Reform's unforced errors

Response to yesterday’s post has been overwhelmingly positive. I reposted to X where the response was similarly enthusiastic. I would have liked to have written more, but was advised to keep it brief.

There is, however, much more to say. Reform’s problems are as much strategic as they are a matter of substance (the lack thereof). In the last few days, both Ben Habib and Richard Tice have dug a hole for themselves on the matter of channel migrant pushbacks. They both insist there is legal grounds for taking migrants back to France.

You always end up on a sticky wicket trying to interpret international law to your own advantage. I remember well during Brexit the many creative interpretations of Article 50 and WTO law. The media can always roll out fact checkers and lawyers who enjoy greater prestige and authority. That doesn’t stop them from being wrong, but it’s a losing bet on live TV. In this case, though, the law is pretty clear.

Article 19, UNCLOS has it that:

"Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State".

Under such circumstances, our ships returning these people to France would breach the law, as there would be no right of innocent passage. Permission would have to be negotiated. See also Art 25. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

A better approach, if Reform wants to take a hard line, is to simply disregard UNCLOS on moral grounds for this specific context.

This persists because the French know there is no appetite for confrontation in the British establishment. France is taking the piss here, and they do it because they understand the British establishment's slavish devotion to the "international rules based order". As such, their inaction is endangering lives - contrary to the spirit of UNCLOS.

The basis for disapplying UNCLOS, in this specific context, is that UNCLOS rules never envisaged a scenario of systematic self-endangerment as a means of moral blackmail. Regardless of international law, France's cynical indifference makes them complicit in this moral blackmail. Ultimately, they've decided that it's not their problem, so there certainly is a case for making it their problem.

We are, I think, well within our moral rights to disavow any responsibility for those who deliberately put themselves in danger with a view to entering the UK illegally - especially if they're in French waters.

Instead of insisting that pushbacks are legal, they should make the case that UNCLOS, like the Refugee Convention, is obsolete and unfit for purpose. Only on that basis, should we pursue pushbacks, but only to make a point, in weather conditions where the risks to life are minimal.

Personally, I don’t think it would do much good. The French are unlikely to respond positively and may terminate what little cooperation we’ve secured from them. The real deterrence has to come from ensuring nobody profits from making it ashore. That comes from a very clear guarantee that within a week, without appeal, you'll either be on a plane to Rwanda or a holding facility in the Falklands for an indefinite stay. There is nothing whatsoever stopping us doing the latter right now.

What was clear, was that on both media appearances, Tice and Habib were winging it, and there was inconsistency and contradiction between them. This doesn’t happen if you’ve decided your policy in advance, published it, and taken the time to learn it. You could have the best possible intellectual foundation, but it’s ultimately useless if there is no message discipline.

One problem Tice and Habib don’t have is getting television exposure. If that airtime is filled with speculation and improvisation then it’s a wasted opportunity. Airtime should be used to promote your agenda and your written policies. Instead, they’re in damage control mode. Habib has already had to endure hostile questioning on his improvised remarks.

Habib no doubt has his supporters on this, and there are plenty of people willing to believe that pushbacks are lawful, but this is playing to the gallery. Reform has to win a reputation for credibility and competence among wider opinion formers, and this kind of improvisation doesn’t help.

More than a few commenters have said that the problem is with Richard Tice himself. He has a reputation for personal magnetism and is well regarded among the people who know him, but he’s not the best media performer. His improvisation on the issue of climate change on a recent BBC Question Time was underwhelming.

I get a sense that very little preparation goes into these media appearances. Party leaders aren’t expected to be experts, but they are expected to be rehearsed and well briefed. Eloquence and forcefulness only gets you so far if you’re walking into every ambush.

If it transpires that Tice simply isn’t good in the spotlight, the party needs to find people in its own ranks who are, and give them the backing they need. Good leadership nurtures talent from within its own ranks, and by now, we should be seeing some new faces instead of the merry band of ex-MEPs.

This is something of a problem for Reform. Habib and Tice are now main spokesmen, which contributes to the perception that Reform is a couple of millionaires playing at politics. That is certainly the view of Ukip leadership contender, Bill Etheridge. Reform is not presenting as a grassroots organisation or a movement.

The reason I’m going to the trouble analysing Reform is because I live in hope that it can get its act together. We’re running out of time to arrest the decline of Britain. It would be better if we didn’t have to start a movement from scratch. Reform is the obvious contender as it enjoys the lion's share of backing and exposure.

That said, it could just as easily end up being part of the problem. There is nothing wrong with being robustly conservative in outlook, but we can do without incompetent amateurs. Reform is at a critical juncture where the cracks are beginning to show, and must decide whether it is to become a purposeful movement or a nuisance populist bed blocker.

I’m resigned to the fact that there is little that can be done to beat Reform into shape before the next election, but that doesn’t matter. We all have to be thinking beyond the next election. We have to be thinking in terms of building a movement that can withstand a mediocre election performance and keep growing.

Reform is best positioned to become that movement, but now is the time to listen to critics. Reform is held in suspicion because it is not a traditional party model, and as such, does not inspire the kind of tribal loyalty that Ukip once did. Without that, you don’t have a movement. You have a pyramid selling scheme.

Surveying the political landscape right now, there are nearly a dozen post-Ukip party vehicles, ranging from one-man-bands run by crackpots to more sophisticated outfits like the SDP (or Waitrose Ukip as I call them). That tells its own story. Political anoraks on the insurgent right are looking at Reform and concluding they are not the answer.

Meanwhile, Matthew Goodwin is cooking something up with the National Conservatives, having also concluded that Reform is a lame duck. Reform doesn’t seem to be making many friends lately. For some, Reform is too soft on immigration, and the recent capitulation to Hope Not Hate has not gone unnoticed - along with other unforced errors. Others are reporting a dysfunctional party organisation and candidates are being left to fend for themselves. Party infrastructure is lacking.

Though Reform looks to be clinging on to its ballpark share of the vote, more than a few commentators are publicly speculating that Reform may be a paper tiger, and one that is doomed without the Farage touch. But even a Farage comeback doesn’t address the structural deficiencies of the party.

Reform’s future is now contingent on whether its leadership realises the scale of work to be done within its own ranks. It can withstand a lacklustre performance at the general election, but if it can’t build a better platform and an organisation to sell it, it will fade into irrelevance - and we’ll all be back at square one.