Ukip leaders present and future? Photo: Bloomberg
Show Hide image

Suzanne Evans, Ukip's leader-in waiting

The Nicola Sturgeon to Nigel Farage's Alex Salmond?

Nigel Farage’s political career could end next week: a new poll puts him two points behind in Thanet South. Should he lose, he has declared that he will quit as leader of Ukip.

If he is true to his word, a vicious scrap to succeed him will ensue. Two senior party figures, Steven Woolfe and Paul Nuttall, have already revealed that they would like to be next leader. Farage, though, has a different view: he has repeatedly said that he expects Ukip’s next leader to be a woman and, in asking Suzanne Evans to write the party manifesto and then handing her the stage at the launch he has effectively anointed her his preferred successor. Perhaps he see Evans as the Nicola Sturgeon to his Alex Salmond: less threatening and more mild-manner and better able to reach out beyond the party’s core vote.

“If Nigel ever stood down, I think there would be quite a lot of people that might be interested in being leader and yeah I’ll be honest - I might be one of them,” Evans tells me when me meet near Ukip HQ in London. But she later says: “It's not something I’m ready for - he's going to stay and he's going to win.” In the early hours of May 8, we will find out.

The success of Ukip’s manifesto – a document that could hardly be further removed from what Nigel Farage called the “drivel” in 2010 – is one reason that Evans is ideally placed to become next leader. At the start of January, Evans took over manifesto-writing duties from Tim Aker – who claimed to be too stretched as an MEP, councillor and candidate for eminently winnable Thurrock – and was handed a five-month contract by Ukip. 

“I knew it was going to be a big task, but I don’t think I anticipated just how big it was going to be.” Nor did she anticipate that her e-mail inbox would be flooded “like confetti” with suggestions, including that sending prisoners to North Korea could end the prison crisis. “That did not come from a Ukip supporter." Not all suggestions were so unwelcome: the manifesto proposes instruction in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in all secondary schools after Evans followed up on an idea from a 14-year-old girl.

Farage was consulted at every turn, and retained control of the process. “There were a couple of things he said he didn't agree with that came out.

“Nigel and I kept in close contact. We had a couple of meetings as it was in progress. If there was something I wasn't sure about, I'd phone him; something he particularly wanted in - he'd phone me.”

Within hours of the launch, Evans found that she had produced a document that – even by those who vehemently disagreed with it – had avoided ridicule. It attracted praise from both the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail. “I was like wow - I think that’s called a result. Praise from the left and praise from the right!”

Not bad for someone who had only joined Ukip two years earlier, when Evans and a group of Conservative Party councillors in Wimbledon defected. “It’s amazing isn't it really? I feel very flattered that the party's recognised that I’ve got something to offer.” Many now consider her the second most important person in Ukip, a notion she calls “frightening”.

Evans shows no inclination to diverge from the Farage line. Although she is a former employer and presenter for BBC Radio 4 and 5 Live, she endorses Farage’s denunciation of the corporation, calling it “so unfair and so unbalanced” in its coverage of Ukip. It is not her only target.

“The London media gives us such a hard time as well. Every time I open the Metro or the Evening Standard it's all anti-Ukip, constantly anti-Ukip. They only run the bad stories and their facts are hopeless - they called me deputy leader Suzanne Jones the other day in the Metro. They just don't do their facts, they don't do their homework, it's all anti stuff, they don't do any policies, they've done nothing positive on our manifesto.”

She suggests the media in London is one reason why Ukip performs so poorly in the capital. “London is very good at self-censoring,” she says, denouncing the audience’s treatment of her on This Week the previous night. It is the first time Evans hints at losing her sense of self-control.

“That London audience last night - 'Oh you're not allowed to vote for Ukip. The papers tell me that Ukip's not very nice therefore I must boo when Suzanne Evans walks on stage regardless of what she says, that's unimportant. Regardless of what Ukip policies really are I must not be seen to be voting for something that according to my liberal metropolitan elite friends is not very nice’.”

The ‘liberal metropolitan elite’ certainly didn’t approve of Farage’s comment that he preferred immigrants from India and Australia to those from Eastern Europe. Evans does not disagree with her leader. “I used to joke sometimes particularly with some of my Hindu friends, and I'd say 'sometimes you're more British than I am in terms of your attitudes and ambitions and also love for the English language and love for the country'. So I think we do actually have through the Commonwealth a common culture.”

Evans also agrees with her boss that Britain should give priority to Christian refugees. “There's nowhere else for them to go,” she says. She advocates taking “one thousand, two thousand” refugees a year from those fleeing across the Mediterranean, though she is unconvinced that all those who make the hazardous trip do so for well-intentioned reasons, quoting a friend who came on a boat from Albania 20 years ago.

“He says: 'I know six out of ten people on those boats are people who are economic migrants get on those boats they take their luck, whether rightly or wrongly they have been sold a vision that they will get across, and I know that they are coming over with criminal intent' - that's him saying that not me, someone who has actually been on a boat.”

But her main focus is on the election; Evans is dividing her time between Shrewsbury and Atcham, where she is standing for Parliament, albeit in a seat that does not rank among Ukip’s targets, and media studios in London. “I’m probably most use for the party there.”

Evans repeats her previous prediction that Ukip will win eight seats, and “at least 100 second places.”

“That will be fantastic and I think we will do that. People will see that we're a real challenger and then it’s 2020, when I think we could realistically be the opposition.”

But whatever happens next week, Evans intends for the electorate to see plenty more of her in  the coming years. “I’m loving it. I’m certainly not going to leave politics,” she says. “I think I’m fairly good at it - people seem to think I am." Farage certainly agrees.

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era