Surrendering to consensus is a sign of weakness

With Reform struggling to break through the inherent ceiling of ill-focussed populism, at some point the right is going to have to admit that populism isn’t that popular. Populism works for harvesting likes online and it translates into media ratings, but it doesn’t seem to carry over into the ballot box.

There is also the question of leadership. Even Reform’s most ardent supporters admit Richard Tice is something of a problem. This is evidenced by a somewhat lacklustre performance on BBC Question Time. He concedes the point that man-made climate change is real, but then descends into half-understood mantras about sea levels in the Maldives. It’s a bit of a car crash.

In fairness to Tice, it’s a hostile environment for him, and when a TV programme covers a lot of ground you really have to be thinking on your feet, and you can’t necessarily prepare for everything. Being an effective media performer is a lot harder than it looks and not everyone can do it. Tice can hold his own on Talk TV in friendly territory with his finger on the cut-off button, but he’s mincemeat when he strays into enemy territory.

As such, he is something of a liability for Reform. He should have the self-awareness and the humility to let someone who’s better at it do the media side of things. It’s worked before. Even when Jeffrey Titford was Ukip leader, the table thumping was always delegated to Farage. Despite my reservations about Ben Habib, he’s a better communicator. Tice needs to recognise that.

But I don’t think it’s strictly a leadership problem. Ben Pile said it best the other day when he said "If your criticism of Net Zero begins... "Climate change is real, it is a problem, and it is a potentially catastrophic one..." Then it is not a criticism. It is a waffled surrender. And it fails to interrogate the science, economics, or ideology of environmental alarmism".

If you watch the BBCQT clip, Tice is desperate to not be labelled a "denier". He keeps wanting to position Reform within the realms of acceptable discourse as defined by others, not least Hope Not Hate, and now by the BBC and the Green Party. Thus, he is surrendering to the consensus. If he'll do it on this, he'll keep doing it on virtually anything else if backed into a corner. Possibly even on immigration. He’s triangulating in such a way that it can only backfire.

This is what happens when you haven't defined what your party believes in. This is what I mean when I say the problem is more than just Reform's leadership. If you have no definition, your leadership will always be rudderless.

Admittedly, climate is a much steeper hill to climb given the stranglehold propaganda has on the debate. All the same, there are ways to handle this if you want to to be cautious. You can say:

Reform has no settled position on the science of climate change. We have an open mind. The science is always evolving. As yet, not one of the cataclysmic predictions has yet come true. We will not plunge the country into eco-austerity on the basis of hyperbole.

Moreover, we do not believe democracy should be boxed in by arbitrary political targets or international agreements, nor should NGOs and activist groups be able to call the shots through the courts. The response to climate change must be through a deliberative, considered, and democratic process, and all measures must win the consent of the people.

Regardless of the science of climate change, we certainly are able to interrogate the effectiveness of proposed measures such as the EV rollout and renewable energy. EVs require a major expansion of mineral mining and create unsustainable demands on the grid, and intermittent renewable energy is proving to be a costly mistake, when we should be doing everything possible to expedite clean and reliable nuclear energy.

Such a position is then at least consistent with your democratic principles (if you’ve defined them). As I noted earlier in the week, Ukip has made a stab at this and, consequently, its policies have a logical relationship with its philosophy. It's a little late in the day for Ukip, but it’s a model of how political thinking should be structured.

Were I Tice, I might have ventured that the same people who believe in climate "science" are also those objecting to the Cass report this week. I‘d have said we're not going to take energy policy advice from blue haired lunatics who want to sterilise kids and give drag queens access to schools.

If, however, you're going to wade into the climate science debate, you need to be sharp, current and rehearsed. Tice is winging it and it shows. The public may not be able to interrogate climate science, but they know when someone is bluffing. If Reform wants to be more than they are, they need to sharpen up their philosophy and strategy, and get rid of Tice. He's not up to it.

One of Ukip’s problems back in the day was its lack of humility. Advice was always perceived as an attack, and their supporters would fanatically fend off all criticism however well intentioned. This time around, if they don’t want to make the same mistakes, they’re going to have to take stock of their leadership, intellectual framework and their communications. They need to listen.

Most of all, they will have to decide once and for all what they stand for and stand their ground. If you’re surrendering ground to stay within the realms of establishment approval, you’ve already lost the game. Tice won’t win over Question Time panels or audiences by surrendering to them, but he will lose support that he can’t afford to lose.