Political earthquake in Britain: Farage dismantles the establishment – The three strategies patriots must adopt

Nigel Farage's Reform UK party was the undisputed winner of the local elections in Britain last week, capturing nearly 1,500 councillor seats in municipal and regional governing bodies across the country. The ruling Labour Party was decimated (losing more than 1,400 seats), an event that essentially signaled the end of Keir Starmer's premiership. At the same time, the Conservatives also suffered a heavy defeat, sinking even further into the abyss that had begun to swallow them since the 2024 general election, following 14 years in power. As the vote count concluded, Farage stood triumphant, with strong political momentum backing his party as attention now begins to turn to the next general election. He is now widely regarded as a "Prime Minister in waiting," as Nigel has not only shattered every possible record in British politics but also achieved the most difficult task for any anti-establishment right-wing leader: to escape the "extremism box" in which the elites attempt to place them and evolve into an acceptable, mainstream political force. This is a lasting political lesson of historic proportions that should be mandatory study for every patriotic party in Europe—and for their opponents.

The challenges for patriots

Let us be clear about the scale of the challenge, which all major political movements in the patriotic space have shared since 2016. By definition and in practice, as anti-establishment "rebels," they set themselves against not only the traditional, historical—and in many cases hegemonic—political parties of their countries, namely versions of Social Democracy (including Progressivism) on the left and Conservatism (including Classical Liberalism) on the right. These were large and powerful political machines with national organizational base structures that had been built over decades—and in some cases, such as the British Conservatives, over centuries. Confronting these political giants alone would already have been a difficult task.

But the patriots also faced the entire support system and cultural perception of the center-left/center-right duo, which extends from the mainstream media to funding networks, the public sector (including the Judiciary), and the Public Administration. The latter, in particular, has always and everywhere aligned with those considered the established and legitimate political players of the state. The widening of the political conflict beyond simple party politics and toward culture war essentially explains the frenzied and spasmodic reaction of the "system" to the threat represented by patriotic leaders like Farage (and Trump in the United States), who seek the total overthrow of the old order.

New political movements can indeed emerge on waves of dissatisfaction toward governments or due to specific events—such as Angela Merkel's large reception of migrants in 2015—or because of isolated issues, such as the 2016 Brexit referendum. However, they struggle, if not find it impossible, to penetrate the political barrier and seize power. In the past, there were examples like the so-called Pirate Parties that appeared in the mid-2000s, with some even entering parliaments. However, they struggle, if not find it impossible, to truly manage to break the political system and gain governmental control.

Even Viktor Orbán, the only truly authentic example of European patriotic governance—as Meloni's "credentials" are considered tarnished due to cooperation with Brussels and a strategy that operates "within the system"—reached power long before he turned to national populism and began speaking of illiberal democracy. The fundamental problem for patriotic "revolutionaries" is that their movements tend to either be neutralized at an early stage or restricted—kept below a certain ceiling they cannot exceed—due to intense hostile propaganda against them, which usually labels them as "far-right" or "extremists". If this label becomes established, then the movement is placed outside acceptable political boundaries and the rest of the mainstream political world tends to create "sanitary zones" around it in order to isolate it. Often, the polarization resulting from the rise of patriotism ultimately helps the establishment—the so-called "uniparty"—to maintain its power.

A charismatic leader

Nigel Farage was in this exact position until relatively recently. He himself had been successfully labeled "far-right" and, broadly speaking, had been confined to the fringes as an unpleasant, unacceptable figure, even as a racist and—especially for the Left—an extremist. The campaign for the European Union referendum and particularly the fierce political "Brexit wars" that followed until 2019, when Remain supporters were desperately and undemocratically trying to overturn the June 2016 referendum result, garnered massive negative publicity against him, as the establishment correctly perceived Farage as the key pillar of the political alliance that had formed against it.

And yet, he did not collapse. In 2019, the newly formed Brexit Party swept that year's European Elections and helped pave the way for the Conservatives' overwhelming victory. He temporarily withdrew from active politics and later returned with Reform UK—which was built upon the Brexit Party—which today sits at the top of the polls in Britain with 28%! How did he achieve this?

There are three main ingredients to Farage's success. The first is his personal political talent and his journey. Whether one likes him or not, Farage is the ultimate politician: a courageous public presenter with remarkable charisma and the ability to connect directly with the ordinary voter; an astute reader of political moods with an excellent sense of timing—something critical in politics; and an experienced political actor who truly understands the subject and has now gained massive recognition across the entire country and beyond.

Many of the new patriotic leaders who expect quick results forget that Nigel was a co-founder of UKIP as far back as 1993. He possesses more than three decades of political experience, fighting battles as an outsider in campaigns that were considered lost from the start—and he survived all of it, even a plane crash. Objectively, the level of personal determination, persistence, and luck required to continue under such conditions and not just remain active but also achieve success, is not a simple "biographical detail," but a fundamental element of what we see today with Reform UK.

The right strategy

The second ingredient is strategy. Farage made at least two significant and correct strategic decisions along the way and implemented them with discipline. One was to carefully avoid any connection with controversial activists characterized by the media as "far-right" and "racist," such as Tommy Robinson, and to publicly and visibly condemn every form of racism within his party. Part of this approach was, for example, the elevation of personalities like Zia Yousuf and Laila Cunningham to important party positions, as well as the promotion of many more non-white candidates for Reform.

This strategy worked so effectively that even traditional Conservative political figures, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, openly defended Farage, challenging the view that he is a racist and describing Reform's positions as "mainstream" or "central," at least in the sense that they widely echo views existing in British society. The other decisive strategic decision Farage made from the beginning of his leadership at Reform was to identify the need to totally destroy the Conservatives and reject any possible cooperation pact with them.

Objectively, this was the right targeting for Reform, as in British politics no party can win an election unless it becomes the hegemonic force of its own political space. This may look like an obvious strategic choice today, but when Reform was starting out, the idea of demolishing the oldest and most successful political party in the Western world seemed rather unlikely, if not ridiculous. For some time, there was even discussion about the possibility of Farage being integrated into the Conservatives or even taking over their leadership.

However, Nigel correctly perceived the great weakness and vulnerability of the Conservatives and calculated that the odds were ultimately in his favor. All of this requires strategic vision but also boldness in implementation. Beyond that, he was proven right in his broader strategic instincts as well. Two stand out in particular: the willingness and ability to form electoral alliances of a "popular front" type, crossing traditional ideological lines, as seen during the Brexit period, and the deliberate rejection—at least at a rhetorical level—of the traditional Left/Right distinction, following a mixture of free market policies and measures oriented toward the working class.

The latter caused intense skepticism regarding the coherence of his political framework, which of course remains untested in practice. However, Farage correctly judged that the risk of being attacked for his political positions is offset by the benefit of appearing simultaneously as a supporter of both the welfare state and a low-tax economy, deregulated market, and relaxed rules for cryptocurrencies. Part of the Farage strategy also consists of the more daily and less impressive organizational side of politics.

And here, Farage seems to have made the right choices, although questions remain regarding certain advice, influences, and relationships with party donors. The Brexit Party, for example, constituted an impressive case of a party-startup created from scratch with the help of executives from the London communication firm Pagefield. The internal organization and structure of both the Brexit Party and Reform also proved to be successful choices, as was the election campaign pace that had been imposed long before the May local elections. Finally, Reform's communication game is also characterized as excellent, with a team of younger content creators having the freedom to produce clever and attractive digital material aimed at the younger generations.

Exploiting conditions

The third ingredient is something Farage does not control himself, but manages to exploit with skill: the conditions—from the shifting of the Overton cultural window to the mistakes of his opponents. An example of the former is the creation of the right-wing television channel GB News in 2021, as an alternative to the dominant BBC/Sky News ecosystem, which gained influence and where Farage acquired his own high-rated show that kept him in the spotlight.

As for the mistakes of his opponents, there are many examples—the most glaring involve failures and direct inaccuracies attributed to the Conservatives during their period of governance, particularly on immigration issues, as well as the elites' culture war against British national history and identity. It is difficult to think of many politicians who managed to overcome their personal political baggage and the constraints and "firewalls" created around them by the very establishment which they attempted to challenge.

Farage managed to pass the danger zone, set his political party in motion, avoid a premature failure or dissolution—in fact, Reform had recorded even greater gains in last year's local elections—and create the momentum that led to last week's victory. This now constitutes definitive proof that Reform is not simply a protest party gathering votes from dissatisfied citizens, but an electoral victory machine that is in the process of redefining British politics.

Its unique—and potentially fatal—flaw? That it depends excessively on a single, highly effective politician. The next dangerous zone Reform is called to cross is the period of time required for the party, its internal culture, and its senior leadership team to be fully built, so that it can continue to function even without Farage. Until then, Reform remains simultaneously impressive but also extremely fragile.

www.bankingnews.gr