A Fool and His Money? Why Nigel Farage’s by-election gamble could backfire

Ben Worthy and Laura Richards-Gray make the case that in triggering the by-election in Clacton, Nigel Farage sparked a conflict which he hoped he could control. They argue his gamble has not paid off since he has not been able to do so. 

Nigel Farage’s decision to call a by-election has been pored over in detail. In an attempt to stymie an investigation into his finances, the Reform leader once again tried to place himself several moves ahead. Yet what was intended as a strategic masterstroke has now become a pointless by-election against someone in a bin. And one that has triggered a renewed bout of scrutiny of Farage’s finances.

Inspired by David Karpf’s account of about his public spat with a Republican politician, one way to look at Farage’s decision is through the lens of the logic of conflict (and having a fight). Back in the 1960s E.E. Schattschneider wrote a short book which challenged then conventional views of pluralism in a democracy. Put simply, he argued that democracy was all about conflict. Which fights get dragged into the open or kept out of sight, and how they unfolded, determined how democracies work.

Every conflict, Schattschneider argued, was decided by three things: who was involved, what the fight was about, and how long it lasted. Whoever could control these things would win.

In setting up his Clacton clash, Farage deliberately triggered a conflict which he hoped he could control. Behind his decision were a series of assumptions. First, that the by-election would involve all the major political parties. Second that this would lead to a ‘people versus the establishment by-election’. Finally, he seems to have believed that calling the by-election would bring the numerous Parliamentary investigations to a halt, and make the people of Clacton ‘the judges of my actions’.

All three assumptions have been proven wrong. Farage lost control of who was involved, when the major parties pulled out. He is now not facing the ‘establishment’ but instead Count Binface, Laurence Fox and Mr Fishfinger. He is fighting thin air and silliness. The public in general support Binface over Farage, perhaps swayed by his promises of capping of croissant prices at £1 and a return to 99 flakes costing 99p.

Consequently Farage could not control what the fight was about. Polling shows, as this headline put it, ‘Brits aren’t buying Farage’s anti-establishment crusade’. Rather, the fight is likely to be about Farage and his money. Ever since it was revealed in April that he was given £5 million by a  crypto billionaire, this issue has dominated discussion. As Will Jennings commented ‘Raising the salience of your personal financial scandals is a bold move’.

The media are already raising questions and digging into different aspects of Farage’s financial dealings. There are now two separate Parliamentary investigations (on hold but very much not stopped) as well as possible investigations from the National Crime Agency and the Met Police.

And it has had an effect. A majority of voters see Farage as sleazy. Perhaps more worrying from his point of view, fewer than half of Reform UK voters (40%) think he has been honest, while only 22% think he has been dishonest and 39% are unsure.

Importantly, Farage’s gamble in Clacton is part of a wider conflict – Reform’s battle to replace the Conservatives. Polling suggests Reform may have hit a ceiling, and they have certainly been under-performing in by-elections. Its rise is neither as solid nor inevitable as it looks. By focusing on his conflict Clacton, Farage is neglecting the broader battle.

One of the secrets of Farage’s success has been to challenge the rules of the game and dictate the narrative. In this instance, he has lost control of the conflict.

By Dr Ben Worthy, Lecturer in Politics, Birkbeck, University of London and Dr Laura Richards-Gray, Senior Lecturer in British Politics, Birbeck, University of London.