If Labour wants to hold onto power, it must deliver on its promises. Otherwise, a Farage-led Britain might not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

Discontent is growing among unions, MPs, and the public over the government’s sudden decision to restrict winter fuel payments to only the poorest pensioners. The lack of consultation and the fact that it wasn’t part of Labour’s manifesto have left many voters feeling betrayed. Some have vowed never to vote Labour again.

But where will those disillusioned voters turn? Some warn they could be drawn to the far right.

The winter fuel payment cuts could aid the rise of the far right and Nigel Farage, the TUC president warned this week. In a stark message to Keir Starmer, Matt Wrack noted that the PM’s mandate for power stems from a collapse in support for the Tories, “not love for Labour.” He further warned that a second wave of austerity would encourage the rise of the far-right in Britain’s left-behind communities, bolstering Farage’s push for power.

“People are in despair, and that’s how [far right] elements have won support here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe,” he argued.

Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell issued a similar warning. Speaking to Left Foot Forward at the Trade Union Congress in Brighton this week, he warned voters could be pushed towards the far right if the Labour government pursues austerity policies.

“We’ve said time and time again that austerity is a political choice, it’s not an economic necessity. If we keep on coming through with proposals like scrapping the Winter Fuel Allowance, and not tackling the two child [benefit] limit, it will disillusion our own support. And that support could go to the far right,” he said.

As Labour risk alienating voters by threatening to usher in an austerity era reminiscent of George Osborne’s, Nigel Farage has made his ambitions clear. He’s openly gunning for the highest office in the land, declaring that his “real ambition” is to become prime minister at the next election. Given Farage’s persistence, having won a parliamentary seat on his eighth attempt, his potential rise has sent ripples of anxiety through the political establishment.

But just how likely is it that Reform’s leader, who, only a few weeks ago admitted to sharing misinformation that contributed to far right riots in towns and cities across the UK, will become prime minister?

Like most things related to Farage, his goal “to storm to power in 2029” set the media alight. Before the election, ITV’s Talking Politics dedicated an entire episode to the question, “Could Nigel Farage be prime minister in five years?” The consensus among panellists Robert Peston, Anushka Asthana, and Tom Bradby, was that the prospect seemed highly unlikely. This sentiment was echoed by a YouGov poll conducted after the programme, in which only 23 percent of respondents considered a Farage premiership within the next decade to be “fairly likely” or “very likely.”

But Farage’s right-wing Reform Party was underestimated in the election. Securing over 4 million votes and placing second in 98 constituencies, 89 of which were won by Labour, suggests a stronger base of support than many anticipated. With support for his insurgent party on the rise, it’s difficult to disagree with Matthew Levine’s view in ConservativeHome, that while the path to a Farage premiership is undoubtedly long, it is not impossible.

“There is a certain level of comfort that comes from believing that Farage could never take the post once occupied by William Gladstone and Winston Churchill. But dismissing the possibility that he might one day inhabit Number 10 is an instinctive reflex belonging to a long-gone political era,” writes Levine.

And other commentators agree. “A shattered Conservative Party post-election may be ripe for a Faragian revolution,” wrote iNew’s Richard Vaughan and Kitty Donaldson.

The most obvious route to No. 10 for Farage would involve staging a takeover of the Conservatives. As the embattled Conservative Party engages in yet another painful leadership contest, and membership numbers continue to plummet, as newly released figures suggest, Farage and his team are working diligently. To address criticism that Reform is more of a company than a political party, a constitution has reportedly been drafted to transform the limited company into a formal political entity, with safeguards in place to prevent the kind of infighting that plagued UKIP. Following several controversies involving candidates and derogatory remarks, Farage has vowed to “professionalise” the party. Additionally, plans are in motion to establish Reform UK branches nationwide to “build on electoral success,” as Chairman Richard Tice stated in early July.

“We’re going to grow just like any startup in the corporate world. The equivalent would be Apple or any of the tech startups that have grown and grown. Microsoft was founded in a garage, for goodness’ sake,”  Tice told the Telegraph.

Stephen Harper x2?

While striving to professionalise and expand the party, Farage has been actively promoting a blueprint for a coup within the Conservative Party. In an interview in June, the Reform leader referenced former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s successful campaign to take control of the Canadian Conservatives after their devastating defeat in the 1993 elections. During that election, the Conservatives were nearly wiped out, dropping from 156 seats to just two, as the centre-left Liberal Party won by a landslide. Harper managed to rally socially conservative and disillusioned voters who felt betrayed by what they thought of as the ruling class. The parallels are hard to ignore.

Speaking to ITV, Farage said: “[Canadian] Reform did a reverse takeover of the Conservative Party, rebranded it, and Stephen Harper – who was elected as a Reform MP – became the Canadian prime minister for 10 years. I don’t want to join the Conservative Party. I think the better thing to do would be to take it over.”

The potential rise of Reform UK at the Conservatives’ expense may have gained a lot of media attention, but not all coverage has been favourable. Labour-aligned media outlets have been more doubtful about the party’s prospects. A report in the Mirror in late August focused on concerns raised by Reform UK’s former deputy leader about Nigel Farage’s increasing dominance over the party, casting doubts on its future. Ben Habib emphasised that Reform needs to become more democratic, especially after Farage’s grip tightened further with the dismissal of the party’s chief executive. Habib warned that it is unhealthy for Farage to have “absolute control.”  In an interview with Times Radio, the former deputy leader said: ” I fear for the future of Reform UK, if it isn’t properly democratised.”

His remarks came after Paul Oakden, who had been CEO since the party’s inception as the Brexit Party, was asked to leave. After Oakden’s exit, his shareholding in Reform UK Ltd was transferred to Farage, increasing the leader’s controlling share from 53 percent to 60 percent.

Another important factor when assessing Reform’s potential rise is that, unlike Farage’s idol Stephen Harper, Reform UK’s support base appears more thinly spread. The party won only five seats, lagging far behind the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Of the 98 constituencies where Reform finished second, the majority were in Labour strongholds.

A Reform/Tory merger as Conservatives lurch further to the right?

Though less likely, there is a possibility of a Reform/Tory merger. As Levine noted in ConHome, a political landscape with the Liberal Democrats in opposition and Labour in government could force the Conservatives and Reform into an uneasy electoral alliance, with Farage likely leading this new right-wing coalition. Such a scenario becomes more credible as the Conservatives appear to be drifting rightward. Senior right-wing Tories like Suella Braverman have previously called for an ‘accommodation’ with Nigel Farage and recent polling by YouGov of Tory Party members showed that most believe that a merger with Reform UK would lead them to an election victory. Half of members (51%) believe the party should move towards the right under the next leader, against a third (34%) who think it should move towards the political centre and one in eight (12%) who feel the party should ideologically stay where it is.

And then there’s the youth vote to consider. In the latter stages of the campaign, aided by a TikTok campaign that clearly outperformed the other parties on a per-video basis, there was speculation that Reform might achieve a “mini youthquake”. A JLPartners poll found that Reform appealed to 16- and 17-year-old voters and mock school elections saw Reform winning a great deal of support among schoolchildren across the country. However, a YouGov survey showed that this “youthquake” did not materialise in 2024. Although Reform has seen some success among under-30s from poorer households, it faces stiff competition from the Liberal Democrats, Greens, and nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales.

Much will depend on how well Keir Starmer’s Labour performs over the next five years. If the change that Starmer has promised doesn’t deliver real results, Britain’s youth may become even more inclined to support parties offering more radical solutions. Historically, Labour has been the party of the young, but they tend to take the youth vote for granted, a habit they may need to break by the next election.

In a political landscape marked by growing disillusion with the major parties, fringe parties like Reform are on the rise. Farage’s vision for his party may seem ambitious, but it’s impossible to ignore that his party won almost 15 percent of the vote in the general election, whilst Labour secured a massive majority with just 34 percent of the vote. This, coupled with the far right riots over the summer, should be a loud wake-up call for Labour, as warned by the TUC president. The electorate require many things from their governments and prime ministers, but chief among them are economic competence, policies that meet some of their needs, and the appearance at least, of being part of the real world. The brutal demise of the Tory Party stands as a warning of what happens when politicians forget these things. If Labour wants to hold onto power, it must deliver on its promises. Otherwise, a Farage-led Britain might not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

Right-Wing Media Watch – Paul Marshall tightens his grip on Conservative media with Spectator takeover

In a year-long saga filled with bidding wars between moguls and sheiks, the Spectator magazine has a new owner – hedge fund titan Paul Marshall. The climax? A £100 million deal that puts Marshall even deeper into the heart of Britain’s media landscape. His acquisition of the world’s oldest weekly through Old Queen Street Ventures (OQS) cements his status as a rising conservative media baron.

The Spectator, a 106-year-old publication, is not just any magazine. With former editors like Boris Johnson and Nigel Lawson, it’s arguably Britain’s most politically influential magazine among thinking Conservatives. For Marshall, who’s already behind the right-wing channel GB News and owns the online platform UnHerd, this purchase is about more than just profit.

While the previous owners RedBird IMI bought the Spectator and Telegraph for £600 million combined, the current editor Fraser Nelson hailed the sale price as proof of faith in the Spectator‘s potential. On the other hand, Andrew Neil, former editor and long-time chairman, voiced concern earlier this year over Marshall’s hedge fund background. Following the acquisition, Neil announced his departure as chairman.

“At a time when most ‘legacy’ publications are struggling to retain anything like their pre-digital worth, this is an unprecedented increase in value,” he said.

But it’s not money that seems to drive 65-year-old Marshall, as he continues to expand his media empire. His motives are arguably more ideological than financial. Media analyst Claire Enders argues that this latest acquisition is about having a stronger hand in shaping the Conservative Party’s future, a move he’s been positioning for over the years.

Interestingly, Marshall’s political evolution has been as complex as his financial manoeuvres. Once a Liberal Democrat supporter who chaired a liberal think tank, he switched sides at the time of the EU referendum, donating generously to the Brexit cause and the Conservatives.

If you thought Marshall was done, think again. He’s rumoured to be eyeing the Telegraph next. If he snags the “Torygraph” too, Marshall could very well become the most politically influential hedge fund manager in the world.

Woke-bashing of the week – The British Red Cross, the Daily Mail and its band of anti-woke warriors’ latest target

In the latest instalment of “woke-bashing of the week,” the British Red Cross – a humanitarian organisation with a 154-year history of aiding people in crisis – has been accused of the unthinkable – striving for inclusivity. The Daily Mail, never one to miss an opportunity to attack what it nonsensically deems as “woke nonsense,” has taken aim at the charity, citing claims that it has been “hijacked by political extremists.”

The charity, which proudly counts King Charles as a patron (a fact the Mail was quick to mention), recently updated its internal language guide. The guide, conveniently leaked to the right-wing newspaper, encourages staff to use terms like “person in search of safety” instead of “illegal migration.” The Migrants’ Rights Network describes the phrase as “dehumanising, immoral, and contributes to the demonisation of migrant communities.” But the reasoning behind the British Red Cross’ change, which is perfectly aligned with the charity’s mission of connecting human kindness with human crisis, was unsurprisingly ignored by the Mail. Instead, the newspaper opted to quote a few well-known anti-woke crusaders who seem blissfully unaware of the real-life experiences of migrants, non-binary individuals, and other marginalised groups.

Esther McVey MP, former Tory minister for common sense, expressed her regret that the British Red Cross has “fallen victim to such woke nonsense.” She bemoaned that the charity should return to “spending their money on helping people” rather than being “hijacked by political extremists.”

Not to be outdone, former minister Sir John Hayes MP (don’t you just love all the ‘former’ references) joined the chorus, lamenting that the beloved charity has “stooped so low” and warning that pandering to “politically correct nonsense” would surely damage its reputation. Because, of course, nothing says “reputation damage” like treating all people with dignity and respect.

John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance – aka, a Eurosceptic right-wing lobby group that does not declare its donors – pointed out that the charity receives tens of millions of pounds from the government. “Ministers need to ensure taxpayers’ cash is being used to fund frontline services and not radical activism,” he added.

Because, naturally, calling people by humane and respectful terms is now considered radical! It seems that in the eyes of the Daily Mail and its band of anti-woke warriors, the real crime here isn’t dehumanising language or disrespecting people’s identities. No, the true outrage is that the British Red Cross dared to evolve in a way that aligns with its core mission – helping people. But perhaps, in this new era of woke-bashing, simply being decent and inclusive is the most radical act of all.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Comments are closed.