Very cool, if true

This would worry me more if large chunks of Conservative MPs weren't already saying all of the things that he was saying.

From:

It worries me because he’s going to be able to make a stronger case that there’s an electorate for it. He’s also going to get a lot more press coverage, which will be a significant factor I think. (See also: Donald Trump.)

That said, the most significant factor in the post-elex Tory party recomposition is who gets to keep their seat, and that’s not very predictable.

From:

Not very.

I believe Farage already gets a ton of press coverage. More than the entire Green Party, as far as I can tell.

(Who I hope will get more MPs this time around, and start to get more included. Although the press treatment of the Lib Dems makes that seem unlikely.)

From:

I think you’re wrong but time will tell.

From:

I do think it is probably true that Nigel Farage already gets more press coverage than the whole of the Green Parties in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

How influential this difference in press coverage is - uncertain. I think very but I don't know.

From:

I’m still thinking about this and trying to pin down the specifics of my thoughts, but I think there’s something about this conferring greater legitimacy on him.

In general I just think it’s going to move the Overton window a bit to the right, and I tend to think the negative impact of that outweighs greater fracture of a party that’s already disintegrating. But I’m often wrong.

From:

I agree with your point on legitimacy.

I have some reservations about the Overton window as model. But, yes, having Farage bang on about his talking points is unhelpful at best.

outweighs greater fracture of a party that’s already disintegrating

This one I'm very uncertain on. I think it depends on the ceiling of support for Poujadist politics in the UK - which I think is currently not high nor geographically focused enough that concentrating all it's potential supporters in one party untempered by One Nation Tories or Thatcherites is going to have any actual effect on enacted policy.

From:

I think - though this might not be my final answer - that the pendulum will swing back towards whatever the largest right-wing party turns out to be, so it’s in my interest for that party’s policies not to be too authoritarian or radical. And I think Farage’s (espoused, IIUC) intention is to shape the policy of that faction as much as he can.

From:

Theory - Reform is not actually a very good political *party*. They don't have good local branch and constituency structures, their head office infrastructure is weak, membership and activism is low.

They are likely to have picked many low quality candidates. Candidates that haven't been adequately background checked. Candidates that will perform the role of MP badly. Candidates that are not actually well and consistently aligned with the Reform platform and philosophy.

If they do much better than I currently expect them to (probably winning Clacton and 1 other seat) then they run the risk that their legitimacy and ability to move the policy discussion is undone by their Parliamentary Party looking like a clown car that's crashed in to the local golf club bar at closing time.

From:

Don’t disagree with any of this but also don’t think it’s relevant to arguments relating to the impact and intent of Farage.

From:

Not the intent but I think if Reform gets a reputation for having inept and scandal ridden MP's it (might) reduce his authority and appeal.

From:

I suspect the impact will be marginal at best, and I think it’s more likely to be negligible. Look at e.g., the inability of the Republican Party to keep a speaker.

From:

I think that's actually an example of the sort of thing I think might happen. The Republicans have an inbuilt advantage in the House and they can only just about manage a majority - in part because they don't act like a serious political party.

I think the two BNP MEPs are perhaps a better example of the effect I think might happen.

From:

My point is that this is going to pose no risk to Trump winning the election.

From:

The unserious-ness of the House Republican Party has an interesting electoral interaction with Trump.

I think you are correct that most electors are not looking at the House Republicans, thinking to themselves "these guys are bozzos" and then not voting for their Presidential nominee.

The electoral flow seems to be the other way round if anything.

But there is some evidence that their unserious-ness has impacted their ability to fund raise because they can't govern and Trump's ability to fund raise has also been compromised so House Republicans don't have the funds to fend off the down ballot impact of Trump's unpopularity with a certain class of swing voter. They are a bit trapped by not being to provide any thought leadership to the Republican Party unless Trump approves so their policy platform appears to be alienating a certain class of swing voters**

And the read across to how Farage operates in the future is not on all fours. Farage is operating in a Westminster Parliamentary system with 2.75 national parties*, not one with a directly elected Presidency. He might be able to effect an entryist take over of the rump of the Conservative Party in 2025-26. I'm not sure that gets him much. There's already a functioning home for voters who are centre-right or centrist, socially liberal, value good governance and serious policy development.

Money and the activism make a difference. If the Tory part are donor unfriendly, either because they are nuts or because they are not even the official opposition they don't have the activist base to hold their ground in tight elections against the Liberal Democrats - who do have a very acute activist base and if they end up as the official opposition might well be awash in money.

Also the lack of an Evangelical Christian right in the UK. Trump can get the same 1/4th or 1/3rd of people to go along with his populist nationalist Poujadist spiel as Farage can. Trump then adds to that enough Evangelicals and enough classic economic centre-right voters who have no other home to go to and haven't spotted the on-coming proto-fascism yet to make a credible bid for the Presidency in an electoral system that geographically favours his voting coalition. Farage misses the last three elements. Brexit isn't a religion the way religion is and the Lib Dems exist. Trump offers Evangelicals control of the Supreme Court. Farage doesn't have that sort of gift to give.

Those things are true whether Farage is the de jure leader of the Conservative Party or the de facto leader of whatever passes for Rump Conservatism in the UK. Farage

So Trump might win the Presidency. I think he won't but he might. Farage might become an MP and a prominent one. He could become an influential figure in whatever is left of the the formal centre-right party. However Keir Hardy will be the next Prime Minister, likely with the largest majority the Labour Party has ever held and he has his own agenda and is being influenced by people other than Farage who are closer to him, have more direct sway over him and more appeal to bundles of his natural voters more than Farage does. Michael Lynch for example.

*Thank you Joseph Rowntree and Alex Salmond.

** higher information, economically conservative, small state inclined independent swing voters.

From:

I think there are a number of layers to this correspondence.

There's something about predicting what's going to happen, of which by far the most likely outcome is that we're all wrong.

There's something about the underlying mindset, which I think is much more interesting. I'm not certain about this and open to having my thinking overturned here, but IIUC the difference is as follows:

(1) You and Andy are cheered by Farage's presence, based on what you think is the most probable outcome - i.e., that the right-wing vote is split further, lessening its presence in the HoC for the next five years, but the discourse does not veer wildly to the right.

(2) I am lowered by Farage's presence, based on what I think is the worst-case scenario - that his added prominence will gain momentum through an amplifying loop of publicity, as Donald Trump's did in the US, ultimately leading to a structural shift in the political landscape and in particular a significant threat to institutions.

Either is a legitimate position. Additionally, they operate over different timeframes so they're not necessarily incompatible.

It's only actually important if anyone is using this conversation to shape their view on their personal political activism. If so, it seems to me (again perhaps wrongly) that my position is therefore a much more important one to take. I suspect a lot of US political activists wish that they had responded differently in the early days of Trump's rise to power. If not then it couldn't matter less.

From:

There's something about predicting what's going to happen, of which by far the most likely outcome is that we're all wrong

This is very likely and that's okay I think. I mostly use this sort of conversation to make me unpack, examine and then re-pack my own point of view. And a prediction doesn't need to be spot on to be useful.

But that's all by the by to your main point on mind set.

I think you have more or less correctly stated my position to a first order of approximation. I think my actual position might be importantly different (more below).

It's only actually important if anyone is using this conversation to shape their view on their personal political activism

I would frame this as a risk management and resource allocation question i.e. that is the toolkit I would use to think about this.

You think the *risk* of Farage becoming more influential than he already is higher than I do and you think his impact on British political culture over the long term would be worse than I do. Potentially catastrophic if he ends up enabling the widespread acceptance of proto-fascism.

I think the risk of Farage becoming more influential is lower than you do and I think the impact is lower and potentially beneficial.

(That's just me re-stating and expanding your point.)

Activism is not unlimited and I think it's not homogenous and nor is risk. So there remains a question of what activism.

Higher Risk * Higher Impact implies someone should take more mitigating action. More so if dealing with the risk of actual fascism compared to a competent growth focused but socially conservative centre-right government. I would not like, nor support the latter, the former is likely to have me shot on sight. Perhaps also Burkian Conservatism implies that it is more important to keep the fundamental structures of a well-functioning state and society intact than risk that for the chance of a better government.

On my side Lower Risk * Lower Impact implies less mitigating action. Thinking what I think it's reasonable to put effort in to trying to win a bigger prize than mitigating the potential losses of Farage Victorious.

And some of these risks are personal. Whilst I am sure that Britain under the Supreme Leadership of Farage would be a very hostile place for me personally my fallback is that I go and live somewhere sunny. Perhaps I am not factoring in enough of a personal downside as it applies to other people.

Perhaps I am unwarrantedly risk seeking. I think two things that are relevant here. I don't think the Tories will be out of power after then next election for five years. I think they will be out of power for at least 15 years, probably more. More, for the next ten years nothing they say or promise will be relevant to anyone because everyone will know they will be out of power for a generation. That's with or without Farage. With Farage gaining influence over the corpse of the Tory Party and purifying their offering down to a purely authoritarian right of centre Poujadist play I think the best he can every achieve is the natural ceiling of support for that sort of party in the United Kingdom of about 25% of the population - which under First Past the Post is not enough to gain power. Most elections he'll do worse.

So I am seduced by the upside risk.

From:

I'm not sure that my opinions are that logical/meaningful.

I simultaneously feel amused by the Conservatives doing very badly, and nervous about how the mid/long term future. I think I'm okay with feeling both either simultaneously, or switching between them depending on which one distracted me most recently.

From:

I'm thinking about this. More anon.

From:

I'm not sure that it will do in practice.

50:50 Farage is elected in Clacton.

90:10 that him running swings a significant* number of votes from the Conservative Party to Reform.

5:95 Reform win (or get close to winning) any other seat. (Perhaps less).

*By significant I mean enough additional votes to cost sitting Conservative MP's their seats. I think a reasonable estimate of this impact is 10-15 seats - perhaps half being lost to the Lib Dems.

That makes Parliament a bit more liberal and a bit more left wing. Farage scares the Tory Party and the Tory Party aren't going to be in goverment for between 10 and 20 years. Between 1/4th and 1/3rd of voters support a Reform like platform. They are pretty evenly distributed through England. If they all vote Conservative the Conservative's win a majority. If the all go to Reform, then Reform wins perhaps a dozen seats. If they are evenly split then the Lib Dems might become the official opposition.

From:

He’s going to win in Clacton, but I agree about your other two calculations.

I think you and Andy are wrong that he’s somehow hit a ceiling on the amount of publicity he can get. I don’t think you’re thinking enough about Trump. Nobody thought about him as a serious candidate for a very long time, and he now owns the entire party.

From:

Trump is cashing in on a 30 year project by the Evangelical Christian right in the US. I think that's an important difference.

From:

There are lots of important differences, most notably I think in the extreme heterogeneity of the US voting population. But there are also similarities. Most people did not think that the citizens of this country would vote to leave the European Union, but they were wrong.

From:

alithea

The Brexit vote is difficult though because the Leave campaigns were allowed to say whatever they liked. I'm not sure Leave would have won if they'd had to campaign on the Brexit we have ended up with. Also, a not tiny minority of people seem to have voted for it on the basis that it would never happen anyway or that it somehow wouldn't be allowed to happen if it was too damaging.

From:

bens_dad

1. Ah. Maybe that is why the first century Aeolipile (steam engine) remained a party piece and did not start a Roman Industrial Revolution.

From:

Yeah, unless it could produce more than a slave could, for cheaper, it wasn't going to take off.

From:

I think also issues with the metalurgy.

From:

calimac

2) How many times has Farage resigned as/become leader of whatever label the right-wingnut party bears at the moment?

5) Now I'm going to have to look it up and find out what Nickelback is.

From:

Multiple. And never been elected.

From:

autopope

No, he got elected (repeatedly) to the European Parliament. Which is why the EU is still paying him a handsome pension, index-linked, for life.

From:

cmcmck

Someone was lucky enough to get a real visual stunner of that milk shake being thrown!

Wonder what flavour it was?

From:

Looks like banana.

Fined £350. I reckon if you charged that to throw a milkshake over Farage there'd be a queue.

From:

cmcmck

Apparently it was!

I'd certainly pay that to throw something over him!

From:

Are you sure? You’d be paying to make him the lead story in every news outlet.

From:

cmcmck

Preferably somewhere away from the prying eyes of the media! :o)

From:

I’m not sure that’s a thing. I think he takes them with him everywhere he goes.

From:

channelpenguin

sigh.

From:

Fun additional goings on re Farage and the Media. Emily Hewertson bears a passing resemblance to Victoria Thomas-Bowen to the person accused of the throwing the milkshake. Hewertson has been "identified" by a few people as the perp with suggestions that she's been conspiring with Farage to create a media stunt. She's now threatening to sue for defamation it isn't her and therefore isn't a media stunt.

But I doubt he's that unhappy about the incident overall.

From:

cmcmck

Shame!

From:

channelpenguin

<3

From:

I reckon the lady who threw the milkshake will have recouped her fine in additional business to her website.

From: