OU blog

Personal Blogs

Leon Spence

Can Nigel Farage cope with alpha males?

Visible to anyone in the world

Yesterday, I blogged about reading the 2015 book by Owen Bennett, 'Following Farage', a light hearted but nevertheless insightful account of Mr Farage's first political vehicle, UKIP.

The thing that has continually struck me whilst reading the book is that I remember almost all of the incidents recounted, and the people involved (I've worked in politics for a long time), but with the exception of Mr Farage and a financial backer, Arron Banks, none are now involved with the upper echelons of Reform UK.

Whilst donors such as Stuart Wheeler have sadly died others have disappeared, or have been got rid of in a political sense.

Douglas Carswell, Annabelle Fuller, Paul Nuttall, Suzanne Evans, Alan Sked, Winston McKenzie, Godfrey Bloom and Janice Atkinson. All have left the limelight.

One theory the keeps recurring is that Mr Farage cannot cope with big personalities, or as Godfrey Bloom describes them in his own inimitable way 'alpha males'.

The late Stuart Wheeler says of Ms Atkinson's dispatch from the party in an expenses scandal "That killed her leadership chances and I think he (Farage) did it quite deliberately. He either panicked, which would be, with his track record, quite possible, or he deliberately destroyed her carrer."

It is an allegation, or a common thread, that has followed Mr Farage through to the present day. It is an observation levelled by Ben Habib and Rupert Lowe amongst others.

Mr Farage has developed a clear and admirable focus on securing highest office, and his party are showing a remarkable amount of discipline. If Reform UK attains it with Mr Farage as Prime Minister, the real question will be how he manages 'alpha males and females' who have secured their own electoral mandates and occupy offices of state?

Based on past behaviour he may not be able to do so.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Leon Spence

The Overton Window even moves for Nigel Farage

Visible to anyone in the world

Last month Reform UK adopted a new policy that would see indefinite leave to remain being scrapped for migrants. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the policy was that the party would seek to change the rules for those already holding ILR status in the UK, demanding that in future a new application for the status be made every five years, with much higher thresholds for earnings and a better standard of English required.

In essence the controversy was not that Reform UK were planning to change the rules (although that is controversial enough), but that they were announcing changing the goalposts for those already here.

The only reason I highlight this now is because I've been reading Owen Bennett's 2015 book "Following Farage", a light hearted look at the rise of Mr Farage's first vehicle, UKIP up to and slightly after the party topping the poll at the 2014 European elections.

That book includes a chapter on the 2014 Rochester and Strood by-election, brought about when Tory MP Mark Reckless crossed the floor and, many would say, honourably called a by-election to reaffirm the support of his electorate.

It's fair to say that Mr Reckless was not as charismatic or respected as his colleague Douglas Carswell who had followed a similar path months earlier and when questioned about the rights of European citizens to remain in the UK following a long hypothecated In / Out referendum suggested that after a period of time they would be expected to return to their home countries. Effectively retrospectively changing the rules.

At that time Mr Farage couldn't have been clearer, rejecting the position of Reckless, saying "whilst I think it is madness to have an open door (policy).. anybody (who) has legally come to this country in good faith has every right to be here."

In reality, what does this suggest?

Whilst everyone has a right to change their mind and change policy it is clear that in this respect Mr Farage's views have changed, what it also suggests is that the Overton window of what was politically acceptable a decade ago has also moved significantly in that time.

In 2014 the thought of changing the rules and repatriating people here legally was unacceptable in the mainstream of politics, in 2025 it isn't.

It's just another way how things have changed. 

Permalink Add your comment
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 45286