Something is going drastically wrong within Reform Uk, unfortunately the majority of supporters aren't prepared to accept any criticism especially due to the fact that for most, Reform seem to be the only party worth voting for.
Obviously, as any organisation grows there will be teething problems and that's absolutely acceptable but there's too many 'little' things that seem to be adding up to a bigger picture.
Behind the scenes there's been quite a bit of backstabbing as some members started jockeying for positions of importance and former CEO Paul Oakden allegedly had his fingers in some cash that he shouldn't have done.
Does ANYONE actually believe that party Chairman, Zia Yusuf would have been chosen for that role if he hadn't made a donation of £200,000 to party coffers??
Despite all the hyperbole about 'democratising' Reform's party structure and the setting up of local branches, Farage and Tice remain firmly at the helm and it's plain to see that advancement of members depends purely on connections rather than abilities.
Local branch start-ups are not immune from this culture either, I've personally seen the appointment of a chairman in a new branch over a local candidate based on their friendship with a regional organiser rather than the ability and potential of the established candidate.
Recently Richard Tice has managed to alienate thousands of followers with his description of people attending a Tommy Robinson march in London as 'That lot'.
Not to be outdone, Nigel Farage has stated in interview that he doesn't believe in mass deportation of illegal immigrants, he doesn't think immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective and he believes that if 'we' alienate the muslim community then by 2050, we'll have 'lost' (Whatever that is supposed to mean!)
Just a quick glance at Social Media shows that both Tice and Farage's comments have gone down like a lead balloon, especially with grassroots supporters (And I think it's worth mentioning, that it's the grassroots who actually do the majority of the 'donkey' work, leafleting, campaigning, footslogging, sharing posts online)
Everyone knew that there would be some defections from other parties, especially on the Tory right but it seems at the moment that Farage has an open-door policy to practically anyone wishing to change their allegiance, What he fails to see is that focusing on quantity rather than quality will dilute the party ethos in no time at all.
I'll finish on a small point, One that you may feel is irrelevant or petty but I think it speaks volumes about how Reform Uk feel about their growing membership, If you become a member of labour, the conservatives, lib-dems etc, you'll receive some form of welcome pack or at least a membership card. AsReform membership has hit the 100K mark, Party HQ has decided that members aren't even worth an e-mailed membership certificate anymore.... All the social media posts and positive results in the latest polls are nothing when you actually realise that Reform are taking their members for granted and I'd go further and say that they're taking us for a ride as well!!!
they need to change from a private limited company and tice has yet to come up with any evidence to prove his so called unawareness of him and his offshore deals, also nige has previous but a far better snake due to his past and lineage.
ICIJ got decades of evidence of all the corruption of companies
Yusuf investment sorry donation + Pimlico Poundland rod stewart all nicely investing farages got many shares in many corps and dodgy dealings but like a say hes not as stupid as he looks hes just to ego driven and falls when its not all about him.
socials and tv spots are lip service lies he thinks/wants the knuckle dragging class of thugs as he sees us wants to hear.
He uses people till hes got where/what/who he wants then either destroys them or lies and ignores the, He foolishy thinks DJT buys hes crap lol
he lies in uk about being close very different story in reality
Agree that something has to happen, the stakes are too high as the whole country heads for the rocks, without any politician in the wings offering a way out. Reform needs a broader talent base of people to speak on different subjects and a philosophy and plan for government. That needs hard work by a cohesive team, so it is not a one man band. I do though think Farage’s idea of ‘civic nationalism’ is a smart tactical move.
Pete sets out various concerns and criticisms regarding Reform. It's definitely concerning that Farage has a history of not familiarizing himself with party policy and changing it on the hoof. And I agree with, for example, Pete's criticism of Reform's handling of the Tommy Robinson episode.
However, I think that some of Pete's criticisms with regard to policy and principles don't entirely hit the mark. For example, Pete writes
"It’s also evident now in that nobody is exactly sure what Reform’s immigration policy is. In this, we are left to triangulate between the relatively hardline rhetoric of Rupert Lowe, and the whims of Nigel Farage."
This strikes me a something of an exaggeration in that Reform's manifesto and current policy document, "Our Contract with You" (https://t.ly/LXWf_) sets out Reform's policies relatively clearly: reducing net migration to zero, stopping the boats, detaining asylum seekers, deporting foreign criminals, barring student dependents etc. And, as far as I'm aware, Farage hasn't changed any of these since the election.
It strikes me that there's a public difference of opinion between Reform's MPs only on one issue of immigration policy, and that's the deportation of the million or more UK illegals. On this Lowe's definitely been more hardline than Farage. But this will no doubt resolve itself over time, I expect in Lowe's favour.
Also I don't think Pete's entirely right when he says that Jenrick's "position on immigration was firmer and more coherent than Reform’s 'Net Zero immigration' approach". Because whilst Reform advocates for net migration of zero, Jenrick was, in fact, less firm in advocating for net migration in the "tens of thousands". On the other hand, Jenrick was firmer about deporting all illegals in the UK. So swings and roundabouts.
And I don't think that, with regard to principles, the gap between Jenrick and Reform is quite as clear as Pete suggests. On the one hand, Jenrick explicitly set out his so-called principles (https://www.robertjenrick.com/columns/conservatives-must-have-core-principles-around-which-we-can) whilst Reform didn't. But, on the other, a number of Jenrick's 10 so-called principles (e.g. "Prison works") aren't really principles at all. And, also, a number of his 10 points are made in Reform's manifesto. Indeed, one wouldn't even need to read the manifesto to know that Reform agrees with, for example Jenrick's points 1, 2 and 5.
Pete writes
"I have consistently argued that every one of Reform’s problems is because there is no intellectual foundation. Without such, Reform is just a populist party that will say anything to anyone at any time. Like the Tories, it will drop core principles if it’s expedient. Farage is already softening his line on immigration, begging the question, why do we need a Tory party 2.0?"
I don't find this entirely clear because, reading Pete's post as a whole, he seems to associate a lack of "intellectual foundation" with an absence of "core principles". And yet, at the same time, he contends that Reform's willing to drop its core principles. Which must mean it has some!
And, to me, "softening" one's line suggests a rowing back on a previously stated policy (e.g. raising national insurance when one promised not to!) And I can't think of any policy that Reform's rowed back on.
I think many, including me, have been disappointed that Nigel has proved softer on the deporting-of-illegals issue than they thought he would be. But this was in relation to an issue about which there was no previous policy. And it strikes me that Nigel being softer than one imagined on an issue that's not party policy is arguably different from him softening his line on an existing policy.
Reality is that our PMs are puppets who take thier orders from the globalists, who are fast tracking the real agenda behind UN Agenda 2030. (Look into Dougie Smith and where he gets his orders from). As long as this remains the case, it doesn't matter who is in No 10.
I have realised over the 11 years I've stuck with The Harrogate Agenda, with its six demands for reforming our governance, that serious reform of our political system will take time but that is all the more reason to stick with it.
For example from the Levellers through to the Chartists it took some 200 years for man to get the vote.
As I said on here recently Farage is going for the hat trick having used and abused UKIP and the Brexit party for his own ends he is now set to do the same with Reform.
Sadly I'm convinced that things will have to get worse before they get better and serious reform of our governance, to make it truly democratic, will only come about from a well organised intellectually based grass roots movement.
Agreed. Serious reform is needed but what brings it about worries me. Will it be societal collapse as we are well down that road? Maybe revolution but revolutions rarely end well.
Maybe some party will pick up the six demands and put that party on an intellectual basis. Sadly, as Pete keeps pointing out, that party isn't Reform.
Has Pete forgotten that there are other parties ie The (Christian) Heritage Party and Britain First. Whilst many of his criticisms of The Reform Party in particular attention-seeking populist Nigel Farage, they do have a policy on immigration which gels with the JoePublic. It could be despite the back-stabbing, in-fighting etc, the members will leave if they are ignored and their demand for democratisation is not met or they could get rid of Nigel himself and put up another leader, it is all very unpredictable. I actually think all the parties have led us to the point of no return, that with the real threat of uncontrolled migration and Islamism in the ascendency, and a zero-growth economy, UK is headed for total economy collapse and civil anarchy all round, it will be dog eat dog time, for sure.
That's the worry. It would be good to see those parties grow in the public sphere so that people would engage with the important issues. Sadly, collapse and anarchy seem more likely, but I hope and pray, not.
I think most people who vote on the basis of party policies will totally mistrust the manifestos of any party prior to the next election.
The only way I would (semi) trust any party would be if they declared they would announce another election if they failed to implement their manifesto pledges within a certain period - say 6 months.
A tough schedule maybe, but considering the failures and downright lies of previous administrations - justified.
Very interesting read and I too have been worried about the drift to the centre by Reform. Regarding the point that to get the Right, right ‘takes as long as it takes’ I disagree with in our era, even though absolutely anything can be turned around as history tells us.
I don’t think we have the luxury of more than one parliamentary term to build a rock solid party of the right to support and defend our national interests during an era when demographic change is racing ahead at such pace. If it doesn’t happen during this term then I think it will be extremely difficult to turn around.
It would be great if everyone on the genuine Right could team up and create a uniform front for the national good, but I guess that’s not how politics always works.
Britain for the righteous British. What’s so jolly difficult to understand about that? Remove the franchise and right to hold office from those whose ancestors’ weddings are not to be found in parish churches before the end of Queen Victoria’s reign. Everyone else to be considered a permanent resident with human but not civic rights, an end to proscriptions on “discrimination”. It is some variant of this, or our homeland’s destruction will be final.
How strange. I was sent a round robin by a local Reform PPC regarding "the petition" and its link. Duly signing it I emailed back asking about the party organisation in my area and copied him Tom Armstrong's open letter from freespeechbacklash.com and asked him the Party view.
Ho no, that wouldn't do at all - none of that dirty talk round here thank you. (He's ex UKIP and a dentist) There's more but ho hum. And then, then! he sends me another round robin to join them at a farmer's protest. Then his boss sent an email saying if I didn't like it I could cancel my membership...
I left Reform once under the useless Tice who I'm coming to see as dishonest. Only Farage popping up too late for the election sent me back. Tice should have concentrated on 100 seats not wasting his Matalan clothed seed on stony ground but it was too late.
Previously, Ben Habib, I thought he was a bit sanctimonious at a time when a few rough edges were acceptable in the light of needing Starmer and the Tories gone. The blinkers peeling back from my eyes I've tried to contact Ben Habib with no luck.
I've argued with you before. Your long term plans were too far in the future - I'll be dead or no longer political and I felt you'd taken against Farage.
So, Homeland. You know it's an American TV show and Homeland security has quite dire implications which UK cannot afford? The idea of another Party is what I'd like to discuss with Ben and I'd like to discuss it with you. There's more but these substacks get too long to read.
Something is going drastically wrong within Reform Uk, unfortunately the majority of supporters aren't prepared to accept any criticism especially due to the fact that for most, Reform seem to be the only party worth voting for.
Obviously, as any organisation grows there will be teething problems and that's absolutely acceptable but there's too many 'little' things that seem to be adding up to a bigger picture.
Behind the scenes there's been quite a bit of backstabbing as some members started jockeying for positions of importance and former CEO Paul Oakden allegedly had his fingers in some cash that he shouldn't have done.
Does ANYONE actually believe that party Chairman, Zia Yusuf would have been chosen for that role if he hadn't made a donation of £200,000 to party coffers??
Despite all the hyperbole about 'democratising' Reform's party structure and the setting up of local branches, Farage and Tice remain firmly at the helm and it's plain to see that advancement of members depends purely on connections rather than abilities.
Local branch start-ups are not immune from this culture either, I've personally seen the appointment of a chairman in a new branch over a local candidate based on their friendship with a regional organiser rather than the ability and potential of the established candidate.
Recently Richard Tice has managed to alienate thousands of followers with his description of people attending a Tommy Robinson march in London as 'That lot'.
Not to be outdone, Nigel Farage has stated in interview that he doesn't believe in mass deportation of illegal immigrants, he doesn't think immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective and he believes that if 'we' alienate the muslim community then by 2050, we'll have 'lost' (Whatever that is supposed to mean!)
Just a quick glance at Social Media shows that both Tice and Farage's comments have gone down like a lead balloon, especially with grassroots supporters (And I think it's worth mentioning, that it's the grassroots who actually do the majority of the 'donkey' work, leafleting, campaigning, footslogging, sharing posts online)
Everyone knew that there would be some defections from other parties, especially on the Tory right but it seems at the moment that Farage has an open-door policy to practically anyone wishing to change their allegiance, What he fails to see is that focusing on quantity rather than quality will dilute the party ethos in no time at all.
I'll finish on a small point, One that you may feel is irrelevant or petty but I think it speaks volumes about how Reform Uk feel about their growing membership, If you become a member of labour, the conservatives, lib-dems etc, you'll receive some form of welcome pack or at least a membership card. AsReform membership has hit the 100K mark, Party HQ has decided that members aren't even worth an e-mailed membership certificate anymore.... All the social media posts and positive results in the latest polls are nothing when you actually realise that Reform are taking their members for granted and I'd go further and say that they're taking us for a ride as well!!!
they need to change from a private limited company and tice has yet to come up with any evidence to prove his so called unawareness of him and his offshore deals, also nige has previous but a far better snake due to his past and lineage.
ICIJ got decades of evidence of all the corruption of companies
Yusuf investment sorry donation + Pimlico Poundland rod stewart all nicely investing farages got many shares in many corps and dodgy dealings but like a say hes not as stupid as he looks hes just to ego driven and falls when its not all about him.
socials and tv spots are lip service lies he thinks/wants the knuckle dragging class of thugs as he sees us wants to hear.
He uses people till hes got where/what/who he wants then either destroys them or lies and ignores the, He foolishy thinks DJT buys hes crap lol
he lies in uk about being close very different story in reality
Great piece.
Yes. Pete seems to cover all the issues in his piece.
Agree that something has to happen, the stakes are too high as the whole country heads for the rocks, without any politician in the wings offering a way out. Reform needs a broader talent base of people to speak on different subjects and a philosophy and plan for government. That needs hard work by a cohesive team, so it is not a one man band. I do though think Farage’s idea of ‘civic nationalism’ is a smart tactical move.
Pete sets out various concerns and criticisms regarding Reform. It's definitely concerning that Farage has a history of not familiarizing himself with party policy and changing it on the hoof. And I agree with, for example, Pete's criticism of Reform's handling of the Tommy Robinson episode.
However, I think that some of Pete's criticisms with regard to policy and principles don't entirely hit the mark. For example, Pete writes
"It’s also evident now in that nobody is exactly sure what Reform’s immigration policy is. In this, we are left to triangulate between the relatively hardline rhetoric of Rupert Lowe, and the whims of Nigel Farage."
This strikes me a something of an exaggeration in that Reform's manifesto and current policy document, "Our Contract with You" (https://t.ly/LXWf_) sets out Reform's policies relatively clearly: reducing net migration to zero, stopping the boats, detaining asylum seekers, deporting foreign criminals, barring student dependents etc. And, as far as I'm aware, Farage hasn't changed any of these since the election.
It strikes me that there's a public difference of opinion between Reform's MPs only on one issue of immigration policy, and that's the deportation of the million or more UK illegals. On this Lowe's definitely been more hardline than Farage. But this will no doubt resolve itself over time, I expect in Lowe's favour.
Also I don't think Pete's entirely right when he says that Jenrick's "position on immigration was firmer and more coherent than Reform’s 'Net Zero immigration' approach". Because whilst Reform advocates for net migration of zero, Jenrick was, in fact, less firm in advocating for net migration in the "tens of thousands". On the other hand, Jenrick was firmer about deporting all illegals in the UK. So swings and roundabouts.
And I don't think that, with regard to principles, the gap between Jenrick and Reform is quite as clear as Pete suggests. On the one hand, Jenrick explicitly set out his so-called principles (https://www.robertjenrick.com/columns/conservatives-must-have-core-principles-around-which-we-can) whilst Reform didn't. But, on the other, a number of Jenrick's 10 so-called principles (e.g. "Prison works") aren't really principles at all. And, also, a number of his 10 points are made in Reform's manifesto. Indeed, one wouldn't even need to read the manifesto to know that Reform agrees with, for example Jenrick's points 1, 2 and 5.
Pete writes
"I have consistently argued that every one of Reform’s problems is because there is no intellectual foundation. Without such, Reform is just a populist party that will say anything to anyone at any time. Like the Tories, it will drop core principles if it’s expedient. Farage is already softening his line on immigration, begging the question, why do we need a Tory party 2.0?"
I don't find this entirely clear because, reading Pete's post as a whole, he seems to associate a lack of "intellectual foundation" with an absence of "core principles". And yet, at the same time, he contends that Reform's willing to drop its core principles. Which must mean it has some!
And, to me, "softening" one's line suggests a rowing back on a previously stated policy (e.g. raising national insurance when one promised not to!) And I can't think of any policy that Reform's rowed back on.
I think many, including me, have been disappointed that Nigel has proved softer on the deporting-of-illegals issue than they thought he would be. But this was in relation to an issue about which there was no previous policy. And it strikes me that Nigel being softer than one imagined on an issue that's not party policy is arguably different from him softening his line on an existing policy.
You have a very low bar as to what constitutes policy.
Reality is that our PMs are puppets who take thier orders from the globalists, who are fast tracking the real agenda behind UN Agenda 2030. (Look into Dougie Smith and where he gets his orders from). As long as this remains the case, it doesn't matter who is in No 10.
I have realised over the 11 years I've stuck with The Harrogate Agenda, with its six demands for reforming our governance, that serious reform of our political system will take time but that is all the more reason to stick with it.
For example from the Levellers through to the Chartists it took some 200 years for man to get the vote.
As I said on here recently Farage is going for the hat trick having used and abused UKIP and the Brexit party for his own ends he is now set to do the same with Reform.
Sadly I'm convinced that things will have to get worse before they get better and serious reform of our governance, to make it truly democratic, will only come about from a well organised intellectually based grass roots movement.
Agreed. Serious reform is needed but what brings it about worries me. Will it be societal collapse as we are well down that road? Maybe revolution but revolutions rarely end well.
Maybe some party will pick up the six demands and put that party on an intellectual basis. Sadly, as Pete keeps pointing out, that party isn't Reform.
Has Pete forgotten that there are other parties ie The (Christian) Heritage Party and Britain First. Whilst many of his criticisms of The Reform Party in particular attention-seeking populist Nigel Farage, they do have a policy on immigration which gels with the JoePublic. It could be despite the back-stabbing, in-fighting etc, the members will leave if they are ignored and their demand for democratisation is not met or they could get rid of Nigel himself and put up another leader, it is all very unpredictable. I actually think all the parties have led us to the point of no return, that with the real threat of uncontrolled migration and Islamism in the ascendency, and a zero-growth economy, UK is headed for total economy collapse and civil anarchy all round, it will be dog eat dog time, for sure.
That's the worry. It would be good to see those parties grow in the public sphere so that people would engage with the important issues. Sadly, collapse and anarchy seem more likely, but I hope and pray, not.
I think most people who vote on the basis of party policies will totally mistrust the manifestos of any party prior to the next election.
The only way I would (semi) trust any party would be if they declared they would announce another election if they failed to implement their manifesto pledges within a certain period - say 6 months.
A tough schedule maybe, but considering the failures and downright lies of previous administrations - justified.
A
Very interesting read and I too have been worried about the drift to the centre by Reform. Regarding the point that to get the Right, right ‘takes as long as it takes’ I disagree with in our era, even though absolutely anything can be turned around as history tells us.
I don’t think we have the luxury of more than one parliamentary term to build a rock solid party of the right to support and defend our national interests during an era when demographic change is racing ahead at such pace. If it doesn’t happen during this term then I think it will be extremely difficult to turn around.
It would be great if everyone on the genuine Right could team up and create a uniform front for the national good, but I guess that’s not how politics always works.
Britain for the righteous British. What’s so jolly difficult to understand about that? Remove the franchise and right to hold office from those whose ancestors’ weddings are not to be found in parish churches before the end of Queen Victoria’s reign. Everyone else to be considered a permanent resident with human but not civic rights, an end to proscriptions on “discrimination”. It is some variant of this, or our homeland’s destruction will be final.
How strange. I was sent a round robin by a local Reform PPC regarding "the petition" and its link. Duly signing it I emailed back asking about the party organisation in my area and copied him Tom Armstrong's open letter from freespeechbacklash.com and asked him the Party view.
Ho no, that wouldn't do at all - none of that dirty talk round here thank you. (He's ex UKIP and a dentist) There's more but ho hum. And then, then! he sends me another round robin to join them at a farmer's protest. Then his boss sent an email saying if I didn't like it I could cancel my membership...
I left Reform once under the useless Tice who I'm coming to see as dishonest. Only Farage popping up too late for the election sent me back. Tice should have concentrated on 100 seats not wasting his Matalan clothed seed on stony ground but it was too late.
Previously, Ben Habib, I thought he was a bit sanctimonious at a time when a few rough edges were acceptable in the light of needing Starmer and the Tories gone. The blinkers peeling back from my eyes I've tried to contact Ben Habib with no luck.
I've argued with you before. Your long term plans were too far in the future - I'll be dead or no longer political and I felt you'd taken against Farage.
So, Homeland. You know it's an American TV show and Homeland security has quite dire implications which UK cannot afford? The idea of another Party is what I'd like to discuss with Ben and I'd like to discuss it with you. There's more but these substacks get too long to read.
Dear Pete,
A very considered article. Suggest you do a Podcast too and invite Nigel Farage on to discuss