Nigel Farage is not the disease but a symptom of a sick system. Here’s how we can fix it.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Britain’s party-political system has been hollowing out for years – declining membership, falling trust and a widening gap between politicians and the public. Into that gap stepped Nigel Farage. Yet if it hadn’t been him, it would almost certainly have been someone like him. Cometh the hour, cometh the Farage.
Much commentary has focused on the man himself. Ed Davey’s attacks on Farage draw applause from our Lib Dem faithful, but there is a deeper point that we also need to address. Farage is not an isolated phenomenon; he is a symptom of something larger. To focus solely on him is like blaming the thermometer for the fever it reveals.
A virus finds easy purchase when the body is weakened, out of balance, and unable to defend itself. The British body politic has, for some time, shown all the classic signs of chronic ill health: economic dislocation, regional inequality, stagnant wages, and cultural alienation. The traditional parties – once robust immune systems for democracy – have been weakened by a widening cultural and geographic divide between government and governed, the collapse of traditional media and rise of polarising social platforms, decades of globalisation, political scandal and sleaze, and policy convergence that has left little daylight between the main parties. They now struggle to generate genuine loyalty or enthusiasm. In such a weakened system, populist contagion spreads quickly.
The people responding to Farage’s message are not just caricatures of “Little Englanders” or one-dimensional xenophobes. Many are working-class voters in post-industrial towns who feel left behind by globalisation, austerity, and rapid social change. Others are small business owners, tradespeople, or retirees who see public institutions fraying and feel that no one in Westminster is listening to them. These groups share a sense of political invisibility and economic precarity – fertile ground for a figure promising to disrupt the system.
It is said that “we get the politicians we deserve.” But perhaps it’s more accurate to say that current social and political conditions generate the politicians we deserve. When mainstream parties retreat from certain debates, when their internal cultures become homogenous and their policies technocratic, they create the conditions for outsiders to rise.
The Liberal Democrats are uniquely placed to offer the antidote. Our longstanding commitment to devolving power from Westminster, introducing fairer voting, and strengthening local government would reconnect citizens with decision-making and rebuild trust. Investment in public services, green jobs and regional development would address the inequalities that fuel resentment, while our defence of civil liberties and international cooperation offers a positive alternative to isolationism and populism. We also need to prioritise rejuvenating the institutions that once kept the social contract strong, such as the NHS, council housing, and a social safety net that keeps families from falling into poverty. By tackling the root causes of alienation rather than its symptoms, we can help restore balance to Britain’s body politic and make our democracy resilient again.
We already have the strong policies. What we need now is an equally strong story, one that carries the punch of authenticity and credibility so people know not just what we stand against, but what we stand for. Here is what that story could sound like:
“Britain works best when power, prosperity and opportunity are shared. But for too long Westminster has hoarded power and neglected local economies, leaving people ignored and divided. The Liberal Democrats will hand power back to towns, regions and nations, so decisions are made closer to the people they affect. We will back small businesses, invest in skills and affordable homes, and make communities safer with visible policing and services people can trust. We stand for a fair, free and united Britain where everyone has a stake, a voice and a future.”
This is the vision that can counter the politics of resentment and fear. Farage is not an aberration but an inevitability – the predictable outcome of an outdated political duopoly that has failed large swathes of our country. The real challenge is to cure the fever itself: rebuild trust, redistribute power and renew the social contract between government and governed. We must be tough not only on Farage, but also on the causes of Farage.
* Dr Roz Savage is the Liberal Democrat MP for the South Cotswolds.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
15 Comments
Thank you Ros. So many articles on LDV talk about the need to get our message across, but it’s so rare to read one that actually goes on to set out what our message should be. The other thing I hear too much of is what we’re against. We have to make clear what we’re for – and how we plan to make it happen.
You’ve quite rightly outlined many of the issues in those towns. Voters walking through their local communities have a daily reminder of the demographic changes that have left their towns barely recognizable. There’s been no economic uplift to any significant degree—the opposite of what we were told. In the record inward immigration we’ve seen, it’s just compounded issues. Many voters want much stronger enforcement of returns and far stronger rules on visa entries. The MRP and Ipsos polls over the weekend are a difficult read. The danger is that the progressive left continues to navel-gaze at its beliefs while ignoring those figures at its peril.
The best way to counter the hard right is by doing what we do best . Its about cleaning up the mess left by both Labour and the Tories , its about fixing the roof not complaining about the rain getting in ,its about rolling up our sleeves and showing we care about our communities by taking positive action . its about delivering community politics and not being afraid to shout about it .
Thank you for an adticle which is a so relevant breath of fresh air!
Might a root cause of economic stagnation/decline, the deilberate underfunding of essential services such as health, homes provision, education and an effective military, putting young people in debt because they wish to learn skills, lack of political party deep choice, increasing food banks and the number of multi millionaires, limitations on protest etc. be the consequence of all major parties adopting Neoliberalism/Austerity which is a particularly predatory brand of capitalism?
I want to make a couple of general points about the Reform boom
first, a big chunk of their support comes directly from Long-term Non-Voters. The historical experience is that it’s very hard to convert Non-voters to consistent Voters, they can be temporarily enthused but they revert to not voting. We should remember that Opinion Polls are not a measure of Voting, they represent a promise to Vote, in four years time.
second, Reform have benefitted from their Media coverage at The General Election & then their genuine success at The Local Elections, the effects of those will fade over time. The evidence suggests that Peak Reform was around a Month ago – an average of 32%. The last couple of Weeks its down to around 30%.
The picture should be clearer in another Month.
Paul; You’ve been saying the same on the local election results – let’s wait and see etc etc .
The MRP was a 20k sample & 32/33% is more than enough under Fptp to get you a healthy majority. Starmers satisfaction rating is -66 it’s a long way back from that. Labour is hemorrhaging support amongst towns where it matters most.
@ Paul,
” The evidence suggests that Peak Reform was around a Month ago – an average of 32%. The last couple of Weeks its down to around 30%.”
What evidence is this then?
I can see evidence of recent peaks in the previously well established parties but not for Reform nor the Greens. Except its perhaps not so recent for Labour! The margin of error on opinion polls is typically 3% or so. This is percentage points and not actual percentages. It could be more if the experience of the last election is anything to go by.
So, sure, you can think Reform has fallen by 2% if you cherry pick individual results to suit. But you’re only fooling yourself if you do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#/media/File:Opinion_polling_graph_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_(post-2024).svg
@Paul Barker
How do you know a big chunk of reform support comes from long-term non-voters?
Evidence please – have you been able to analyse a statistically representative sample of voters and non-voters?
I think Roz’s analysis of the causes of Farage are pretty good. But her proposed solution appears to amount to: Push all the things that LibDems like and assume that that will solve the problems. I’m not sure it’s that easy. For example, I totally agree that localism is a good thing, but I also know that in my local area, anger at a perceived out-of-touch-and-remote borough council is just as strong at anger at the Government. Why would giving more powers to a council that people think is out of touch stop people thinking politicians are out of touch? Investment in public services and green jobs and the NHS such like is great but where do you find the resources to do all those without taking resources away from other things that people want just as much – and therefore making people angry at the loss of whatever you take the resources from? I think, if you want to address people’s disillusionment with politics, you need to go a bit deeper than just, offering all the things that we want (without first checking whether those are also the things the people who are disillusioned want).
And considering the thing voters are consistently telling pollsters they most want is, lower immigration, I’m not sure that a programme that doesn’t even mention immigration is going to cut it in terms of reducing Reform’s appeal.
So much free publicity from the LD (& Lab) for Farage and his mission. Previou such interventions by LD leadership didn’t go the way intended (Campbell – IN/OUT referendum, Clegg – debate with Farange)
Might this article present a useful analysis of the problems that so many of our politicians have worsened for us?
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/09/27/should-we-tax-the-rich/
@Steve
A compelling case presented in the video. We need a change in the culture of property being an investment which leads to money not going into new industries to gorw the economy but into bricks & mortar wher it apparently grown by the minute. I don’t know how and quickly but until that is changed, our financial troubles will persist.
“We already have the strong policies. What we need now is an equally strong story”
Yes, that’s also (and more immediately) Labour’s problem. They have a big bag of policies, but nobody thinks they will really “renew Britain”.
Labour have set themselves growth targets which they don’t look likely to meet. Past Tory tax-cutting, Brexit, climate change, and Trump’s tariffs will make sure of that.
Localism, whatever its merits, also just isn’t going to generate mass voter enthusiasm.
Sadly, the best way to win mass enthusiasm, when national decline can’t be avoided, is to create a fantasy enemy in a fantasy world, and persuade voters to put their faith in the fight. That’s how Hitler got elected. Farage is on the same track.
Roz, this is a very welcome article and I agree that Farage has been able to rise because of social and political circumstances created by other parties. This particulary applies to inequality in which the less well off have not benefited from globalisation or EU membership and unfairness is rife in our systems.
You say “When mainstream parties retreat from certain debates, when their internal cultures become homogenous and their policies technocratic, they create the conditions for outsiders to rise.” I feel that although better than others, we LibDems are somewhat homogeneous and certainly our policies technocratic. In addition our policy review motion (as Simon Hughes said at conference) is so waffly it will not communicate with outsiders. While we have many of the right ideas, unless we improve communication we will continue to be largely ignored by media. Ed gave a good start by attracting attention against ReformUK but we must now constantly say simply, crisply and precisely and repeatedly what we stand for and the aims of our policies. Our MPs need to spend a little less time in Parliament and more time going round the country doing that.
Thanks so much for all the comments. Very interesting. Sadly the link to the video on Richard Murphy’s site seems to have expired – or maybe it’s just because I’m trying to view it on GWR WiFi.
@Simon R: I absolutely agree that people should be asked what they want, and I would like to emphasise that I mentioned devolving power all the way down to town (and parish) councils. With the technological tools that we have now, we could be doing a lot more participatory democracy. People may not always be able to get what they want, but bringing them closer to decision making – say, with fully livestreamed citizens’ assemblies – they would have a better understanding of the trade-offs, including the financial ones.
Audrey Tang’s work as the first Digital Minster of Taiwan is really interesting. Their response to the Covid pandemic was much more inclusive (e.g. a hackathon to design their track-and-trace system, shared decision-making on masks), and consequently both more effective and more widely supported.