Reform’s national security review

Reform have today published their National Security Review. At a mere six pages of text, I’m not taking it as their definitive offering. In fairness, it isn't bad as a concise statement of intent. It succeeds in staking the territory and it is in the right conceptual ballpark. It is, however, too vague, and a lot of the ambitions are easier said than done. This will require several subsequent policies on national resilience, military industrial policy/procurement, defence integration into society, and specifics on armed forces composure.

What it gets right, structurally, is its allusion to its other policies, which is the first sign of joined up policy making we've seen from Reform. The problem is that it alludes to their Operation Fortress and Operation Restoring Justice policies which are hot garbage. They say “Every vessel carrying illegal migrants will be intercepted by the Royal Navy and everyone on board such a vessel will be returned to their country of departure” - which is a total non-starter for operational and legal reasons already explored in depth.

The paper then states:

The security of the United Kingdom depends as much upon the cohesion, resilience and spirit of the British people as the capabilities of the armed forces. Security demands a ‘whole of nation’ approach that harnesses the full range of civilian as well as military resources. Cohesion means that the whole country is in agreement on the fundamentals of life in Britain, and acknowledges its loyalty to the Crown. We expect everyone living here to support Parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and the freedom of the individual.

The threat from Islamist terrorism and extremism remains dangerously high. Recent waves of migration and our porous borders have only made this problem worse. Deliberate action is needed to reduce the threat of Islamist terrorism and to bring the whole country together in the cause of our common security and prosperity. The achievement of national unity must be undertaken urgently, with determination and without fear. If foreign nationals represent a threat to our security, they can expect to be deported, as we have outlined in detail in Operation Restoring Justice.

Of course, Operation Restoring Justice mainly deals, ineptly, with the boat problem. They say “The achievement of national unity must be undertaken urgently” but how exactly do you do that when you have nearly millions of unintegrated foreigners squatting in our territory who have no interest in unifying? This is the elephant in the room, where Reform have been timid in stating what they would actually do. Farage gives off the impression that there’s not a lot we can do - which is a big part of the reason why Restore Britain exists.

All Reform says on this is “Immigrants and their descendants often have a strong loyalty to Britain and a positive respect for family and community. But versions of Islam and diaspora groups that are hostile to Britain, restrict the rights of women, and deny the right of anyone to live their own lives with freedom of conscience and association, are a threat to the United Kingdom and will not be accepted”.

That implies an immigration red list, which is of course a priority. No further immigration can be accepted from Pakistan, but again it begs the question of what to do with those already here - when most, if not all, really shouldn’t be.

Moreover, the central thread in all three Reform papers centres on leaving the ECHR, which means a Reform government would be bogged down in Northern Ireland diplomacy and contentious constitutional meddling for no particular purpose. If they got elected, they certainly wouldn't get re-elected.

As an exercise in setting out the general posture Reform has succeeded, which is something I suppose, but as with everything else Reform does, it falls over on technical proficiency and detail. We saw this the other week with Jenrick's extensive wish list, where several of his proposals bump into the NI Protocol, Windsor Framework and TCA. Danny Kruger alludes to dumping them, but in so doing, reopens the question of Brexit, trade, the Northern Irish border, and the broader relationship with the EU.

Sooner or later, opponents will pick up on this, demanding answers Reform simply doesn't have. That will make the next election a repeat of Article 50 era politics, with Labour proposing closer relations (a generally popular posture) and Reform opening up old wounds, pushing the most extreme version of Brexit again, again without a mitigation plan or a technical blueprint.

What that means is a repeat of the Boris Johnson saga, where promises are made but nothing gets done because it's all too ill-advised, over ambitious and technically illiterate. It's an agenda for which they would not have enough bandwidth or political capital, and would likely derail more urgent reforms.

The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe Reform would be a competent government. That is not to say the alternatives look any more promising, but the job of an insurgent party is to build a team capable of fixing Britain. You can't do that with lightweight slop, and serious people will still give them a hard swerve.