Can Nigel Farage have it both ways?
Welcome to criminal justice à la Reform UK. Nigel Farage's party plans to spend the six weeks of the summer recess winning the war on crime with a campaign entitled 'Lawless Britain'. It's a subject which the party already leads public opinion on. And it all kicked off on Monday, with a press conference that epitomises both the opportunities and the challenges for Reform as it moves into this space.
Let's zoom out. Reform's first year in parliament has been characterised by its meteoric rise in the polls: for months now, it has led both the Conservatives and Labour by what looks like a comfortable margin. This has persisted, despite a merry-go-round of personnel dramas. First, the party lost one fifth of its parliamentary cohort by expelling Rupert Lowe. Then, it returned to a quintet of MPs thanks to the election of Sarah Pochin in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election by six votes, only to go back down to four scarcely two months later with the self-suspension of James McMurdock, over loans he took out under a Covid support scheme. In between, we had the 48-hour resign-and-rehire saga of Reform chairman Zia Yusuf. For a party trying to prove it is above personality politics and deserves to be taken seriously, that's quite a ride.
Reform has also benefited from defections over the past year: former skills minister Andrea Jenkyns (now mayor of Greater Lincolnshire), former Welsh Secretary David Jones, former Tory party chairman Jake Berry. All these, plus a handful of other ex-MPs, were once Conservatives. As my colleague Will Lloyd pointed out, luring Conservatives to Reform comes with prestige but also risk. As well as the possibility of antagonising long-term supporters ('Why should somebody at the coalface of fourteen years of failure be welcomed up into the air of your new party?'), it weakens Reform's message of standing up to the 'Uniparty' consisting of Labour and the Tories.
By welcoming Berry et al, Farage seems to be working out how much of his cake he can have and eat at the same time. It's a delicate balancing act: drawing credibility from defections without losing your USP as a fresh insurgent.
A similar experiment in cakeism is evident in the crime campaign. The extra prison places the party promises to create don't come close to covering what would be needed if every instance of shoplifting or phone theft resulted in a custodial sentence. The idea of having the army build makeshift prisons raises worrying questions about security. The notion that crime could be halved for just £17.4bn over the course of a parliament, funded by scrapping net zero and HS2 (savings Reform has already earmarked for other policies such as cutting taxes) is laughable. Indeed, Farage laughed when the first journalist questioned costs ('I was rather waiting for that question'). Just in case the message failed to land, hacks were given helpful handouts of facts and figures.
It's hard to appear jaw-droppingly ambitious and eminently reasonable at the same time. Even the set-up of the press conference suggested that the party is still deliberating on how it wants to be seen. At first, the Gladstone Library of the Royal Horseguards Hotel was lit in dim red and blue, reminiscent of a haunted fairground. LED screens loomed, displaying 'case files' of dangerous criminals serving lenient sentences which then morphed into stats on violent crime, the writing flickering ominously. You almost expected the theme tune of Law & Order to begin playing as Farage walked in – but no, instead the lights came on. It was as though the organisers couldn't decide quite how gimmicky they wanted to be.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Likewise on the subject matter. When pressed (by the Telegraph's Tim Stanley, hardly a soft touch) on whether sending British criminals to El Salvador as suggested might breach their human rights, Farage back-peddled his most eye-catching proposal, suggesting Estonia or Kosovo instead.
Sarah Pochin, sitting beside him, hadn't got the memo. 'What about the human rights of the women who have been raped and the children who have been subject to sexual abuse?' she countered. Farage remained poker-faced, but there is a clear tension here between riding the outrage train (a sizable proportion of Reform supporters probably would back sending violent sex offenders to El Salvador, whether it breached their human rights or not) and maintaining the air of reasonableness necessary to widen the party's appeal. Can you have it both ways? Farage was doing his best. But the higher Reform climbs in the polls and the longer it stays there, the more acute this tension will become.
Farage, as I have written before, believes he has 'banked' the immigration issue (if immigration is your top concern, you are already likely to vote for Reform), therefore he can branch out into other issues. Crime is not only a hot-button concern for the British public (almost half of us think Britain is becoming a lawless country), but an area where Reform can build its credibility via its stance on immigration. Underpinning the announcements on Monday were a slew of immigration talking points: from accusations of 'two-tier policing', to the number of foreign criminals in British jails, to the necessity of leaving the ECHR in order to restore law and order.
Think of it as implementing different policies from one core political position (that immigration must come down). The upside is that you can present yourself as a serious contender with a plan for government rather than a single-issue protest group. The risk is that the flaws in your wider policy offering (like speed-building prisons which offenders can escape from, or incarcerating so many people the system collapses) make you look ridiculous. More visibility equals more pressure – and more risk. Will this be the summer Reform grows up? And can it handle being treated like an adult if it does?
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
13 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Donald Trump, the king of Scotland
Illustration by André Carrilho The world is not exactly lacking conspiracy theories about Donald Trump, but here's another: the President of the United States of America still thinks he's on a reality show. For years, the people around him have simply referred to the whole business – the elections, the criminal trials, the assassination attempt, the Epstein subplot, the presidency itself – as The Show. As far as he's concerned, this is all for the cameras. Summits and speeches are talked about as shoots and episodes; other world leaders are referred to as characters. Before a meeting or a press conference, aides will brief him on his script for the scene. Hundreds of people spend their time reassuring a nearly 80-year-old man in charge of 5,244 nuclear warheads that he and everyone he meets are just characters in a loosely scripted series. The problem with this theory is that it's obviously true. Donald Trump has been closely involved with the fake rivalries and mock combat of WrestleMania since the late 1980s. In 2004 he was hired by the British reality TV producer Mark Burnett as a pantomime businessman on The Apprentice. Burnett remains Trump's friend, adviser and his special envoy to the United Kingdom. Trump's meetings with world leaders at the White House this year have had the unmistakable confected drama of semi-scripted reality television, in which characters enter into staged confrontations over their interior design choices, or who's dating whom, or (in this series) the fate of Western democracy. Trump himself openly acknowledged this when he wrapped one of these scenes – his hour-long harangue of Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in February – by announcing: 'I think we've seen enough. This is going to be great television.' The arrival of the Trump show in Scotland allowed its star to try out some new material. 'Trump takes time out to open Scottish golf course,' the BBC reported, but this was backwards. He took time out from his real job of promoting his own businesses to travel not exactly to Scotland, but to the bits of it he owns (hotels and golf courses) to play golf and do a little diplomacy. This was international relations as practised by Henry VIII, who in 1520 travelled not exactly to France, but to the bit of it that he owned (Calais) for some sport and a little diplomacy. The décor for that summit included fountains that flowed with wine and a pair of live monkeys that had somehow been covered with gold leaf. Trump was pleased with the new ballroom in his hotel; he devoted almost as much time to it in his press conferences with Ursula von der Leyen and Keir Starmer as he did to the trade deals he'd agreed with both leaders. At other moments he gestured to his golf course outside. 'Even though I own it,' he observed, 'it's probably the best course in the world.' Footage emerged of Trump, who claims to be an expert golfer, and whose best scores are always recorded at clubs he owns, arriving near a bunker in a buggy. A few metres ahead of him, a caddy could be seen discreetly dropping a ball on to the course for him to play, rather than the ball he'd hit into the sand or the long grass. Who cares? It's not cheating, because it's not real. Also on display was Trump's capacity for comic timing. When he met the Starmers on the steps of his golf resort, Turnberry, there was a moment in which they were all supposed to stand while a bagpiper played. Any other politician would have waited for the music to end. Trump, with his gift for farce, began taking questions immediately. The journalists had to yell over the blaring, dissonant noise of music being squeezed out of a leather sack. Victoria Starmer's mouth was set into such a perfectly flat line that her expression could have been used to calibrate a spirit level. Trump's mockery of Starmer was delightful to watch. The Prime Minister, he observed, is: 'Slightly liberal. Not that liberal. Slightly.' He grouped Starmer together with his friend, Nigel Farage: 'They're both good men.' When it did not seem the PM could wince any harder, Trump declared: 'I respect him much more today than I did before, because I just met his wife… and family', he added, just a little more quietly. 'He's got a perfect wife. And family.' He declared his love for Scotland, the land of his mother, especially those parts of it which he has had bulldozed for golf courses and hotels. The natural beauty of Scotland is augmented by golf courses and hotels, but ruined by wind turbines (which he calls 'windmills', which is funnier, and which he opposes because he thinks they ruin the view from the 18th hole of one of his golf courses). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe 'Wind is the most expensive form of energy,' he declared (it's actually the cheapest form of electricity), 'and it destroys the beauty of your fields and your plains and your fields and your waterways… If you shoot a bald eagle, in the United States, they put you in jail for five years. And yet windmills knock down hundreds of them.' The monstrous eagle-mashers are also bad for the mental health of whales. 'It's driving them loco. It's driving them crazy.' There is nothing in which Trump cannot immediately be an expert, because this is a TV show and no one knows anything anyway. He was asked about the UK's problem with illegal immigration in small boats: 'I know nothing about the boats,' he declared, but he knew who was on them: 'They'll be murderers, they'll be drug dealers.' He claimed to have stopped six wars. 'I'm averaging about a war a month.' India and Pakistan were now at peace, thanks to him. He had put an end to the Congo-Rwanda conflict: 'They've been fighting for 500 years… but we solved that war.' Before Trump brought peace to the land, the situation was just: 'Machetes. Machetes all over the place.' He said hostages who were taken by Hamas during the 7 October massacre have since been to see him in the Oval Office. This is what he asked them: 'When you were a hostage, and you have all of these people from Hamas around you… did they ever wink at you and say, like, 'Don't worry, you're going to be OK?'' He cited the more noble situations he has seen in 'the movies' – 'you even see it with Germany, where people would be let into a house, and live in an attic in secret' – as if they were real, because for him they are. When someone lives in reality TV, rather than reality itself, they see no line between what can be material and what should not be. And so Trump continued his comic pace even when talking about 'what they used to call the Gaza Strip. You don't hear that line too much any more.' He spoke about the $60m in aid the US has sent as if it were generous (his government spends that in less than five minutes) and opined: 'You really, at least want to have somebody say thank you'. Asked if he believed the people of Gaza were starving, he replied: 'I don't know. I mean, based on television I would say, not particularly, because – those children look very hungry, but we're giving a lot of money and a lot of food.' Later he would try to appear more concerned: 'Some of those kids are… that's real starvation stuff. I see it. And you can't fake that.' It is truly grim is to see leaders who live in the real world nodding along, powerless or unwilling to describe the situation in Gaza as anything other than, as Starmer put it in response, 'a humanitarian crisis… an absolute catastrophe', as if the bloodshed and mass starvation were the result of a natural disaster rather than the deliberate actions of soldiers and the Israeli cabinet. It reveals who has the power to make jokes about anything, and who is the butt of them. And that is the point at which the Trump show stops being funny. [See more: A Trump-shaped elephant] Related
New Statesman
13 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Labour's summer of discontent
Photo by Toby Melville -. At No 10's summer media reception, Keir Starmer sought to conjure optimism. He invoked the success of the Lionesses – who won the European Championship five days later – and the return of Oasis. As memories turned to the 1990s, he conceded there was at least one difference: Labour's parlous poll ratings. But, he said, 'things can only get better'. It was the party's 1997 anthem that soundtracked the downfall of Rishi Sunak, who came to embody a stuck Britain: a country of stagnant living standards, crumbling public services and uncontrolled immigration. Labour always knew it could not rely on the wellspring of optimism that accompanied Tony Blair's first victory. But matters have deteriorated faster than pessimists anticipated. After a year in power, Labour's average poll rating stands at just 22 per cent, putting it eight points behind Nigel Farage's Reform (not until the fuel strikes in 2000 did Blair briefly lose his lead to the Conservatives). Cabinet ministers openly speculate over whether Starmer will still be leader by the next general election. The word that Britons are most likely to use to describe the country, according to research by More in Common, is 'broken'. The evidence of this disaffection is widespread. In Epping, Essex, on 27 July, around 500 protesters gathered for the fifth time to demonstrate against the use of the Bell Hotel to house asylum seekers (one of whom has been charged with sexual assault against a 14-year-old girl). Similar demonstrations were held in towns and cities across England. The following day, resident doctors held a fourth day of strikes over pay restoration. Their union, the British Medical Association, is emblematic of a newly militant middle class (the logo of Broad Left, an influential faction in the BMA, features a stethoscope in the style of a hammer and sickle). Doctors complain their earnings remain below the 2008 level even after a 28.9 per cent pay increase. But the sympathy of a public contending with an NHS waiting list of 7.36 million is exhausted. Looming over all this is the state of the economy – which it is Labour's defining mission to grow. It has shrunk for the last two months, with business closures at a 20-year high and consumer confidence falling at its fastest rate since Liz Truss's 2022 premiership. Inside Westminster and the City of London, the UK's fiscal precarity is the subject of animated conversation (Britain has the sixth-highest debt, fifth-highest deficit and third-highest borrowing costs among advanced economies). 'There's a real risk there could be a crisis quite quickly because of the situation with the bond markets,' Helen Thompson, the Cambridge professor of political economy and author, has warned. Then there is Gaza, a humanitarian catastrophe that an increasing number in Labour fear could become a political one. After almost half the cabinet, including Angela Rayner, David Lammy, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting, Shabana Mahmood and Lisa Nandy, pushed for faster recognition of a Palestinian state, Keir Starmer announced a deadline of September. But as a new left party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana gestates, some in Labour fear that London could fall, just as former fortresses such as Scotland and the 'Red Wall' did. Rather than the optimistic 1990s, the mood is more reminiscent of the fraught 1970s: the decade of 'stagflation', trade union militancy, an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout and a putative military coup (38 per cent of those aged under 34 have a positive view of 'a military strongman with no government or elections'). That decade ended with the election of a politician previously thought too right-wing to win: Margaret Thatcher. Will the 2020s be any different? There might not be a vacancy inside Labour, but there is always a contest. Angela Rayner is the person that MPs believe is winning it. This is one reason her words to the cabinet on 22 July carried such weight – they are increasingly studied as those of a prospective prime minister. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe A week before the anniversary of the Southport murders, which triggered last summer's riots, Rayner told the cabinet that 'economic insecurity, the rapid pace of deindustrialisation, immigration and the impacts on local communities and public services, technological change and the amount of time people were spending alone online, and declining trust in institutions [were] having a profound impact on society'. Her comments, a day after Farage declared the UK was facing 'societal collapse' and 'civil disobedience on a mass scale', led to warnings from Michael Gove and others that the government was 'tacitly encouraging' unrest. But Rayner's allies – though surprised by the candour of No 10's cabinet readout – maintain she is prepared to speak uncomfortable truths on issues such as immigration and wants to 'start where people are'. The Deputy Prime Minister's perspective, they say, is informed by her north-west constituency Ashton-under-Lyne (where Reform finished second at the last election with 24.8 per cent of the vote). For Labour, the challenge is to match words with action. Home Office aides contend that the government is making progress after inheriting an 'absolute wreck' of a system. The number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels, which surged as the Conservatives sought to introduce the Rwanda deportation scheme, has fallen since its peak in 2023. By the time of the next election in 2029, Yvette Cooper's team reaffirm, the government will have ended the use of asylum hotels entirely. Others, however, declare that far more radical intervention is needed. One influential Labour MP calls for the government to 'requisition Duchy of Lancaster land and build temporary Nightingale accommodation' (along the lines of the hospitals constructed during the Covid-19 pandemic); to pass an 'Immigration Sovereignty Act' that unilaterally reforms articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which are blamed for preventing the deportation of foreign criminals); and, in an echo of Dominic Cummings, to 'send the Royal Navy into the Channel' to halt small boat crossings. The divide inside Labour is partly a classic left-right split: the biggest rebellions in this parliament have been over welfare cuts. But it is also increasingly a conservative-radical one. Conservatives argue that, given time, Starmer's patient, incrementalist strategy will work: higher living standards, shorter NHS waiting lists and lower immigration will pave the road to a second term. Radicals, by contrast, argue that something fundamental must change if Labour is to succeed. From the left, figures such as Andy Burnham, who has undergone a Tony Benn-like reinvention, champion electoral reform and a multi-party future. From the right, heterodox cabinet ministers privately favour a dramatic overhaul of the state and the welfare system – with the latter shifted from need towards contribution. Recently, the Overton window – the range of ideas and policies considered politically acceptable – has widened on immigration. Ahead of Rachel Reeves' daunting Budget this autumn, the same is becoming true of economic policy. Labour has no intention of introducing a wealth tax of the kind proposed by Neil Kinnock – a 2 per cent levy on assets worth more than £10m – but its refusal to rule out the policy has encouraged the most sustained debate yet. The IMF, meanwhile, has urged Reeves to consider charging for NHS treatment and ending the triple lock on the state pension. 'We don't have a democratic mandate for that,' one cabinet minister told me when I put the latter suggestion to them (though they did not reject the fiscal logic). Yet to maintain market confidence, Reeves may have to think the unthinkable in her Budget. Treasury aides insist she will keep pledges not to increase income tax, National Insurance (on employees), VAT and corporation tax (something critics regard as the government's 'original sin'). But this has left her painfully short of revenue raisers as bond vigilantes whisper they would prefer fiscal 'headroom' closer to £20bn than £9.9bn. When the irresistible force of the markets meets the immovable object of Reeves' tax pledges, which will prevail? For Starmer's government, the early signs are ominous. Exclusive polling by More in Common for the New Statesman shows that just 22 per cent of Britons believe the country is on the right track. Sixty per cent believe that it is on the wrong one (a plurality – 29 per cent – identify the 2016 Brexit vote as the defining error). Until recently, the great consolation for Labour has been a fractured right. The divide between Reform and the Conservatives has meant that Starmer could plausibly retain power even with a vote share lower than the 33.7 per cent he won in 2024. But the planned formation of a new left party threatens to subvert this calculation. Inside Labour circles, opinion is divided on the impact of the as-yet-nameless party. Some recall the People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front split and Logan Roy's declaration in Succession: 'You are not serious people.' Others believe the new party, which attracted more than 500,000 email sign-ups in just three days, poses a grave threat. One senior Labour source warns 'it is not inconceivable that Keir, Wes and Shabana could all lose their seats' and that the party faces a 'worst-of-all-worlds scenario' at next year's elections as the populist left and right combine to make protest irresistible. Leading supporters of a pact between the Corbynites and the Greens privately estimate that such an alliance could win around 100 MPs at a general election. There is one figure whose name recurs with surprising frequency during discussions of Labour's fate: Tony Blair, still immersed in the minutiae of British politics and regularly receiving groups of MPs at his institute's office. Those who have recently met Blair say he believes 'the country wants someone to take it by the scruff of the neck, lead it and shake things up' as Donald Trump has in the US. Should Starmer prove incapable of doing so, the warning was clear: things will only get worse. [See more: Why I am sticking with Labour] Related
Times
25 minutes ago
- Times
Israel condemns Keir Starmer over plan to recognise Palestine
Sir Keir Starmer has announced that Britain will join France in formally recognising a Palestinian state in September, unless Israel takes action to end the 'appalling' situation in Gaza. The announcement was met with criticism by Israel. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said that the decision 'rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims'. Starmer gave Israel an ultimatum on Tuesday afternoon as he said that the catastrophic failure to supply aid to Gaza meant that 'we see starving babies, children too weak to stand — images that will stay with us for a lifetime'. He said the UK would recognise Palestine unless Israel reached a ceasefire, committed itself to a two-state solution and made clear that it would not annex the occupied West Bank. Given Israel's opposition to these terms, this means that recognition of a Palestinian state is almost inevitable. The United States has also criticised the announcement. President Trump, who was flying back from Scotland, said it was 'rewarding Hamas'. Netanyahu said on X: 'A jihadist state on Israel's border TODAY will threaten Britain TOMORROW. Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails. It will fail you too. It will not happen.' Israel said the decision 'harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza'. Starmer now hopes to galvanise other world leaders into recognising a Palestinian state at the UN general assembly in September. He is now expected to embark on a diplomatic blitz to 'maximise' pressure on Israel. The prime minister made the announcement under mounting pressure from his own party. A third of his cabinet had been pressing for recognition, and more than 130 Labour MPs signed a letter pressing him to act. Starmer said 'this is the moment to act' and that the situation in Gaza meant the imperative to recognise a Palestinian state was 'under pressure like never before'. He said: 'I've always said we will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a proper peace process, at the moment of maximum impact for the two-state solution. 'With that solution now under threat, this is the moment to act. So today — as part of this process towards peace — I can confirm the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations general assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution. 'This includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank. Meanwhile, our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal.' Melanie Ward, a Labour MP and former chief executive of Medical Aid for Palestinians which has been pushing for action, said Starmer's move was a 'huge shift in the UK's position'. She said the government was using it 'to put conditions on Israel that would drive desperately-needed, real change in the lives of Palestinians at this most horrific of times. It is the right thing to do.' Speaking from Downing Street, the prime minister said that aid must be allowed in to Gaza. 'The Palestinian people have endured terrible suffering. Now, in Gaza because of a catastrophic failure of aid, we see starving babies, children too weak to stand: Images that will stay with us for a lifetime. 'The suffering must end. Yesterday I discussed this with President Trump and we are mounting a major effort to get humanitarian supplies back in. 'By air — and UK aid has been air dropped into Gaza today — and, crucially, by land we need to see at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day. But ultimately the only way to bring this humanitarian crisis to an end is through a long-term settlement.' Trump said that he and Starmer had not discussed formally recognising Palestine during their meeting on Monday. He initially said 'we have no view on that' then added: 'You could make the case that you're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded. So I'm not in that camp, to be honest.' Trump was asked whether his reaction to Starmer's announcement differed from his dismissive view of President Macron when Macron said that France would recognise the Palestinian state. 'I guess Starmer is doing the same as Macron, right?' Trump said. 'He's basically, is he saying the same thing? I think so. Essentially, they're saying the same thing, and that's OK. You know, it doesn't mean I have to agree.' The Israeli foreign ministry said: 'The shift in the British government's position at this time, following the French move and internal political pressures, constitutes a reward for Hamas and harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and a framework for the release of hostages.' David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said that Israel's actions in Gaza had 'horrified the world'. In an impassioned speech to a conference in New York, Lammy said 'the two-state solution is in peril' and that recognising a Palestinian state was the best way to save it. Britain 'bears a special burden of responsibility' for ensuring a two-state solution as a result of the 1917 Balfour declaration that laid the foundations for a Jewish state in the Middle East, Lammy said. Palestinians had suffered a 'historical injustice' in having their rights ignored after Britain promised to protect them, he added. 'The devastation in Gaza is heartbreaking. Children are starving and Israel's drip feeding of aid has horrified the world,' Lammy said. 'The Netanyahu government's rejection of a two-state solution is wrong — it's wrong morally and it's wrong strategically. It harms the interests of the Israeli people, closing off the only path to a just and lasting peace. And that is why we are determined to protect the viability of a two-state solution.'
