By far the best way to get people to change how they vote is convince them that your policies are the best for them, their community, their nation.
Maybe a good place to start with that would be to actually ask them what they think would be best for them, their community, and their nation - and then use their answers to develop policies they'll actually vote for?
Convincing them that they shouldn't vote for a different party is as likely to turn them into non-voters ... and failing to do so is likely to just strengthen their views in favour of the other party.
I think there's an element of "he must be doing something right if all the establishment parties are against him" going on.
By far the best way to get people to change how they vote is convince them that your policies are the best for them, their community, their nation.
Maybe a good place to start with that would be to actually ask them what they think would be best for them, their community, and their nation - and then use their answers to develop policies they'll actually vote for? <snip>
I certainly think there’s value in asking them what theirs and their community’s needs are. People are usually quite accurate about that. They can, however, be very wrong about the causes of those needs and about what should be done to address them.
By far the best way to get people to change how they vote is convince them that your policies are the best for them, their community, their nation.
Maybe a good place to start with that would be to actually ask them what they think would be best for them, their community, and their nation - and then use their answers to develop policies they'll actually vote for?
Ah yes. "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." Or, less poetically, government by focus group.
By far the best way to get people to change how they vote is convince them that your policies are the best for them, their community, their nation.
Maybe a good place to start with that would be to actually ask them what they think would be best for them, their community, and their nation - and then use their answers to develop policies they'll actually vote for?
Ah yes. "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." Or, less poetically, government by focus group.
Or, especially when people already have an opinion of politicians being only in it for the massive salary and expenses, the response is "they're only telling me what they think I want to hear to vote for them so they have another 5 years of the high pay and no work" - which, again, is likely to drive voters away from voting or into the hands of those who claim they're not in it for the money.
I like the idea of political integrity - "this is what we believe, this is how we believe it'll help you with the concerns you have. Don't like it, fine, vote for someone else." probably coupled with a "judge us for what we say" rather than "for what the other parties say we say".
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
None of the main parties in the UK claim to be fascist, even if you believe them to be fascist.
It's true, they don't. Of course I don't think any major party anywhere actively claims to be fascist. The brand suffered somewhat in the years around 1940.
To be fair I would not previously have regarded Reform as fascist: but now that they are continuing to identify with Trump as his government becomes increasingly extreme, my view is shifting. It seems characteristic of Trump that he drags his fellow-travellers to unpleasant places they might not have reached without him. A sinister trait.
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
I also think that cancelling local elections plays right into Farage's hands as it gives Reform an opportunity to play the 'Look, we told you so! The mainstream parties are cutting us out of the political process! The establishment must be worried about us otherwise they wouldn't be doing that ...'
Not a smart move.
Populist politics thrives on the idea that the rest of the world is against it. What better way to forget the sense that you are an heroic outlier taking on The System.
Own goal.
Playing into his hands in this way isn't a smart thing to do.
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
Even if his conspiracy theory was right it would just make Labour 'Reform lite' and bad for the same reasons- as we know what Farage's pals think about elections and their tastes for 'managed democracy'.
It's just a way of him changing the subject as it's so obvious what they are now in the light of who they've sucked up to all along
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
I know what the official reason is and it's easy to find
I also know what the opinion polls say.
I am merely being logical because the official reason just isn't good enough
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
I know what the official reason is and it's easy to find
I also know what the opinion polls say.
I am merely being logical because the official reason just isn't good enough
Do you think it is logical to have elections for bodies that will shortly cease to exist? Is that a productive use of taxpayers' money?
This isn’t quite right. Elections for nine councils in England have been postponed from May 2025 to May 2026, so that the councils can take part in local government reorganisation. All other local elections will go ahead as planned in May, however.
and further down in the story
Some councils in England with elections scheduled for May 2025, including all county councils and some unitary authorities, have been able to ask the government for these to be postponed, if the councils wish to take part in the first phase of the government’s reorganisation plans.
…
Sixteen county councils and two unitary authorities asked the government for permission to postpone their local elections to take part in this local government reorganisation, with nine of these requests now granted.
…
Some 33 local authority elections were initially due to take place in England on 1 May 2025, including for all 21 county councils, nine unitary councils, the unitary authority of Thurrock, and one metropolitan district council (City of Doncaster), as well as the Isles of Scilly.
…
elections will be postponed to May 2026 in seven county councils (East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey and West Sussex), as well as two unitary councils (Thurrock and Isle of Wight). Six of these councils are under Conservative control, while East Sussex and the Isle of Wight are under no overall control and Thurrock is under Labour control.
Full story in the link - but, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good soundbite.
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
I know what the official reason is and it's easy to find
I also know what the opinion polls say.
I am merely being logical because the official reason just isn't good enough
Do you think it is logical to have elections for bodies that will shortly cease to exist? Is that a productive use of taxpayers' money?
Though no one should minimise the downsides of postponing elections - appreciate it’s a different situation but speaking as a resident of a ‘new’ unitary that was imposed with 4 year terms on 100% turnover it has now been 4 years since anyone in our area has had a local election, and frustration with a set of councillors set in stone 4 years ago is at boiling point. Even with low turnouts, people expect their annual safety valve.
Except for by-elections, all councils in Scotland have elections every five years. Next election will be May 2027. It doesn't seem that much of a problem having a relatively stable local government for 5 years rather than a constant turn over of councillors with the resulting shifts in control. I've not seen any suggestion that there should be annual elections for our MPs, why should the local council be different?
Though, people will always complain about their councils. Possibly even more than they complain about national government.
The dirty secret of local government, in Scotland certainly, is that there isn't much that councillors can really control. They mostly tinker around the edges of the budget and follow the advice of council officers.
Though no one should minimise the downsides of postponing elections - appreciate it’s a different situation but speaking as a resident of a ‘new’ unitary that was imposed with 4 year terms on 100% turnover it has now been 4 years since anyone in our area has had a local election, and frustration with a set of councillors set in stone 4 years ago is at boiling point. Even with low turnouts, people expect their annual safety valve.
You may be boiling, but from experience, and also from typical local election turnouts, it is unlikely that most of the electorate are really all that interested.
For once, I am persuaded by the reasons government have given for acceding to this proposal, and think the objections are driven pretty well entirely by political enthusiasts, especially Faragist ones, wanting any opportunity they can manufacture to stir the pot.
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
I know what the official reason is and it's easy to find
I also know what the opinion polls say.
I am merely being logical because the official reason just isn't good enough
Do you think it is logical to have elections for bodies that will shortly cease to exist? Is that a productive use of taxpayers' money?
How much do Council elections cost the tax payer ?
Just saying that I doubt I can contribute anything worthwhile on the core subject of discussion on this thread.
Others may tell me that there must be something wrong with me, or that I am emotionally hopelessly out of touch with both the zeitgeist and my fellow citizens. Nevertheless, I find Mr Farage such an unattractive person and political cause that it is beyond my range of perception to understand why or to identify with anyone would want to listen to him or be attracted by his message.
The nearest I can get is to assume that in some way he stirs people who already think or feel as what he presents himself as speaking for. I don't even think or feel sufficiently that way even to be able to imagine myself into their shoes. He just comes over to me as a flash wide boy and a saloon bar bore. There were people who were likely to turn out that way when I was at school. I didn't like them then and I don't trust them now.
Although I have been following this thread fairly closely, I haven't learnt anything as yet that has changed me on this or enlarged my understanding.
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
I know what the official reason is and it's easy to find
I also know what the opinion polls say.
I am merely being logical because the official reason just isn't good enough
Do you think it is logical to have elections for bodies that will shortly cease to exist? Is that a productive use of taxpayers' money?
How much do Council elections cost the tax payer ?
Elections are expensive, the costs for a local election not being much different from a general election. Big costs include polling staff (2 people at each polling station, usually 2-3 stations at each polling place, drivers to deliver and collect ballot boxes and all the stuff at polling stations, people to count ballots, returning officer and their staff), hire of polling places, printing ballot papers and delivery of postal votes, publication of notices.
The cost of the council by-election for Colinton, Edinburgh, in November was widely reported after the LibDem candidate elected resigned after just six says - as £76,758.87. The Glasgow North East by-election where the Labour candidate elected wasn't qualified to take her seat was reported to have cost about £80,000. So that seems to be a decent ball park of costs per ward, there will be some cost savings in a full election with all wards contested at once - but an election in Scotland would cost somewhere in the vicinity of £15m.
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
I know what the official reason is and it's easy to find
I also know what the opinion polls say.
I am merely being logical because the official reason just isn't good enough
Do you think it is logical to have elections for bodies that will shortly cease to exist? Is that a productive use of taxpayers' money?
How much do Council elections cost the tax payer ?
Elections are expensive, the costs for a local election not being much different from a general election. Big costs include polling staff (2 people at each polling station, usually 2-3 stations at each polling place, drivers to deliver and collect ballot boxes and all the stuff at polling stations, people to count ballots, returning officer and their staff), hire of polling places, printing ballot papers and delivery of postal votes, publication of notices.
The cost of the council by-election for Colinton, Edinburgh, in November was widely reported after the LibDem candidate elected resigned after just six says - as £76,758.87. The Glasgow North East by-election where the Labour candidate elected wasn't qualified to take her seat was reported to have cost about £80,000. So that seems to be a decent ball park of costs per ward, there will be some cost savings in a full election with all wards contested at once - but an election in Scotland would cost somewhere in the vicinity of £15m.
One problem is that the elections may be cancelled again in 2026 if they haven't sorted things out.
Why strange? Reform are a party rising in the polls, in those circumstances they'd want to contest as many elections as possible. Being able to point to big swings in their favour and seats won boosts their position even more, making them look even more credible. If elections are postponed they might not be in as strong a position when they are held.
Is cancelling elections in order to thwart your opponents the democratic thing to do?
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
I know what the official reason is and it's easy to find
I also know what the opinion polls say.
I am merely being logical because the official reason just isn't good enough
Do you think it is logical to have elections for bodies that will shortly cease to exist? Is that a productive use of taxpayers' money?
How much do Council elections cost the tax payer ?
Elections are expensive, the costs for a local election not being much different from a general election. Big costs include polling staff (2 people at each polling station, usually 2-3 stations at each polling place, drivers to deliver and collect ballot boxes and all the stuff at polling stations, people to count ballots, returning officer and their staff), hire of polling places, printing ballot papers and delivery of postal votes, publication of notices.
The cost of the council by-election for Colinton, Edinburgh, in November was widely reported after the LibDem candidate elected resigned after just six says - as £76,758.87. The Glasgow North East by-election where the Labour candidate elected wasn't qualified to take her seat was reported to have cost about £80,000. So that seems to be a decent ball park of costs per ward, there will be some cost savings in a full election with all wards contested at once - but an election in Scotland would cost somewhere in the vicinity of £15m.
One problem is that the elections may be cancelled again in 2026 if they haven't sorted things out.
That's a reason not to authorise a delay in 2026, not a reason to refuse one now.
Although certain (types of) people are forever moaning about the 'Clowncil' (how witty these people are!) on local media, the truth is the great majority are not exercised by local politics. Evidence? In my ward, electoral turnout ranges from 25%-30%. Never more. I doubt there are many wards with more than 35% turnout.
In the real world, most people are too busy with their lives to care. Indeed, I am tempted to say that those with most to say on local issues are unrepresentative cranks.
An alternative view is that a certain government, headed by a certain woman, took so much power away from the local government that what is left is irrelevant. Maybe it would be better and cheaper to appoint a local Prefet and have done with the costs of mock democracy.
An alternative view is that a certain government, headed by a certain woman, took so much power away from the local government that what is left is irrelevant. Maybe it would be better and cheaper to appoint a local Prefet and have done with the costs of mock democracy.
Yeah, but then the cranks would turn their fire on the people actually responsible for cuts - the UK government. Local politics takes some of the heat off ministers.
Farage has explicitly admired both Trump and Putin over the years. He hasn't changed - he's just trying to weasel out of the consequences of what he's admired so much
Farage is in America raising funds for Donald Trump's Republican party in case anyone was in any doubt about what he is and what those who shill for him are
Farage is in America raising funds for Donald Trump's Republican party in case anyone was in any doubt about what he is and what those who shill for him are
There are some very apt quotes in that linked article from the Guardian.
A huge difference between his outside earnings and Geoffrey Cox's, is that Cox at least earns his from what what was already his career before he was a politician, whereas Farage's allegedly outside earnings are no more than a spin-off, a bye-product, of his political personality. Nobody would pay him to advertise gold or present on GeeBeebies if it wasn't for that notoriety.
As with Johnson, it does puzzle me who wastes their money spending to to hear him speak? You can get a really good meal, a much better one than typically served up at a public event, for oneself and ones' friends - people one can actually choose to spend one's time with - in a top quality venue for a lot less than the equivalent of $25,000.
There are plenty of people who still find ‘Boris’ amusing, largely pub bore types, but there’s enough of them and plenty of them in middle to upper management in some industries.
There are plenty of people who still find ‘Boris’ amusing, largely pub bore types, but there’s enough of them and plenty of them in middle to upper management in some industries.
Plus it’s a form of deferred compensation.
He is still falling upwards. Send him to Russia he will feel at home there
That something was going to be an opportunity to meet people who pay money to meet others who pay to meet Johnson would strike me as a very good reason to want to avoid all of them.
As with Johnson, it does puzzle me who wastes their money spending to to hear him speak? You can get a really good meal, a much better one than typically served up at a public event, for oneself and ones' friends - people one can actually choose to spend one's time with - in a top quality venue for a lot less than the equivalent of $25,000.
People actually pay that to hear those wankpuffins speak?!?
I've just checked the currency converter, and that's more than the cost of my first house. 😳
People actually pay that to hear those wankpuffins speak?!?
Not really, no. They mostly pay it for the networking opportunities such events provide.
Yebbut. That still leaves the question, who would you expect to find at these occasions that any normal person would want to network with?
Business leaders, investment bankers, lobbying interests, foreign politicians, etc.
It's often commented on that such people operate on a form of closed network that makes sure their priorities are reflected by the government and that they will always have another job to fall into should their current one (especially if it's in politics) goes wrong - a self-preservation society dedicated to mutual back-scratching and favour-granting. Well, events like this are how that network is maintained. Politicians (or former politicians) are paid handsomely for giving talks, and in return the attendees get a chance to bend their ears about whatever issues are concerning them with the implied promise that those concerns will ultimately reach the ears of those in government. Meanwhile, attendees also have the opportunity to network with each other and brainstorm strategies for the mutual benefit of themselves and the companies they represent in an off-the-record way.
Frankly, for such people $25,000 is peanuts to pay for such opportunities. Especially as most of them will be putting it on expenses anyway.
Whether any of that constitutes what you'd call a "normal person" is as irrelevant as so-called "normal people" are to those involved.
Best way to challenge Mr Farage? Detail his public expressions for Trump, Musk, Taylor Greene, etc, collect their inflammatory statements and ask him, one by one, if he agrees with them.
Comments
Maybe a good place to start with that would be to actually ask them what they think would be best for them, their community, and their nation - and then use their answers to develop policies they'll actually vote for?
I think there's an element of "he must be doing something right if all the establishment parties are against him" going on.
Ah yes. "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." Or, less poetically, government by focus group.
I like the idea of political integrity - "this is what we believe, this is how we believe it'll help you with the concerns you have. Don't like it, fine, vote for someone else." probably coupled with a "judge us for what we say" rather than "for what the other parties say we say".
That's the problem!
Or their asshole-detector radar is on the blink.
Or …….?
It's true, they don't. Of course I don't think any major party anywhere actively claims to be fascist. The brand suffered somewhat in the years around 1940.
To be fair I would not previously have regarded Reform as fascist: but now that they are continuing to identify with Trump as his government becomes increasingly extreme, my view is shifting. It seems characteristic of Trump that he drags his fellow-travellers to unpleasant places they might not have reached without him. A sinister trait.
I think @Telford was being sarcastic.
I also think that cancelling local elections plays right into Farage's hands as it gives Reform an opportunity to play the 'Look, we told you so! The mainstream parties are cutting us out of the political process! The establishment must be worried about us otherwise they wouldn't be doing that ...'
Not a smart move.
Populist politics thrives on the idea that the rest of the world is against it. What better way to forget the sense that you are an heroic outlier taking on The System.
Own goal.
Playing into his hands in this way isn't a smart thing to do.
And you know that is the real reason, rather than the one which had been stated, how exactly?
Accusations of anti-democratic dishonesty need evidencing.
Even if his conspiracy theory was right it would just make Labour 'Reform lite' and bad for the same reasons- as we know what Farage's pals think about elections and their tastes for 'managed democracy'.
It's just a way of him changing the subject as it's so obvious what they are now in the light of who they've sucked up to all along
I know what the official reason is and it's easy to find
I also know what the opinion polls say.
I am merely being logical because the official reason just isn't good enough
Do you think it is logical to have elections for bodies that will shortly cease to exist? Is that a productive use of taxpayers' money?
Full story in the link - but, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good soundbite.
Though no one should minimise the downsides of postponing elections - appreciate it’s a different situation but speaking as a resident of a ‘new’ unitary that was imposed with 4 year terms on 100% turnover it has now been 4 years since anyone in our area has had a local election, and frustration with a set of councillors set in stone 4 years ago is at boiling point. Even with low turnouts, people expect their annual safety valve.
Though, people will always complain about their councils. Possibly even more than they complain about national government.
For once, I am persuaded by the reasons government have given for acceding to this proposal, and think the objections are driven pretty well entirely by political enthusiasts, especially Faragist ones, wanting any opportunity they can manufacture to stir the pot.
How much do Council elections cost the tax payer ?
Just saying that I doubt I can contribute anything worthwhile on the core subject of discussion on this thread.
Others may tell me that there must be something wrong with me, or that I am emotionally hopelessly out of touch with both the zeitgeist and my fellow citizens. Nevertheless, I find Mr Farage such an unattractive person and political cause that it is beyond my range of perception to understand why or to identify with anyone would want to listen to him or be attracted by his message.
The nearest I can get is to assume that in some way he stirs people who already think or feel as what he presents himself as speaking for. I don't even think or feel sufficiently that way even to be able to imagine myself into their shoes. He just comes over to me as a flash wide boy and a saloon bar bore. There were people who were likely to turn out that way when I was at school. I didn't like them then and I don't trust them now.
Although I have been following this thread fairly closely, I haven't learnt anything as yet that has changed me on this or enlarged my understanding.
The cost of the council by-election for Colinton, Edinburgh, in November was widely reported after the LibDem candidate elected resigned after just six says - as £76,758.87. The Glasgow North East by-election where the Labour candidate elected wasn't qualified to take her seat was reported to have cost about £80,000. So that seems to be a decent ball park of costs per ward, there will be some cost savings in a full election with all wards contested at once - but an election in Scotland would cost somewhere in the vicinity of £15m.
One problem is that the elections may be cancelled again in 2026 if they haven't sorted things out.
That's a reason not to authorise a delay in 2026, not a reason to refuse one now.
FWIW the 2019 general election came in at around £150 million https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/costs-of-the-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election/costs-of-the-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election
And that's just from central funds. Not a huge sum in terms of overall government expenditure, but large enough to pause before pissing away needlessly.
In the real world, most people are too busy with their lives to care. Indeed, I am tempted to say that those with most to say on local issues are unrepresentative cranks.
An alternative view is that a certain government, headed by a certain woman, took so much power away from the local government that what is left is irrelevant. Maybe it would be better and cheaper to appoint a local Prefet and have done with the costs of mock democracy.
Yeah, but then the cranks would turn their fire on the people actually responsible for cuts - the UK government. Local politics takes some of the heat off ministers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mw0r4xm0jo
Going back in the discussion just to say that this second sentence is the most wonderful glorious understatement and I salute @TurquoiseTastic for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/20/nigel-farage-to-give-speech-at-25000-ticket-trump-fundraiser-in-florida
Well, what a surprise. He really is a Placobdelloides jaegerskioeldi isn't he?
A huge difference between his outside earnings and Geoffrey Cox's, is that Cox at least earns his from what what was already his career before he was a politician, whereas Farage's allegedly outside earnings are no more than a spin-off, a bye-product, of his political personality. Nobody would pay him to advertise gold or present on GeeBeebies if it wasn't for that notoriety.
As with Johnson, it does puzzle me who wastes their money spending to to hear him speak? You can get a really good meal, a much better one than typically served up at a public event, for oneself and ones' friends - people one can actually choose to spend one's time with - in a top quality venue for a lot less than the equivalent of $25,000.
Plus it’s a form of deferred compensation.
He is still falling upwards. Send him to Russia he will feel at home there
I've just checked the currency converter, and that's more than the cost of my first house. 😳
Not really, no. They mostly pay it for the networking opportunities such events provide.
Networking? I'd have thought the majority of the audience at such events would mainly be of interest to students of psychiatry/psychology.
Business leaders, investment bankers, lobbying interests, foreign politicians, etc.
It's often commented on that such people operate on a form of closed network that makes sure their priorities are reflected by the government and that they will always have another job to fall into should their current one (especially if it's in politics) goes wrong - a self-preservation society dedicated to mutual back-scratching and favour-granting. Well, events like this are how that network is maintained. Politicians (or former politicians) are paid handsomely for giving talks, and in return the attendees get a chance to bend their ears about whatever issues are concerning them with the implied promise that those concerns will ultimately reach the ears of those in government. Meanwhile, attendees also have the opportunity to network with each other and brainstorm strategies for the mutual benefit of themselves and the companies they represent in an off-the-record way.
Frankly, for such people $25,000 is peanuts to pay for such opportunities. Especially as most of them will be putting it on expenses anyway.
Whether any of that constitutes what you'd call a "normal person" is as irrelevant as so-called "normal people" are to those involved.
That's how you know you're in Hell - it's where you find Farage.
Lucky you - most of us on this side of the pond wish we'd never heard of him either.