reinforcers).
Yes, he deserves a Knighthood; to join that pantheon of contributors to Britain: Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, Nicholas Clegg, Kier Starmer!
We’re called “Britons”.
Didn’t Britons stem from the name of the tribe that JC met in Pegwell Bay – Brits. I’m not from that tribe but I don’t mind being lumped in with them.
Or Brittunculi by ‘you know who’.
The sheeple aught to be ashamed of the way they treated Mr Farage, certainly the most effective politician in recent times. Even today most people I meet consider Nigel a figure to be mocked.
It was always so with the English, and now the Scots.
Not a figure to be mocked in my neck of the woods (NW). His name may well be whispered this very night as our local paper announces the closure of a large hotel and conference centre, no doubt hammered by lockdown, and the immediate sacking of all its staff. But Lo! All is not lost; it reopens next week as a centre for refugees and asylum seekers.
You have to wonder about the constant references to Farage’s “luck”
It might be fairer to say “the harder he worked – the luckier he seemed to be”.
The Leave campaign was certainly immensely fortunate to have the complacent, incompetent and talentless chancer David Cameron as PM in the years that led up to Brexit.
One might have thought Cameron might have learnt a lesson or two from the Scottish referendum.
What Cameron learnt from the Scottish referendum was that you bribe the Scots with English money at the last minute when they appeared about to vote for independence. It would be interesting to know what would have happened in the Brexit referendum, had the EU had the sense to bribe the English by returning some of their own money. Cameron clearly expected the EU to help him win the referendum. He was wrong.
Be careful about assuming Farage won’t reappear.
He may campaign with another “populist” party if the U.K. government fails to “take back control of our borders”.
Yes I think he might too.
Not to mention Net Zero – with its green taxes falling most heavily on poor.
Not just the poor, the very squeezed middle classes, who have a mortgage and a job, but do not earn enough to cover a basic quality of life, but get no help from the state.
Professional politicians rarely change anything voluntarily. They need to be forced by the threat of losing office.
Witness the role of a couple of dozen Tory backbenchers in shaping recent British history: Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless defecting to UKIP secured Cameron’s referendum pledge; the ERG Spartans held out against May’s “deal” and changed leader; the CRG pushed Boris into avoiding a Christmas lockdown and the dropping COVID restrictions.
Nigel Farage was instrumental in the first of those, complicit in the second and supportive of the third. He perfected the insurgency model which is now regarded as the way to get big things done.
Well said.
As a born and bred Conservative, it took me far too long to recognise the lunacy of our continuing membership of the EU. It was my wife (we are both lawyers and she is ex Labour) who surprised me one day by telling me she had been voting for Brexit supporting parties for years and of course she was correct when she pointed out the impossibility to her of continuing to support membership of the EU whilst at the same time believing in our ancient freedoms, democracy, constitution and legal system as laid out to us when we studied our law and history.
Lesson learned – listen to your wife : )
Indeed.
Farage did a terrific job. The final European Parliament result was brilliant and of course the referendum result was sublime. There is no way we would have managed to get out of the cursed EU without Farage and UKIP. Suggestions to the contrary lack traction.
An informative, witty and ultimately entertaining article. Farage mobilised millions of people to make their secret vote – but would they have taken to the streets? If Farage had been as popular and inoffensive to the masses as peak Boris, I suspect the referendum win for Leave would have been a far greater majority. Not that that matters, but more to the importance of the popularity of leading personalities to get things done
Maybe, but I am not sure. It was Farage’s support for Leave that made him unpopular and offensive, rather than his personality.
I agree. I know a number of people who were bordering on voting leave, but whenever they saw or heard Mr Farage they wouldn’t step over that border, they found him obnoxious and really wanted nothing to do with anything in which he was involved. I must confess that I also found him so and, although I did vote leave, he nearly pushed me the other way, I just stop listening to him and switched to more reasoned pro-leave voices, of which there were many; however,Mr Farage dominated in the media, to the detriment of the leave campaign, in my opinion.
Which is why the Remain-supporting media made him the story – usually cherry-picking his more animated moments – and never offering coverage of his calm conversations.
From my perspective it is great that the Leave campaign realised this early enough – and reduced the opportunities for the BBC and others to use this tactic.
Nigel was the political “muscle”, never attractive, but always indispensable
Many people have political “muscle”, but that doesn’t mean you would want them in power.
Kiat, I don’t think a larger majority would have prevented the subsequent scheming as the elites were never going to accept a leave vote with grace. Look at Scotland: a 60/40 vote for the Union and straight away plans to have another vote.
Post-referendum scheming is a separate point Peter to the one I was making which was that Farage was like Marmite. I suspect more people in the country warmed to him (and were grateful for his efforts over the past decades) than not, however.
As for repeat referendums, well those are much rarer than the repeat cycle of general elections.
Could it be that the absence of referenda (a true measure of the country’s opinion on single issues) on multiple issues, denying per-issue democratic voting, could be a primary reason for a smaller, but noisy minority to demand a revote on a rare referendum?. Not being able to vote on issues that they care about, could lead to greater frustration amongst people willng to be activists. In this regard the Swiss model works very well to discover the extent of public opinion to then formulate policy and laws.
You had to get the referendum first, and Farage and UKIP terrified David Cameron into granting one. At the time Boris didn’t give tuppence about the issue
Didn’t Boris Johnson once say that Nigel Farage was unfit to hold public office? Seems a little ironic now.
It was Dominic Cummings.
Hah, the dreaded ‘Mekon’ or if you prefer the Lockdown Kid. Simply wonderful!
I would rather Dom on my side than against!
Even more hilarious
Team Dom can take a very long hike off a short pier too.
The central plank of Farage/UKIP’s policy position was always going to attract some support in a country that has been broadly Eurosceptic for many years. The extraordinary thing, though, is that UKIP achieved their principal aim whilst their leader remained resolutely unelectable – even in seats that were strongly anti-EU – viewed as a pantomime villain by a large proportion of the country and almost all of the media.
Without meaning to be rude to them, there seemed an unwillingness, among even sensible UKIP supporters, to confront the painful reality that – whilst the electoral system as it stands had a huge impact on UKIP’s chances of winning seats – the more obvious and telling factor was the calibre of its candidates and the perception of a section of its supporters.
In the pre-Brexit Party days, Farage, Carswell and Reckless (and possibly a small handful of others) were viable (even if unsuccessful) candidates because they were assured enough to operate in the political world of 24 Hr News.
The party’s image was tainted by the seemingly endless parade of councillors and candidates whose frankly idiotic gaffes handed ammunition to UKIP’s detractors every time they opened their mouths. A left-leaning commentariat made it all the more certain that UKIP’s faux pas would make headlines.
No party can hope for success if it cannot trust its representatives to hold to the party-line in interviews or if its parliamentary candidates allow themselves to be caught saying or doing something for which their leader will then have to apologise. However strong the message, it will be lost on the electorate if the person delivering it is seen to be a buffoon or of the ‘swivel-eyed’ brigade.
Farage’s focus on immigration put off a large number of potential voters, even whilst a huge number of Conservative voters – myself included – would have agreed with a lot of UKIP’s message regarding our place in the EU. But, thanks to the calibre of UKIP candidates and some of their headbanging supporters, we couldn’t bring ourselves to vote for them, and thus – despite broad support for their policy – they remained a fringe party.
It is almost a cliche to call Farage the most influential British Politician of the C21st, but to have achieved such an accolade, whilst never managing to win a seat at Westminster is astonishing.
Did you vote for Brexit?
Yes. Why do you ask?
Maybe I misread your piece, but it wasn’t clear to me if you supported Brexit or not, and I wanted to know if you supported it.
Perhaps Cameron won (unexpectedly) in 2015 because he was committed to a referendum
Of course he did, I thought everyone believed that.
Will, thank you for an entertaining and informative article. Thankfully devoid of the ad hominem comments that tediously accompany the subject. History will continue to analyse the long term factors that culminated in the leave vote – who could object to controlling the production of iron and steel and, so, the production of Panzers? But many objected to the creep into federalism. In any event Nigel Farage was at the centre of the leave vote. Despite your criticism of Crick’s book I will rush to buy (after his work on Jeffery he is worth a look). I want to know more about, and perhaps understand, how Farage impacted in the way he did. I may also gain an insight into how Tony Blair can be honoured but Farage ignored.
Answer. Elitism.
Another answer, he still may have to answer the call.
David Aaronovitch‘s review of Crick’s book in this Saturday’s Times made him out to be a Racist or worse.
The idea that a single person can move an entire population is a myth. Every single seeming instance of such is a retrofitting.
Agree. As someone who was just old enough to vote in support of our membership of the EEC in 75 (was it?), on the assurance that we were merely voting for a trade deal, and spent the following decades realising we had been lied to, I can assure retrofitters that Farage represented Leavers rather than inventing them.
As Boris proved again, people do not expect their ‘leaders’ to be free of human frailty, in fact there are some frailties that are well understood and preferable to others. Actually having a recognisable personality makes someone relatable; people are put off by dark horses and unknown quantities.
Boris will not fail because of his personality but may do so because people have begun to doubt their assessment of it/him (and to wonder if he is indeed a dark horse). Give Farage his due, he has never surprised us with a change of direction.
Agree – plenty of us were happy with a European trade deal, we didn’t want or expect something meddling in every aspect of our lives. How naive we were!
Yes it’s a retelling of the “great man” in history theory. I subscribe more to the social movement attaching itself to an individual whose views coincide at the time. Nigel had been ploughing the same furrow for decades without much influence but suddenly met the moment.
Or to put a more positive spin on the “great men”. They are the catalysts that allow inchoate discontent to cohere into a disciplined political movement. Perhaps without Farage I would still be muttering into my beer about Brussels.
David Starkey is good on this subject. Yes economic forces etc play their part but great men (and women) have undoubtedly been on many occasions of fundamental importance. I could cite, straight up, Henry VIII and Churchill, both of whom without our history would have been utterly different. That is before we even get to Jesus Christ, St Paul, Muhammad, the Buddha etc!
Starkey is a Historian, and Historians have a vested interest in a ‘Great Men & Women’ viewpoint. All them books they write would be pretty short if they all they subscribed to a viewpoint that stuff that is going to happen, is going to happen anyway regardless of the individuals involved.
People like Farage …and Churchill are inspirational, that is their greatest weapon, but inspiration is an extremely dirty word to anyone under forty.
My grandfather sailed to South Africa twice in the late 1800s, returned joined the Black Watch and fought right through the great war. Came home married had 9 children and died in this house aged 87. He had spirit!
There is definitely something in that. I watched a few YouTube lectures by Vernon Bogdanor on the Gresham College site. The one on the EU tracing back Britain’s split on the issue to the very beginning is worth watching. I think for some people the 2016 result was a bolt from the blue. But that’s because they hadn’t realised that there was always substantial antipathy to the European project. It explains why that antipathy was latent when the project was one of mere economic cooperation (but even then many could see the implications). But the antipathy escalated after Maastricht. Hardly anyone in the UK loved the EU, even Remainers and Remoaners adopted a “leaving will cost you” “Ok it’s not great but we should reform it” or “you are just imagining that there is a political project here” narrative. The complaints that Red Tops led the people astray with stories of bent bananas is risible. The Red Tops simply reflected a mood that was always there. Maybe not the top of people’s lists of priorities, but there.
So yes, there was a movement to be realised. But that doesn’t take away that Farage was able to galvanise it. The old sports adage “the harder you train the luckier you seem to be” is applicable here. Farage was highly motivated. He rode his luck. He grabbed the opportunities with both hands and ignored the setbacks and kept moving forward to his goal.
Prashant your assertion seems trite and without substantiating proof. What of Boudicea, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Churchill, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Lech Walesa? It’s a long list…and I doubt they or their supporters would agree with you.
I think the enormous influence of individuals – and their personalities – is blindingly obvious, though I would exclude Boudicca from list, who simply raised a bloody rebellion and failed.
Of course it’s a bit easier if you are already born into the position of a divinely supported autocrat, such as Peter the Great, who undoubtedly transformed Russia and its position among the nations, but was also undoubtedly an extremely sanguinary despot! Perhaps Farage achieved less than some of these individuals, but he did a lot with little political power.
I appreciate my viewpoint is odd, but I don’t believe any of those people were responsible for long term outcomes, except in a transitory sense – they affected things for a period, but the overall ‘checkpoints’ in history are reached regardless of the individuals. Let me try and illustrate. Do you believe WWI would not have happened, or panned out pretty much the same if archduke Ferdinand had not been killed? Or that the 2008 crash would not have happened had Lehman Brothers not gone pop? Likewise I believe WWII would have panned out pretty much the same, regardless of Churchill or Hitler or Stalin or Roosevelt having existed.
Churchill, May 1940.
Would the British people have rebelled in the event of Halifax becoming PM and seeking an armistice from Hitler?
Off course not! They would have done as they were told and probably have had another cup of tea.
I don’t know, but I cannot think of any set of circumstances under which the United Kingdom and Germany would not have gone to war, sooner or later, but there or thereabouts the same time as did happen.
First prize for obsolesence goes to you, Lloyd. Brexit is unfinished business so NF is very relevant.
Good fun article but I don’t think it is true that he has no more worlds to conquer. Many look to him to front a new political party, although setting up one of those is far harder, and far more expensive, than would seem from the outside.
Farage was a one issue politician. I appreciated the way he upset the EU, but realistically that’s just because I was dead against the EU to begin with. When Brexit was the most important issue of the day, and Farage deserves enormous credit for getting it to that point, I’d back him to the hilt. However his brand of wet dream Thatcherism is as far removed from my economic political outlook as could possibly be, so I’d never vote for him outside of an EU setting.
Like Churchill turning a blind eye to Stalin in order to defeat the Third Reich, I was happy to ignore everything I didn’t like about Farage in order to get Brexit through. Now it’s largely done so is he in my eyes
I see your point, but perhaps “net zero” will allow him a second shot at the establishment. I am aware that I keep banging on about it, but we are heading for an economic and financial implosion, and Farage is just the guy to lay the blame where it belongs – Boris and Team Carrie, in case you are wondering (There shouldn’t be a Team Carrie). Me? Well I am socially conservative, but rather wimpy on economic matters so I won’t vote for hardcore Thatcherism (Great women, but too many working class families were left to rot)
Edit: Call me canny, but Farage is in The Telegraph right now going for the jugular.
I think politicians of all flavours now lean to the left when it comes to economics, which is a reflection of society. When it all goes wrong again, and I believe it will, another Thatcher will come along. There will always be winners and and losers, we just have to make sure that the former is the largest group.
I don’t think that they lean to the left. They lean to promoting the interests of their own kind of people – which I loosely term the metropolitan liberal class. This may be described as left, but I don’t think it is.
I agree entirely that Net Zero is something I oppose, and if Farage is the only one opposing it then again it’ll be another issue I back him on, but like you I abhor Thatcherism and austerity as it simply destroyed too many working class lives in the name of ideology
That’s not how I remember it. I knew lots of council house tenants who bought their homes under Maggie. Many working class people (emphasis on ‘working’) voted for Maggie. I live near Leyland, where British Leyland was a huge employer. It was destroyed by the unions, not Maggie. Everyone could tell you stories, about the permanent bookies in the toilets (where management were banned) or employees who slept through night shifts and worked daytime fitting nicked parts to mates’ cars. My dad even employed a mechanic (full time) who had an equally full time job on nights at Leyland Motors. My mum objected, but anyone who could hold a spanner already ‘worked’ at the Motors.
I don’t think anybody is arguing the unions had became a law unto themselves, but she went far beyond reforming what was needed and turned it into an ideological battle and completely smashed them to pieces.
The reforms she bought in has led to wages being largely stagnant ever since even when company profits soared. The trickle down theory was the biggest con ever devised.
Her privatisation of public services has led to a situation whereby the many are a shambles, while still being topped up by vast government subsidies that line shareholder pockets while prices go through the roof.
Her selling off of council houses would have been fine if she had replaced them, however that hasn’t been the case. Again we now see youngsters with no hope of owning a family home stuck paying rent to private landlords, often with taxpayer help, which is leaving them no disposable income to spend on local industry.
The woman was toxic
So toxic she won landslide victories and was never rejected at the ballot box? PM for 10 years, during which she reversed the catastrophic decline of a country held to ransom, where rubbish piled high in the streets and power cuts were commonplace.
I don’t know if you witnessed any of this or have just read the ‘history’? I was a student in the early 70s, and fancied myself left wing, but my dad was an undertaker when crematoria shut and bodies accumulated… It’s quite surreal to remember how we became used to things being completely out of control. Shambles doesn’t even get close.
As it is now more than 30 years since Maggie was deposed, I think it’s a stretch to blame subsequent failure to build council houses (and every other social ill) on her interventions, which were necessary and transformative at the time.
Maybe catch his programme at 7pm on GBN tonight. He was initially very supportive of BJ but is losing patience, particularly regarding Net Zero.
Are you a socialist then? I’m not sure why having sound public finances should be so opposed, and ultimately it is a fools paradise, as so many examples have shown, not least Mitterrand in the 1980s.
We already have the highest taxes in peace time history, and increasing inflation – I can easily see a scenario where Labour get elected and have to make major spending cuts, as they have actually done several times in their period ls in office.
It depends what you mean by socialism, as it seems to mean so many different things to different people the label is almost meaningless.
I lean left economically, in that I believe the minimum wage should be higher. Having full time workers needing taxpayer funded assistance is simply corporate welfare allowing industry to pay their workers too little to survive on. It’s also a drag on the nations productivity.
I’d rather have higher taxes, especially on top earners, and have well funded public services such as healthcare and education than the run down ones we witnessed after Thatcher or Osbournes austerity.
The Scandinavian economic model rather than he US one is which way I’d lean personally.
I believe most of the Scandinavian countries spread their tax take over a larger percentage of the population. In the UK you have an allowance of 12,700 before income tax, whereas countries like Sweden you have around 2,000. Yes the higher earner pay a greater rate that the UK. The lower paid in Sweden pay a lot more than their equivalent in the UK.
Yes, in his role as ‘Tribune of the Plebs’ he has achieved his ‘Triumph’ and should now be made a Knight of the Garter. It would certainly enliven that otherwise moribund, archaic institution.
Sir Nigel Farage, KG.
.
I can understand why Farage has a deeper, more loyal following than Johnson – even if he shares the latter’s narcissism – but maybe he could have done more good and served the whole country better if he had reined-in his anarchic, incendiary traits to yes, be a perpetual irritant to the EU and not a would-be destroyer of the whole thing?
UK ‘independence’ Party signifying that spirit, but realising that breaking the relationship would always be too costly, socially and economically.
Better to break up the Conservative Party, of course.
Like millions of others, no doubt, I voted to remain not because Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ constantly played in my head, but because one could foresee what in fact has actually happened.
I am guessing Crick’s will be the definitive biography. I am sure our local library will get a couple of copies.