Nigel Farage’s bid for re-election was both a gamble and a foregone conclusion. The result, while never really in doubt, failed to bury the parliamentary investigation into his personal finances, opening the door to another, more damaging Clacton by-election in the near future. The establishment has not forgiven Farage for his pivotal role in Brexit, the opening act of a populist drama that continues to grip the United Kingdom and arguably the West as a whole. Any opportunity to harm the movement he leads will likely be taken.
Westminster efforts to undermine Reform are only one side of a pincer operation being conducted to dissipate the party’s populist energy. Since formally launching in February, Restore has sought to squeeze Reform from the right. By capitalising on Rupert Lowe’s personal popularity, assembling a supporting cast of social media influencers, and stepping into the space vacated by the Homeland Party’s implosion, Restore could, in time, represent the most potent identitarian force in British politics since the British National Party, albeit more credible.
Farage has always championed his role in destroying the BNP, a claim of only partial truth. Internal strife and the relentless legal and media assault suffered by the BNP allowed UKIP to move in and deliver the killing blow. Farage has never truly had to contend with an insurgent challenge from the right, a factor that perhaps explains the inadequacy of the Reform response so far.
Reform’s problem is largely one of trust and perception, not policy. In rectifying an ill-judged bid to move towards the centre, Reform strengthened its offer on immigration and committed to repealing equality legislation. In concrete policy terms, the gap between Reform and Restore has substantially narrowed. Prior breaches of trust, however, mean that many continue to be captivated by Restore’s uncompromising messaging on migration and identity.
Those who have kept faith with Reform are making a justified calculation. Another left government beyond the current parliamentary mandate could lock in unacceptable demographic and institutional changes to Britain. Reversing the Boriswave, deporting illegals and removing the subsidies that sustain many foreign nationals will free up valuable resources and improve people’s lives. Reform contains competent people committed to implementing this project. By contrast, Restore is primarily a media-cum-social organisation lacking in technical expertise. Splitting the vote could also allow for a Conservative revival, an outcome Reformers argue might not secretly displease Rupert Lowe.
Rational as these reasons are, Restore has grown by better displaying fidelity to the ideological sentiment backing Reform that the British people have been dispossessed of their rightful sovereignty. Reform’s issue is that the real telos of its policy is often left unsaid. Restore’s thin and seemingly off-the-cuff policy pronouncements, on the other hand, are filtered through an explicit objective of preserving native demographics and ending the system that affords minorities privileges.
The effectiveness of Restore’s message owes chiefly to developments in and outside of Reform. The hiring of the Zionist Henry Jackson Society’s Executive Director as Reform’s Chief Advisor on Global Affairs raised questions around the foreign policy direction of the party. This was accompanied four months later by the launch of the Reform Jewish Alliance, an event attended and supported by Farage. While the appointment of a known neoconservative to an ambiguous position of influence need not imply ideological capture, the launch of the Alliance ensured that Restore sympathisers would see it differently.
Reform had sought to steer clear of mirroring the other major parties’ patchwork of associated ethnic advocacy groups. By endorsing one (and one alone), Reform created a precedent that could lead to similar initiatives in the future. Rather than resisting this unsustainable concession, the inauguration of Reform’s first minority-ethnic organisation received acclamation from many high-profile Reform members. Accusations of creeping inclusivity and minority politics within the party only heightened as those same prominent members took vocal umbrage at the ethnic conception of “British”. Hampered by a lack of training in the crucible of hyper-online right-wing discourse, their attempts at refutation were exposed as substantively left-progressive by Restore detractors.
By symbolically compromising and espousing a safe, inclusive national identity, Reform blurred the distinction between itself and a centre-right media class committed to gatekeeping British nationalism. Aggressive displays of liberal anxiety from shock-jock conservative journalists also inadvertently allowed Restore to present as the defender of principles many Reformers share. Such efforts to smear Restore, however, pale in comparison to those of the legacy print media. The Daily Telegraph’s regular denunciations, from people who are in no position to make such arguments, only buttress Restore’s claim to be the true political force that the establishment fears.
Reform could have emerged untarnished had they not proceeded to play into the accusations of Restore — that Reform is more concerned with appeasing consensus forces than returning sovereignty to the British people. Reform’s supporters are not blind to the hypocrisy, and some will be seduced by the more unapologetic position of Restore. Ad hominems against Lowe or his cadre of young male staffers will not resolve the legitimate grievances feeding Restore. If Reform is to hold onto its more radical supporters, a coherent strategy to neutralise Restore’s narrative is needed.
No gesture would better dispel accusations of outside string-pulling than closing the Alliance. Given that no equivalent group yet exists within Reform, this could be done in a face-saving manner. The prospect of this happening, though, is unlikely. Farage, caught between an establishment simultaneously trying to draw him into the centre and destroy him, and rhetorical right-flanking from Restore, has limited ideological room to manoeuvre, and will be reluctant to upset an influential constituency of support.
It would be naive to write off Farage and Reform. Arguably the most influential British political figure since Tony Blair, without having ever held official public office, Farage is no stranger to overcoming overwhelming odds. Three years out from the election, yet very much on the cusp of holding power, Reform’s dominant position on the right is theirs to lose. Farage is most compelling in a binary race as the straight-talking voice of non-metropolitan England against a liberal establishment. How he responds to an unfamiliar third force, keen to tarnish his patriotic credentials, could determine whether Restore snowballs into an eventual wrecking ball.
Share this: