The Battle of Clacton will determine more than the future of Nigel Farage

I wonder how historians will view the forthcoming Battle of Clacton. That will depend, in part – though far from entirely – on the outcome. The outcome will be viewed entirely in terms of Nigel Farage: does he remain in the House of Commons or not, and what does that tell us about Reform UK and, more importantly, the country?

The divide between the government machine of Westminster and Whitehall and the electorate is large and growing. (Putting part of No. 10 Downing Street in Manchester won’t change that – in the eyes of non-Mancunians it will only increase the gap.) Some thirty years of progressive government by all three parties have left the country in an economic mess and with failing public services. Trust in politicians has slumped to just 9 per cent, an all-time low. Only social media influencers are trusted less (6 per cent).

The nadir of relations between Parliament and the people was probably 2016. Despite all the (then) main political parties, most of the press and almost all the country’s major institutions urging us to stay in the EU, we voted to leave. That was down to one man, Nigel Farage. The establishment hates him for it.

They also fear him, and Reform, which has (or had) a compelling argument: “30 years of government by all parties has delivered disaster. Solving it requires a different sort of politician.” The establishment hates outsiders coming in and fixing things, and it always has. Usually it strangles them in administrative obfuscation, but occasionally it is outflanked. During the Battle of Britain, Churchill appointed Lord Beaverbrook, a successful businessman, as Minister of Aircraft Production. Beaverbrook transformed , riding roughshod over the Royal Air Force, the Air Ministry, industry and other departments to remove bottlenecks and deliver aircraft at the rate needed to win the Battle of Britain. The cost was an awful lot of sacking and many ruined careers. The establishment and many senior public servants fear Reform Cabinet Ministers would act the same – and they’re correct.

Which is why there have been attacks and briefings against Reform since the general election, where for every five who voted Labour, two voted Reform. These establishment attacks are intensifying as it becomes obvious that the progressives – that is, the Labour Marxists, the Lib Dem fools who don’t realise they’re Marxists and the Greens (who don’t care) – can’t solve the country’s problems. Worse, from the perspective of a career politician, they can’t hide the problems under the carpet.

an electoral and financial reckoning is coming

The more numerate among them can see that kicking the can down the road won’t satisfy the bond markets. Burnham’s recently invented oxymoronic “business-friendly socialism” won’t change that. Burnham will soon realise that the country is indeed “in hock to the bond markets”. Soundbites won’t change that. Nor will reinventing and rebranding Blair’s mythical “Third Way”. Tomorrow’s prime minister is touting Noughties solutions. They didn’t work then; they won’t work now.

Which means that an electoral and financial reckoning is coming. Most of those on the green benches fear it, and the cause of their fear is Reform. Comprehensively outmanoeuvred, the political establishment – like any desperate football defender – is playing the man, not the ball. Unlike a ruthless defender, the establishment doesn’t fear the referee’s red card because the referee is part of the establishment, too. The public trusts the VAR of social media even less than they do politicians.

So the establishment is piling on allegations of sleaze against Nigel Farage and Reform. Despite the BBC’s glee, they are merely allegations. Quite why the National Crime Agency sent private documents to The Guardian is, as yet, unanswered. I happen to know Richard Tice reasonably well and consider him as honest as the day is long, and some. He’s also a very successful financier and therefore well aware of money laundering regulations and, in my opinion, extremely unlikely to have fallen foul of them.

There are well-established channels for pretty much anyone involved in, or close to, a financial transaction to make an allegation. Whether this allegation was made out of political spite or genuine concern is also unknown. Nor is it yet clear that it has any substance. But what journalist lets the facts get in the way of a story, particularly at the Reform-loathing Guardian?

Innuendo and rumours, not facts and evidence, are how the political establishment does its work. Peter Mandelson was a master of this – maybe he is at work here. His successors certainly are. So Nigel Farage changed the game. His powerful statement threw down a gauntlet to the establishment:

“This will be a people versus the Establishment by-election. It’s a chance to stick two fingers up to the entire Establishment. To frankly tell them where to go. And that is why I will be putting my name forward to stand in this by-election.

I will fight to win. I will fight to continue the political revolution that Reform has started. And I would say this to you, the voters of Clacton: If I win, you win. Because if I lose, they win.”

Nominations are open as of today, but all three establishment parties have stated that they won’t run a candidate, as has Restore. Our next Prime Minister is thought able to beat Reform, as he indeed did in the strong Labour seat of Makerfield. Burnham knows his limits; Clacton has never returned a Labour MP since it was created in 2010. The chart shows the general election result:

The short version is that Nigel Farage beat the entire progressive vote by almost two to one. He beat the conservatives by a similar margin, which is why Kemi Badenoch doesn’t want to run. As is usually the case in British elections, the Did Not Votes outnumber the winner.

The emergence of Count Binface is interesting, and he will probably carry the hopes of the progressives. The tiresome subsidy millionaire and wannabe peer, Dale Vince, has undertaken to pay the Count’s election expenses, limited by law to £180,050, so, for once, the Count has money behind him. Whether he has access to data and campaign management support, including volunteers to spread leaflets around, remains to be seen. Certainly Labour has them and Vince owns the Labour Party.

Incidentally, why are neither the Electoral Commission nor the National Crime Agency investigating the correlation between Vince’s donations to the Labour Party (£6 million and counting) and his direct financial benefit from Miliband’s green agenda, most recently the massive Heckington Fen Solar Park approved by Miliband earlier this year? The establishment is not “fair dealing” in Kipling’s Saxon phrasing. Binface and the progressives should remember that Clacton is Saxon.

Burnham won’t appreciate Binface becoming the, perhaps inadvertent, face of progressive Marxism

The unsuspecting voters of Clacton are about to encounter the visceral hatred of Nigel Farage and Reform felt by both progressives and the establishment. The anti-Farage mob is vile. They combine hatred and aggression with a smug, self-serving moral certainty that sanctifies their violence. I’ve experienced it a little; Nigel Farage lives with it. The voters of Clacton have never seen it – lucky them – they won’t like what they see. The progressives will probably irritate many voters and be told to eff off to wherever they came from. The Clacton landlords will probably hike prices to make a few quid.

According to Electoral Calculus, Clacton is one of the most right wing seats in the country, being “#2 for “Leave”, #1 for “Economic Right Position”, #4 for “Cultural Right Position” and #259 for “Liberty Free Position”” out of 650 seats. The progressives are unlikely to cut through unless the Count Binface campaign succeeds through silliness. As the average age in Clacton is 57, I think that’s unlikely – but these are strange times. A vote for Binface conveys contempt for Westminster, as does a vote for Farage. If Reform re-establish themselves as an anti-establishment party rather than simply a right-wing party, a vote for Farage is also a vote for a solution.

Burnham was wise not to stand a Labour candidate who is unlikely to win. However, I don’t think he’ll appreciate Binface becoming the, perhaps inadvertent, face of progressive Marxism.

The campaign is likely to be a media circus driven by personalities. Farage is used to that, Binface isn’t. The vote will be a judgement on British politics; if Farage wins, it’s evidence that Westminster politics is broken. A win for Binface would mean the same. (Indeed, the other parties choosing not to stand says much the same thing.)

This country is in a desperate political mess. Enjoy the summer while it lasts. Burnham is likely to deliver an early winter of discontent.