Another Reform blunder

Reform is embroiled in another undercover reporting “scandal”. This time it’s relatively trivial, but everyone’s making out like some offhand quasi-racist remarks by two nonentity councillors are earth shatteringly offensive. Personally, I don’t think it plays particularly well for the media because it looks like they’re basically spying on the party while giving the rest of them a free pass, thereby undermining the impact of the Channel 4 sting operation a few weeks ago.

As Steve Edginton remarks “This is not the Truman show. Political parties need space to debate policies, vet candidates, discuss strategy and reject bad ideas. A suggestion made in a private meeting is not necessarily a policy. A foolish remark or joke is not always evidence of corruption or bigotry”.

For my part, I don’t even care. It actually looks worse for the Tories when they pile in, making themselves look even more like Lib Dems. Reform should be more concerned about their persistent slump in the polls - which is more to do with their overall performance. It’s not one thing. It’s a culmination of things.

It is worth recording that a few days ago, Zia Yusuf again openly contradicted Suella Braverman who has stated, quite accurately, that she is not English. In an interview by Sophy Ridge, he went on to say “But I will also say, every single person that you just mentioned there, whether it's Saka, Ashley Cole, Rio Ferdinand, Nasser Hussain, who I grew up watching when I went to the cricket, the idea that those people aren't English, is an alien concept to me. I would respectfully disagree with people, who make the opposite argument”.

I note that Nasser Hussain was born in Madras, India into a Muslim family. Zia Yusuf thinks he's English. This is part of what is now a long running debate about nationality, ethnicity and identity, where again the politicians are completely incoherent and light years behind the comprehension curve. The debate last week was re-sparked by yet another foreign born individual taking up a seat in Westminster. Sagal Abdi-Wali was born in Somalia in 1984.

This is relevant because the British people are being shunted out of their own law making process, cheered on by a Kashmiri belonging to a party led by a Nigerian anchor baby. Everyone's allowed to acknowledge their ethnicity, except the English. You don’t have to be a full-blown ethnonationalist to recognise that this is a problem and that it is not right. It is something the insurgent party of the right should have a coherent position on, but can’t even agree on basic definitions of ethnicity and nationality.

It is further problematic because it’s also a reflection of the growing sectarianism and separatism in wider society - which demands a robust policy response. If Reform’s leader-in-waiting is civic nationalist to the extent that a foreign born individual qualifies as English, then we simply cannot expect policy coherence from Reform at all. Braverman might be singing a pleasing tune, but just like Danny Kruger, she is out on her own.

It is precisely this ambiguity that means Reform is not trusted by the right. This week Reform has pledge to close the asylum system entirely in a series of announcements calibrated to fend off Restore Britain, but more and more people are starting to notice that Reform policy announcements aren’t worth the paper they’re not even written on. We’re still seeing senior Reform figures undermining each other because there is still no fixed definition of what the party is for.

What’s interesting about the other hidden ITV camera footage is how the party was so keen to throw Rear Admiral Chris Parry under the bus following his remarks about David Lammy. As Parry notes:

People will remember Lammy's vehement advocacy for trillions of pounds of reparations from the United Kingdom and his strident identification as a person from the Caribbean.

In February 2025, Caribbean nations were pressing hard for reparations. Lammy had recently been to Guyana (where he also holds citizenship) and the Caribbean, reportedly on government business, and had expressed his support for reparations. I therefore tweeted that he should ‘go back to the Caribbean where loyalty lies’. The timing and wording of the tweet were heavily context specific.

Anyone viewing the tweets objectively would see that the issue was about reparations not race and I was highlighting David Lammy’s much-trumpeted divided loyalties as Foreign Secretary as a dual citizen and his previous claims to be a ‘proud Caribbean’, demanding reparations.

Against my better judgment, I was initially silenced by the Party’s media team and unable to explain the nuance.

This meant that the story became increasingly distorted as it was exploited by hostile politicians, a truth-bending Prime Minister and a media feeding frenzy at my expense. I was subsequently pressured to apologise and reluctantly consented to save face for the Party and out of loyalty to Nigel Farage.

This is central to the debate about nationality and ethnicity. There is an established pattern of ethnic minority politicians picking and choosing their identities at will, often demonstrating divided loyalties, or a willingness to use their position to advance their ethnic interests. This, more than anything, is what is eroding any kind of shared civic identity, giving rise to ethnic identity politics among the natives. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Parry is right to call it out.

It would appear, though, that Reform is unwilling to make a stand on this point, thereby not even living up to the standards of robust civic nationalism, begging the question what the party is even for.

Moreover, we’ve seen big hitters in Reform come and go, but to alienate and lose Parry of all people is just boneheaded. For readers who don’t know, Rear Admiral Dr Chris Parry was a crewman on XP142 (pictured above), a Westland Wessex HAS.3 nicknamed Humphrey, which delivered the depth charges that helped disable the Argentine submarine ARA Santa Fe.

As well as being a bona fide war hero (certainly in my eyes), Dr Parry has, as I understand it, also authored a number of defence reviews which would have made him an important policy resource, especially since Reform, quite famously, doesn’t have a defence spokesman. Not that the party is at all interested in policy.

Parry’s remarks about Lammy were entirely defensible, and should have been defended. Parry would have been wildly popular as part of Reform’s top team - and would likely have walked a Westminster election contest in Portsmouth. It all rather points to a party that is pointless, incompetent, and spineless.