The problem with Fox - aside from the obvious - is that he's none-too bright. He's inarticulate. He doesn't actually stand for anything, aside from being an agitator. What are his actual arguments? His political affiliations; yes, I know he's invented some nebulous 'Reclaim' party, but what does it actually stand for? What does it offer? What does it DO?
We don't know, because to date, Fox hasn't been able to tell us. He stands against 'Woke'. What is that? How has its meaning become bastardised? How's it open to interpretation, and why has this turned out to be problematic, given the increasingly fuzzy boundaries between left and right (and people's conviction that a particular view is valid because it's seen to come from one of those two sides)? This weirdly evasive definition becomes even more problematic when we realize one side is masquerading as the other, and vice versa, and the parameters have become so indistinct that they now might as well not exist.
What is 'free speech?' Has total freedom of speech under UK law ever been possible? (Answer, no. Nor would it be a good idea if hit had. You can't go around making threats to kill people, for eg). What about others' free speech to pull your BS apart, or is he suggesting an unqualified opinion should stand without challenge? If so, what does that mean for others' free speech? Where's the responsibility that comes with it? Where does he apply the rule of 'your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts? (Answer, nowhere. Because he doesn't).
The problem with Fox is that he's biting off more than he can chew, because he talks in soundbites and is not intelligent enough to provide the context, nuance or arguments to back up his sloganeering. He's merely an agent provocateur who's good at whipping up dissent against the nebulous THEY, and persuading his mindless supporters to follow him. Beyond that - and beyond hating women, PoC, and so-called 'wokery' - he's a facade.
He stands for nothing.