Nigel Farage is “fanning the flames of hatred and intolerance” to make himself richer and get into power, the Lib Dem leader has claimed.
Article continues below
Sir Ed Davey accused the Reform UK leader trying to create “division and fear”, and described stopping Mr Farage’s party as the “fight of our lives”.
His comments came in a speech closing his party conference, where Sir Ed also announced an income tax cut he claimed could save millions of people £680 a year.
Article continues below
Warning of the rise of the far-right, he said: “This is a far-right movement that is given oxygen, and heat, and fuel by politicians and parties who claim to be serious contenders to lead our country.
“Cynical politicians like Nigel Farage. Not just willing, but eager to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance to make himself richer. To get himself into power.
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. More info
“Trying to create a nation of division and fear – because that’s what keeps him going. That is not who we are.
“It is the worst of Trump’s America. We must not let it become Farage’s Britain. It has real consequences, on our streets and in our communities.”
The Lib Dem leader gave the example of attacks on volunteers of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and also raised concerns over the party being backed by £72 million from two crypto billionaires.
Article continues below
He added: “We are in the fight of our lives. And it is a fight we must win.”
The Kingston and Surbiton MP also claimed Kemi Badenoch was driving people away from the Tories towards the Lib Dems.
He said: “Kemi Badenoch is now blocking anyone from standing for the Conservatives who cares about human rights or climate action.
Article continues below
“Millions of decent, moderate Conservative voters are getting her message, and they’re turning away – increasingly, to us.
“That’s what happens when you talk only to yourselves. You don’t just keep people out. You drive your own people away.”
Elsewhere in his speech Sir Ed promised to take 760,000 people out of the higher rate (40p) tax band by raising the threshold to £56,000.
Article continues below
The party says this would raise the tax-free personal allowance from £12,570 to £15,000, taking 2.5 million of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax completely.
Sir Ed said: “We can cut taxes and support the most vulnerable people in our country. Because we will pay for our tax cut fairly and honestly.
“Not with more borrowing. Not with fantasy spending cuts that never materialise. Not by hiking your taxes by stealth elsewhere. We will pay for it from the dividends of growth.”
Nigel Farage Accused of Using “Division and Fear” to Make Himself Richer
Nigel Farage has come under fierce criticism from Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, who accused the Reform UK leader of exploiting public anxiety and political divisions to increase his own wealth and gain power. The attack has intensified the debate over Farage’s political strategy, his personal finances and the growing influence of populist politics in Britain.
Davey made the remarks while delivering a speech at his party’s conference on September 22, 2026. He portrayed Reform UK as a political movement fuelled by anger and hostility, warning that its growing prominence could have serious consequences for Britain’s political culture.
The accusation that Farage is using division and fear for personal gain is a serious political charge, rather than an established finding about his motives. Nevertheless, it highlights a central disagreement between Reform UK and its opponents: whether Farage is giving a voice to legitimate public frustrations or turning those frustrations into a political strategy that benefits him personally.
Ed Davey launches a direct attack
Davey’s criticism was unusually personal. He accused Farage of fanning hatred and intolerance in pursuit of wealth and political power, arguing that the Reform leader’s approach encouraged people to view their fellow citizens as opponents rather than members of the same society.
The Liberal Democrat leader also warned that politicians who promote division can create an environment in which hostility towards minority groups becomes more acceptable. He described stopping Farage’s political advance as a major challenge for his party.
The speech formed part of the Liberal Democrats’ effort to establish a clearer identity in a political landscape increasingly shaped by Reform UK’s immigration policies, its criticism of the established parties and its claims that Westminster has failed ordinary people.
Davey’s argument was that political frustration should not be exploited for individual advancement. He challenged voters to consider not only the promises made by Reform UK but also the political consequences of its language and campaigning methods.
For Farage, the criticism fits a familiar pattern. He has spent years challenging the political establishment, presenting himself as an outsider prepared to say what other politicians allegedly refuse to acknowledge. His supporters regard that approach as evidence of political courage. His opponents see it as a strategy that can deepen social divisions.
The disagreement reflects a wider question about the responsibilities of political leaders when discussing sensitive issues such as immigration, national identity, crime and economic insecurity.
Why Farage’s political message resonates
Farage’s appeal cannot be understood solely through the criticism directed at him. Reform UK’s rise has been supported by voters who believe successive governments have failed to address problems affecting their communities.
Immigration is one of the most prominent issues in the party’s political programme. Reform has called for much stricter border controls, tougher action against illegal migration and substantial changes to the asylum system. The party argues that Britain needs greater control over who enters the country and that the existing system places unacceptable pressure on public services.
Its supporters also express dissatisfaction with the cost of living, housing shortages, taxation and the performance of established political parties. Some voters believe Labour and the Conservatives have offered different rhetoric but failed to deliver sufficiently different results.
Farage has successfully presented Reform UK as an alternative for people who feel ignored by Westminster. His communication style is direct, confrontational and designed to attract attention in a crowded media environment.
However, the same methods generate controversy. Critics argue that simplified explanations of complex problems can encourage the public to blame particular groups without adequately examining the wider economic, administrative and political factors involved.
The challenge for voters is to distinguish between legitimate criticism of government policy and claims that overstate the responsibility of particular communities for Britain’s difficulties.
A serious debate about immigration, for example, should consider border enforcement, labour-market demand, housing, public-service capacity and the contribution made by migrants. Reducing the entire discussion to a battle between opposing identities risks leaving important policy questions unanswered.
The question of personal wealth
Davey’s remarks also drew attention to the relationship between Farage’s political career and his personal finances.
Farage has maintained a high public profile through political campaigning, broadcasting, public appearances and social media. His work outside Parliament has helped establish him as a prominent media personality as well as the leader of a political party.
His financial affairs have also attracted scrutiny. In July 2026, questions intensified following reports that he had received a £5 million gift from cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne before the 2024 general election. The gift prompted questions about disclosure requirements and the relationship between Farage’s financial interests and his return to frontline politics.
Farage has denied wrongdoing and disputed the suggestion that the gift demonstrated improper conduct. He has offered explanations for receiving the money, including security-related reasons, while maintaining that the transaction was personal.
The circumstances have nevertheless become a subject of public debate and parliamentary scrutiny. Questions about the gift and whether it should have been declared have been examined separately from the broader political arguments made by his opponents.
It is important to distinguish between financial questions that can be investigated through documents and formal procedures and political accusations about a person’s motives. Receiving a gift does not, by itself, establish that a politician has used fear or division to become wealthier.
Equally, voters are entitled to ask how politicians fund their activities, what financial interests they hold and whether the rules governing transparency are sufficiently robust.
These questions matter regardless of party affiliation. Public confidence depends on clear disclosure requirements and consistent enforcement, not simply on whether a politician’s supporters or opponents find the person convincing.
Reform UK and the politics of division
The accusation that Farage benefits from division goes to the heart of the debate surrounding Reform UK.
The party frequently contrasts its own position with what it describes as the failures of the political establishment. It presents itself as a challenger to conventional thinking on immigration, public spending, national sovereignty and economic policy.
That message can mobilise voters who feel that established parties have not listened to them. But political communication built around a sharp division between ordinary people and an allegedly disconnected elite can also intensify mistrust.
Opponents argue that Farage’s rhetoric sometimes portrays national problems in ways that increase hostility towards migrants and other minority groups. Reform supporters counter that raising controversial subjects is not the same as promoting hatred, and that politicians should not be condemned simply for advocating stricter immigration controls or criticising government decisions.
Both the substance of a policy and the language used to promote it deserve examination. A proposal can be debated on its practical merits, while a politician’s statements can be assessed according to their accuracy, context and likely effect.
The key question is whether political arguments help the public understand the choices facing the country or encourage people to reach conclusions based primarily on resentment and fear.
For voters, this distinction is particularly important during periods of economic uncertainty. When living costs are high and public services are under pressure, explanations that identify a single culprit can be emotionally persuasive. But the causes of these problems are often complicated, involving long-term investment decisions, international developments, government policies and structural weaknesses.
A political movement that promises change should therefore be judged on the detail of its proposals as well as its ability to communicate public anger.
The Liberal Democrats seek to challenge Reform
Davey’s attack also reflects the Liberal Democrats’ attempt to distinguish themselves from both Reform UK and the larger established parties.
The Liberal Democrats have traditionally emphasised local representation, civil liberties, international cooperation and public-service reform. Their challenge is to demonstrate that these priorities can offer a credible response to voters who are frustrated with national politics.
At the conference, Davey announced an income-tax reduction that he said could save millions of people £680 a year. The proposal provided an economic alternative to Reform’s message and allowed the Liberal Democrats to argue that reducing pressure on household finances does not require the same political approach as Farage’s.
Tax proposals must ultimately be assessed through their funding arrangements, distributional effects and consequences for public services. Announced savings are meaningful only when voters can understand who qualifies, how the policy would operate and how the government would pay for it.
Nevertheless, the announcement illustrated the wider competition between parties seeking to persuade voters that they have practical answers to the cost-of-living crisis.
Davey’s strategy was to make the argument about more than personality. By presenting Farage’s approach as a threat to social cohesion, he sought to encourage voters to consider the broader implications of Reform UK’s political influence.
Whether that message resonates beyond the Liberal Democrats’ existing supporters will depend on how effectively the party connects its warnings about division with policies that address everyday concerns.
Can political anger produce meaningful change?
Farage’s success has demonstrated that public dissatisfaction can become a powerful political force. The established parties cannot assume that voters will remain loyal simply because they have traditionally supported Labour or the Conservatives.
People who are concerned about immigration, insecure employment, housing costs or declining local services deserve serious answers. Dismissing those concerns as illegitimate could strengthen the belief that political leaders are unwilling to listen.
At the same time, acknowledging public frustration does not mean accepting every explanation offered for it. Political leaders have a responsibility to distinguish between evidence and rhetoric, particularly when their words concern vulnerable groups or people who have limited influence over national policy.
The debate over Farage therefore raises an important question for the entire political system: can politicians respond to anger without making that anger the foundation of their campaigns?
A constructive approach would require clear proposals, credible financial plans and an honest explanation of the trade-offs involved. It would also require political leaders to accept scrutiny of their own finances, decisions and conduct.
These standards should apply equally to Farage, Davey and every other public figure seeking power.
A battle over Britain’s political future
Davey’s accusation that Farage is using division and fear to enrich himself is likely to remain part of the political argument surrounding Reform UK. It captures the concerns of critics who believe that the party’s confrontational style risks damaging public trust and increasing hostility between communities.
But the accusation also invites a broader examination of the conditions that have allowed Reform to gain support. Discontent with established parties, concerns about immigration and frustration with the economy cannot be understood simply as the product of political rhetoric. They are also connected to real questions about government performance and the future direction of the country.
Farage’s supporters will continue to argue that he is challenging a political system that has failed to deliver. His opponents will continue to question whether his methods provide lasting solutions or deepen existing divisions.
Ultimately, voters must assess the competing claims against evidence. That means examining policy proposals, financial transparency, public statements and actual results rather than relying exclusively on personal attacks or political slogans.
The confrontation between Davey and Farage illustrates how fiercely Britain’s parties are competing to define the country’s problems and identify who is responsible for them. It also demonstrates why the distinction between legitimate political criticism and unsupported accusations matters.
The most important question is not simply whether Farage’s opponents can defeat him politically. It is whether Britain’s political debate can produce practical answers to public concerns while preserving accountability, fairness and respect for the people affected by political decisions.