One aspect of the furious row that has split Reform UK which has yet to receive the attention it deserves is the part the good old British subjects of class and snobbery have played. The row erupted last week after Reform MP Rupert Lowe voiced mild criticism of party leader Nigel Farage in a Daily Mail interview, accusing him of being a ‘Messiah’ and voicing doubts about whether he had it in him to become prime minister.
The two men’s relative differences in wealth may have added to the animosity between them
Farage promptly hit back by saying that Lowe was ‘completely and utterly wrong’. The row then escalated to toxic levels when another two of the five Reform MPs, Richard Tice and Lee Anderson, rallied around Farage. A member of Lowe’s office was accused of bullying two women staffers, and Lowe himself was accused of allegedly threatening party chairman Zia Yusuf – a Farage ally – with physical violence. The party whip was then withdrawn from the MP while the matter is investigated. Lowe has hotly denied the allegations, accused Reform’s leaders of persecuting him for political reasons, and says he is taking legal advice on his next move. The row shows no signs of petering out after Lowe suggested in a YouTube interview last night that he had been ousted from the party for being a ‘tall poppy’ and threat to Farage.
The row has delighted the insurgent party’s enemies, but dismayed Reform party members, many of whom support Lowe for his outspoken comments on social media, particularly on the thorny subjects of Islamism and immigration. Lowe has advocated for the mass deportation of up to a million illegal migrants, while Farage claims that such views mean that he has been ‘captured’ by the far right.
But according to friends of Lowe that I have spoken to, there is another more hidden aspect to the row between the two that has not yet been highlighted: the ancient and very British subject of class. Although both Farage and Lowe are products of similar old, established fee-paying public schools (Farage went to Dulwich and Lowe to Radley), there are subtle differences between them that have apparently exacerbated the bitter resentment which has erupted between the pair.
To put it crudely, Rupert Lowe is from the wealthy landed gentry, while Nigel Farage is a nouveau riche arriveist. Lowe went to Reading University, while Farage famously was educated at the university of life. Lowe has a country estate in Gloucestershire where he enjoys such traditional rural sports as hunting, shooting and fishing. Farage, who has lived for most of his life in quintessential suburbia on the borders of Kent and London, also has a penchant for such sports, but almost certainly will have come to them at an older age.
The two men’s relative differences in wealth may also have added to the animosity between them: Lowe is a millionaire banker who worked for establishment firms such as Barings, Morgan Grenfell and Deutsche Bank during his successful City career before politics. Farage, though comfortably well off himself, was a rather less elevated metals trader before devoting himself to politics more than thirty years ago.
Having pots of money means that Lowe can afford such generous gestures as giving away his parliamentary salary to deserving causes in his Great Yarmouth constituency. And such an old money background means that he has the financial and psychological security to speak his mind without fear or favour – even if that means annoying his notoriously thin-skinned party chief.
As one friend who has known Lowe well for decades put it to me: ‘Frankly, Rupert comes from the officer class, while Nigel is happier in the NCO’s mess.’ Such snobbery may sound distasteful to modern ears, but still counts for a lot in the subtly different circles the two men move in: those of ‘county’ society and the saloon bars of pubs.
Even the clothes that the two men favour reflect the class differences between them: Farage sports velvet collared jackets that look slightly out of place in the real country. Meanwhile, Lowe’s garb, though superficially similar, is less ‘loud’ and vulgar than the style of Reform’s leader.
Although Britain has changed hugely in the 21st century, such class differences still count for something in our traditionally socially stratified and divided society. The snobbery that goes with them tells us that – as the French say – the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Comments