David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
After several difficult months, Reform UK has undoubtedly received a huge boost. Financial donations of £76 million put them in a position that no other political party can come close to matching. It enables them to pay for an extensive network of local agents, policy capability, and social media campaigning, and it also means that its leadership does not need to be distracted in future by fundraising.
It has also changed the short term narrative about the party. Reform UK had undoubtedly lost momentum in the opinion polls, and most of the recent coverage around it had focused on scandals. Now, however, we are talking about how formidable their finances are.
But rather than get too carried away with the sudden shift in focus, Reform UK faces very real problems and that, however chipper he might be feeling in recent days, there is a case to be made that we are approaching the end of Nigel Farage’s career in frontline politics. I make this point not as a prediction that he will walk away, but to argue that the possibility is sufficiently plausible that it is worth taking a moment or so to consider the implications of this happening.
Why is it plausible? For a start, to lead Reform to the next election will be a long slog. It may well not be for nearly three years, and the energy required to turn a party that won five seats at the last General Election to one that wins over 300 would be immense, even with very deep pockets. Then, at the end of that process, he would occupy an even more demanding role for which he must know he is not necessarily temperamentally suited.
Nor will the process be straight-forward. He faces a difficult investigation into a £5 million gift from Christopher Harborne, which could easily result in another by-election. As for the recent revelations from Channel 4 over the possibility of illegal donations, that is now being investigated by the police. He says that he “knows more about electoral law than anybody” but sat through a meeting where an apparent potential donor made a series of comments that should have set alarm bells ringing. If we accept his explanation – that he was not listening – this suggests a level of inattentiveness that would make him ill-suited to Ministerial life.
The biggest concern for Farage is that it increasingly looks like he has lost control of his party to Zia Yusuf. When Yusuf posted on X that Ben Wallace is a “traitor”, Farage felt compelled to say that this was “too strong”, “over the top” and that he would “speak to [Yusuf]”. Seven weeks later, Yusuf has neither deleted the post nor apologised. When Tim Montgomerie – an ally of Farage – was publicly critical of Yusuf, he was suspended from Reform UK. According to Montgomerie, Yusuf was behind the suspension, and Farage was unaware of it until after it was made public. He did not reverse it. Just in recent days, Farage condemned the actions of balaclava-clad “protesters” in Dover as “disgusting”; Yusuf condemned Kemi Badenoch for calling them “thugs”. The rest of Reform took the Yusuf line, not the Farage one.
All three of these incidents are humiliating for a party leader. Yusuf – evidently popular with Reform members – appears to be too strong to sack. This is not a situation Farage has ever had to confront before.
As he is always keen to point out, he has other options. He could have an easier life, and his concerns about his personal safety are presumably sincere. His family want him to walk away. Three years of hard work, having to ride out various financial scandals, being humiliated by a popular subordinate, all for the slim chance to occupy a position for which he knows he is ill-suited? Yes, it is plausible that he packs it all in.
Then what? What does that mean for British politics?
Reform UK is no longer a one-man band, but Farage has a higher profile and is a more skilled politician than any of his potential successors. A leadership race is unlikely to be a unifying process, given the individuals involved and Yusuf – more extreme in substance and style than Farage or any other candidate – would likely win. This might enable them to take a few votes off Restore Britain, but relatively moderate Reform voters would feel queasy. It is, I think, inevitable that Reform would take a hit in the polls.
Even a small shift of voters from Reform to the Tories would move the Conservatives into second place and, with that momentum, more Reform voters – motivated to vote for whoever is best placed to defeat Labour – might follow.
Badenoch’s refusal to pursue a “unite the right” strategy of seeking an electoral pact with Reform UK would have been vindicated, and the opportunity to re-establish the Conservatives as the principal right of centre party would be great.
At which point, there will be those who will argue for a move further to the right to occupy Reform’s space, with strong positions on immigration and other cultural issues. Defectors from Reform would be welcomed. Who knows, perhaps an endorsement at the next election for the Tories from Farage – embittered with his old party – might be up for grabs? The right is re-united, but on Tory terms with the insurgent party finished for good.
I dare say this is an attractive strategy for some, but it should be resisted. My principal objection is that one cannot govern well while pursuing a Reform-lite agenda, but there would be electoral reasons to resist fully occupying Reform’s space.
Reform UK’s support is not going to collapse completely, especially given the party’s financial strength. There is probably 15 per cent of the electorate that are going to vote for a party of the populist right whatever happens, and chasing after those voters would not only be futile but destructive of hopes of winning over other voters.
Reform UK currently has a major problem with tactical voting – whereby non-Reform voters coalesce behind the candidate best placed to defeat the Reform UK candidate – but that will only get more pronounced under Yusuf. The Conservatives can benefit considerably from this, as long as they are not perceived as being too extreme by Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. By being prepared to wholeheartedly define themselves against Yusuf – who most voters will find objectionable – the Tories have an opportunity to detoxify their brand to much of the electorate.
And a strategy of picking up voters from a weakened Reform UK by focusing on issues associated with Farage would mean neglecting the economy – the issue where the Conservatives can and should prevail with the electorate at large.
If Farage goes – and it remains an ‘if’ – the threat to the Conservative Party from its right will be diminished. It is a great opportunity but also creates a crucial strategic dilemma. The Conservatives can either attempt to fill the space Farage has left behind, or set out a platform with a broad appeal based on economic competence.
It cannot do both.