Tina’s Take…
Hello and welcome to Edition No.7 of Tina’s Take, the newsletter where I look at what recent events tell us about leadership, communications and public trust – because understanding what’s driving people’s frustration and distrust helps us respond more effectively, whether in politics, business or public life.
Coming up:
- Farage’s Biggest Risk Isn’t the £5 Million 🧑✈️
- The Danger of Fighting the Wrong Battle 🥤
- Tips & Bits – includes an encounter with Ron DeSantis 📺🎧
Farage’s Biggest Risk Isn’t the £5 Million 🧑✈️
Several things can be true at the same time – especially when it comes to politics.
Scrutiny of Nigel Farage’s £5million and other financial gifts in the 12 months prior to him becoming an MP is legitimate. His argument that it amounts to some kind of Establishment stitch-up is neither true nor convincing.
However, I can see why, politically, he is trying to portray himself as a victim, and to conflate scrutiny of his finances with the Establishment’s reaction to the 2016 EU Referendum result. Many of his supporters will inevitably see it that way, having watched the lengths to which many MPs, peers, public figures and institutions went during the three years that followed to try to prevent Brexit from happening.
But there is an important distinction.
The Establishment’s reaction to Brexit was about protecting itself and the status quo. Whereas the rules requiring transparency around political donations exist for an entirely different reason: to protect voters.
It is, of course, Nigel Farage’s prerogative to call a by-election in his own constituency. Equally, he is politically astute enough to know that provoking his opponents into a fight he is likely to win would suit him perfectly. They were equally wise not to take the bait.
But Nigel Farage undermines his own credibility by claiming he is fighting this by-election for the benefit of voters, when it is obviously for no-one’s benefit other than his own.
For most people, proper scrutiny of a £5million gift seems reasonable, even though Nigel Farage argues he has not broken any rules. But that does not mean they welcome any of his opponents suggesting the gift makes him ‘bad’ or ‘unsuitable’ to become prime minister.
They will be the judge of that, as will the people of Clacton if the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner finds he was wrong not to register the donation. At that point his constituents have the power to decide whether or not to trigger a by-election.
The test for anyone seeking power in the eyes of voters comes down to the same thing: have they shown they understand what needs to be done and can be trusted to get it done?
If there is one important lesson Nigel Farage could learn from Boris Johnson, it is why Boris eventually lost public support.
Boris was applauded for rule-breaking when he broke rules for the benefit of voters – whether bulldozing Parliamentary procedure or provoking opponents of Brexit into the Supreme Court. But COVID parties that broke the rules when everyone else was told to stay home, and seeking to rewrite Parliamentary rules for his cronies to escape sanction when they had done wrong, was far beyond the pale and crossed a very different line.
What ultimately did for Boris—and what could yet do for Farage—is the moment voters conclude that he is no longer laughing with them but laughing at them and at their expense.
The Danger of Fighting the Wrong Battle 🥤
It’s not only politicians who can be persuaded to fight the wrong battle.
During the 1980s, Pepsi’s famous Taste Challenge featured genuine blind taste tests showing many people preferred Pepsi to Coca-Cola. The campaign proved hugely successful—not simply because it promoted Pepsi, but because it provoked Coca-Cola into doubting itself.
The result was ‘New Coke’: a reformulation of one of the world’s most recognisable brands. Consumers hated it. Public outrage followed, and within weeks Coca-Cola was forced into an embarrassing retreat.
Pepsi hadn’t simply challenged its rival’s product. It had challenged its confidence.
Your competitors don’t always need to defeat you. Sometimes they simply need to persuade you to abandon your own strengths.
Tips & Bits 📺🎧
What I’m Watching
For a laugh… 🎭📺 If you have HBO, The Comeback is well worth your time.
It’s different – and the first series takes a bit of tuning-in (which might be why it didn’t get a second series when it first aired in 2005). But it’s brilliantly observed and genuinely funny.
Written by and starring Lisa Kudrow, the series becomes even more impressive when you realise each of its three seasons was made roughly a decade apart, allowing it to chart both its characters and the television industry over time.
Once you’ve finished the final series, I’d also recommend The Comeback Official Podcast, where Lisa Kudrow and co-creator Michael Patrick King discuss how the show came together and reflects the changing world of television over the last 20 years.
For a cry… 🎭📺 The announcement this week of a conditional pardon for Ruth Ellis prompts me to recommend ITVX’s excellent four-part drama A Cruel Love, starring Lucy Boynton, Toby Jones and Laurie Davidson. I first watched it when it aired early last year.
It’s beautifully acted and tells an extraordinary story that rightly raises uncomfortable questions about justice decades later.
One Conversation That Stayed With Me 💬
I’ve been lucky enough to attend some fabulous summer parties over the past few weeks, where I’ve been thrilled to see some old friends and meet lots of interesting new people.
One unexpected conversation was with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis – to whom I decided to introduce myself. Seeing him reminded me of an exchange I had 25 years ago with another Florida Governor, Jeb Bush.
At the time, Conservative Campaign Headquarters had identified “Florida Families” as an important voter group. Curious, Governor Bush emailed the Party to ask what we meant.
Unfortunately, CCHQ hadn’t quite caught up with the importance of email (my defence is that it was a relatively new form of communication for voters in the UK). So, instead of receiving a reply from a real person, he received an automated message informing him that his comments had been noted.
To his enormous credit (and my relief once I discovered what had happened), he emailed back to explain—politely but firmly—why this was such a poor way to engage with people. (Jeb Bush was a prolific emailer renowned for spending hours every week replying directly to his constituents)
It was a valuable lesson. We improved our approach and William Hague then built a strong relationship with Governor Bush.
I’m not sure Ron DeSantis was expecting when I boldly said hello. But we agreed that story served as a reminder that while technology changes, one principle rarely does: people want to know there is another human being listening at the other end.
That’s it for this edition of Tina’s Take. Thank you for reading. You can also find it on LinkedIn and X – and any ‘likes’ or messages of support on those platforms are gratefully received. But the best way to guarantee you never miss an edition, is to sign up below to receive it direct to your inbox every month. It also means you can just hit reply to send me your comments and feedback – which I love to receive.
And if anything in this edition sparked an idea for an event, panel discussion or speaking opportunity, do please get in touch via my email info@tinastowell.co.uk or the Contact Page here on my website.
I’ll be back in September!
Best wishes,
Tina
