The Ukip curse is back to haunt Reform

In a predictable turn of events, “Reform UK” have withdrawn support for two candidates after interviews aired on Channel 4.

What's interesting about this is that Channel 4 wants us to take their word for it that the comments made were beyond the pale. The report says one comment on social media was "so racist and dehumanising we can't broadcast it". That's for adult audiences to decide, not some junior hackette.

What was refreshing was the way in which one candidate quite boldly defended his remarks. The party should have backed him by saying:

"Our candidates are entitled to their views, though we understand they will, as ordinary members of the public, communicate their thoughts to their friends and followers in less politically astute ways, but they're saying what ordinary Brits are thinking, and we are here to give them a voice. Current levels of immigration are totally unsustainable, and the conduct of BLM rioters was completely unjustified and inexcusable. We also share our other candidate's concerns about radical islam and the new sectarianism in our politics. The view of our party is that multiculturalism has failed.

We do remind our candidates that they are responsible for what they say and would urge caution not to say anything that could be libellous or likely to incite, but beyond that, we are not in the business of telling our members and candidates what they cannot say. If politicians had listened to ordinary people in the first place, we wouldn't even be here".

Subsequent strategy is the to tell the likes of Channel 4 and Lewis Goodall types to fuck off on sight. The lesson from the leader's debate is clear. When politicians waffle in terms calibrated not to provoke media controversy, they end up saying nothing that voters want to hear. Bypass the media and speak directly to voters and they will respond favourably.

That said, basic vetting beyond a basic pulse check certainly wouldn't hurt. Reform has outsourced this task to the media instead, foolishly making a rod for their own backs. Sacking candidates the way they're doing here is like throwing chum into shark infested waters.

I don't think Reform has grasped the danger here. Ukip could afford to put up unvetted no-hoper candidates because it was an exercise in vote diversion. If the game has changed to the extent that Reform actually stands a chance of breaking through, then it simply can't afford low calibre candidates. Think about it. Imagine Farage gets elected along with four other randoms. Maybe one them is halfway intelligent, two are semi-literate boomer normies, and the other is a Christian fundamentalist lunatic with their own agenda.

Farage immediately has to disown the nutcase, then Sky and Hope Not Hate does a deep dive on the social media feeds of the boomer normies. They then find anti-Muslim hate memes or Britain First style videos. Farage immediately has to sack one of them while the other goes into hiding, and six months later resigns their seat. After that, the media round on the halfway intelligent one, who will end up being an absolute embarrassment, leaving Farage out on his own.

The thing about Westminster, is it's a nasty, nasty game. I don't think even Farage is prepared for it. Westminster makes the Euro parliament looks like a daycare centre. It will bully an interloper half to death. You need skin as thick as Galloway to cope with it. That's partly why our politicians turn into sociopaths.

Reform has a decision to make here. It either accepts that its candidates will have views that are unpalatable to the media (and be prepared to defend them to the hilt), or be prepared to lose half or all of its MPs in the first year to political assassination.

But we know how this goes. On matters such as this, Farage always folds at the first challenge (he abandons policy in the same way). He's still playing the game by pre-Brexit rules. He still thinks media respectability is important. That only invites more of the same behaviour from the media. Moreover, that allows the media to frame the boundaries of what is morally acceptable discourse, so we'll end up not having the debates we need to have, and Farage will be trained by the system to stay within those parameters.

One term of serial embarrassments for Reform makes it look like a one-man-band novelty act, and one that is incapable of finding any talent equal or better than Farage, and the momentum will collapse.

The bottom line is that the establishment is not going to rollover and let outsiders get a foothold. It will fight to the death, and use every dirty trick in the book. If Farage is going to walk into every ambush and cave in any time some heat is applied, then the right has already lost.

Prior to Farage’s return, I took the view that Reform should have run a low key election to instead focus on movement-building, carefully and solidly establishing themselves, their policies and their candidates.

This is what I tried to communicate to Ben Habib. The task is to build a sustainable movement and an effective organisation that can survive without Farage. It starts with defining an intellectual foundation, a vision and credible policies. You then find capable people who can communicate that vision, and have the wits to defend their stance. Without that, you have a disorganised, chaotic cult of personality that will have a big flare up but immediately fizzle out.

This is why I now have zero time for Reform. As before with Ukip, they sacrificed steady, sustainable growth for more immediate short term goals, believing there's a shortcut to movement-building. Two opportunities for meaningful change have been squandered, and now we're looking at Farage pissing away a third. While the right keeps investing its energies in politically incontinent Farage-led enterprises, it will keep hitting the rocks.