Politics: the Farage paradox

By Richard North - July 7, 2026

Contrary to received wisdom, the legacy media taking a tilt at Farage is not necessarily “what scrutiny looks like when you are a candidate for prime minister”, as Chris Mason, political editor for the BBC would have us believe.

After all, if proximity to that office was the trigger for intense scrutiny, then it would surely be the case that Andy Burnham would currently be under the microscope, with every move that he made, his recent history and just about anything else being given close attention.

Yet, despite his upwards trajectory, Burnham is not facing the same scorched-earth legacy media treatment as is Farage, despite causing a storm recently when, after his flagship policy launch in Manchester, he refused to take any questions from Westminster journalists.

Farage, of course, has claimed that any hostile media attention is always part of an establishment plot against the outsider, but this time – in respect of the latest accusations against him concerning the undeclared £5 million “gift” – he has Andy Wigmore, an old Brexit pal, to speak for him.

Wigmore tells the Guardian that Farage was not even elected and not in politics when he was given the money.

“Guess what”, he adds, “the public don’t trust the media witch-hunt against Farage … same playbook against Farage as we witnessed against Trump, didn’t work with Trump won’t work with Farage”.

Doubtless, Farage sees himself as the plucky “insurgent”, ahead in the polls and now acting de facto as the main opposition party. It is because of that success that the legacy media and political opponents have initiated a highly coordinated effort to dismantle his anti-establishment appeal.

On the other hand, I have heard it said that the legacy media and rivals only mount sustained attacks on politicians when they are on their way down – losing status and influence – rather than when they are in the ascendant.

This is the “wounded animal” effect. When a leader is already weakened by poor polling, internal rebellions, or electoral losses, rivals and the media scent blood. Attacks become a coordinated effort to finish them off because the risk of retaliation is low.

The corollary of this is the “ascendant shield” which takes effect when a politician is rising rapidly – as we are seeing with Burnham. Rivals are often too timid to strike, fearing a backlash from an enthusiastic public, while sections of the media may try to ride their coattails or avoid alienating a growing audience.

Yet, with Farage’s unorthodox political career, one cannot rule out an intersection of both dynamics. He is facing unprecedented, sustained attacks because his party has reached a high-water mark while simultaneously showing vulnerabilities that suggest a loss of momentum.

I explored some of this recently, pointing out that Reform UK was well short of being an election-winning machine and that the failure in Makerfield was a severe blow to the party’s aura of invincibility.

This notwithstanding, as Pete points out, the media was always going to go after Farage on the grounds of financial irregularities. In fact, he warned just before the general election that Farage was going to have his work cut out.

“For some time now”, he observed at the time, “I’ve been saying the Westminster establishment is entering its final chapter, but it’s going to be a fight to the death. The 2029 election will see every dirty trick in the book”.

Presciently, he noted – in the expectation that he would win the Clacton seat – that: “They will attempt to bog Farage down in parliamentary disciplinary procedures, at which point he becomes even more of an anti-establishment, anti-politics figurehead”.

The point is that Farage cannot have been unaware that his successful election as an MP was going to paint a target on his back. However, Pete added to his recent comment about the Westminster establishment playing it dirty, the rejoinder that Farage was always going to make it easy for them to attack him.

Rather than modify his behaviour, Farage has gone on the attack, believing – and not without good cause – that this is the best form of defence.

Time and again, when Farage’s political funding is put under the spotlight, the Guardian writes, “his response has been to claim that dark forces are at work to prevent him getting to the top of politics”. But what he has not done is to acknowledge that his approach to declaring donations and interests has been “cavalier at best”.

Recently on X, I tried to explain the paradox, noting that Farage walks into every trap and ambush, eyes wide shut. He thinks he’s invulnerable, I said, “but, as he climbs, he’s simply showing more of his arse”.

Echoing Pete’s view, I conceded that once Farage became a prominent political figure, it was inevitable that the iconoclastic media would attempt to take him down. “That’s what they do”, I noted.

But therein lies the paradox. Unlike most other politicians aspiring to high office, he’s taken no measures to protect himself or his party from media and political attacks. Instead, he relies on bluster to deflect his critics.

You can only defy the rules of politics for so long though. Farage’s strategy is running on empty. “Like the barnacles on the hull of the ship, the sheer weight of the number of controversies attached to him will slow him down and make him vulnerable”, I wrote, suggesting that the current furore was “death by a thousand cuts”. And Farage “is bleeding”.

Clearly, some of his critics smell the blood. The loathsome Ian Dunt in the iPaper writes with evident glee that, “For the first time, it’s not clear that Nigel Farage will survive. He is in real trouble here”.

The Reform leader, he says, is embroiled in a serious scandal, under a formal parliamentary process he can’t bluff his way out of, with the press suddenly turning on him and an insurgent far-right party snapping at his heels. Worse, it’s all happening as Labour refreshes itself in government.

Farage now faces four possible parliamentary investigations into his behaviour: one on the £5 million gift from Thai-based cryptobillionaire Christopher Harborne, another on allegedly trying to influence Bank of England policy on crypto, a third on a failure to register property interests and a fourth on the story, broken over the weekend in theSunday Times, over his failure to disclose financial support from George Cottrell.

Cottrell, writes Dunt, is a nightmare for Farage. Everything about him excites the journalistic imagination: aristocrat, convicted criminal, crypto-fraudster, baby-faced smoker, with extensive political connections and a tendency to call Farage “daddy”. It’s Fleet Street catnip, an unimprovable series of qualities to launch a media feeding frenzy.

Much as I would like to (as a matter of principle), I cannot disagree with Dunt when he observes that “This has never really happened to Farage before”. He adds: “Until now, he has been able to routinely sidestep the kind of scrutiny politicians are usually subjected to. He’s been allowed to focus on his core talking points in interviews, with reporters rarely giving him a hard time”.

“Now, quick as a flash, he’s prey”, Dunt says, “Even GB News and LBC, outlets where Reform are used to getting a sympathetic hearing by some presenters, smell blood”.

To go back to my comments and those of Pete, Farage must have seen this coming – or something like it. He may be a lightweight intellectually, but he’s not stupid and is enough of a politician to have a good idea of how his latest escapades might play out with the media.

Effectively, having allowed this crisis to emerge – or having taken few precautions to mitigate the damage – Farage suddenly ceases to convince as a prime-minister in waiting and simply looks like a tired old man on the defensive.

Largely though, this is self-inflicted and one gets the impression that Farage has actually shed his political ambitions. Already, speculation is swirling that indicates that Farage is privately considering stepping down from his leadership role, signalling to rivals that his personal appetite for the frontline political grind is fading.

This, at any rate, might explain his lack of caution in protecting his reputation and that of his party – he no longer cares and is set to abandon ship.