Time is running out for Reform

My writing of late has been has been an exploration of what an effective alternative party should look like. I've now written quite a lot about party definition, policy and structure. But there’s also the question of messaging. Why is such a party needed? The central theme is obviously "Broken Britain". We're all beginning to wonder if anything is working as it should.

For starters, the police service is broken. It's overly politicised, over-centralised and overstretched. It cannot function. Meanwhile, our justice system is a sick joke. The institutions for national security are a laughing stock. The navy and army are a shadow of their former selves.

The university system is broken. They are propaganda-mill degree factories. They ensnare young people in debt to acquire qualifications that aren't worth having. The business model is unsustainable and it is harming the prospects of young people. British academia, marinated in woke, is a national embarrassment.

The housing market is broken. The civil service is broken. Home Office incompetence is beyond the joke. We are the only country in the world that would have less immigration if it disbanded the border force.

The national grid is on the brink of collapse, and much needed investment is being diverted to prop up eco-vanity schemes like renewable energy. Consequently, it's too expensive to make anything in this country, let alone export.

National unity is fraying. We're losing our cities to Islamic extremism. Local democracy is a corrupt shambles. Local authorities teeter on the brink of bankruptcy, while elite non-jobbers are filling their boots.

We have a pensions and savings timebomb. We have an elderly and social care crisis. We have a cost of living crisis while agriculture is collapsing. The only systems that work well are those designed to generate revenue for the bureaucracy.

The list goes on and on. We are a culturally, politically and economically depressed country. Our "democracy" simply isn't working. The traditional parties offer nothing but more of the same.

A gap in the market exists for a party that not only understands the nature of the problems, but can convincingly say they have the answers. A generic populist protest party can't do that. Only an authentic movement for change can win. It's not enough to simply gripe and say "we will fix this". You have to be able to show you have real solutions and a compelling vision.

As yet, sadly, that party does not exist. I have argued that Reform could form the basis of that movement, but there is much work to be done before I’m convinced. Unless changes are made, it will not break out of the populist cul-de-sac. It can be done but there are structural issues to overcome.

Some suggest that FPTP makes a breakthrough unlikely, but in a lengthy interview with Reform's deputy leader, Ben Habib, he rightly says that FPTP is not insurmountable. Once you break a certain polling threshold, you can expect the number of parliamentary seats to rise exponentially. So the question, as posed by Matthew Goodwin recently, is how does a party break through its inherent electoral ceiling?

Some are saying Reform needs Farage. Telegraph columnist, Camilla Tominey, says Reform UK can’t become mainstream without Farage front and centre. This, though, is a simplistic assessment. There are inherent limits to Farage's appeal. Farage's return could be a bump of a few percentage points for Reform, but that could end up being the maximum ceiling on Reform's growth.

Here it should be recalled that Farage did not carry Ukip. Farage was a the figurehead on what was a genuine grassroot movement built up over twenty years. That's why Ukip had fanatical activists. There was, at one point, a genuine sense of unstoppable momentum. It takes more than Farage to recapture the magic. A comeback tour of a faded star is not enough to re-energise the right. You can't fake the authenticity of Ukip.

As such, Reform is to Ukip as the Monkees were to The Beatles. Ostensibly similar, The Beatles were the real deal, whereas the Monkees were fabricated by middle-aged Hollywood businessmen, designed to appeal to the youth market as American television’s response to the Beatles. Though The Monkees are still remembered, The Beatles are the group with the lasting cultural legacy.

In my recent posts I have outlined some of the problems with Reform. It has a fundamental definition problem. It's unclear what purpose it serves, or what it stands for. It is just a protest vessel to pressure the Tories, or is it supposed to be a genuine alternative?

If it's the former, we must ask to what end? What is the strategy? If it's the latter, then it simply cannot exist as a private venture waging campaigns through niche right wing media and X.

If it is a protest vessel, then it should be targeting the liberal internationalist wets in Tory party to ensure they lose their seats. If it's a genuine alternative, then it needs an intellectual foundation, a vision, and coherent, detailed policy as logical derivatives of its ideology.

Moreover, it cannot be carried by a single figurehead. Tice has a reputation for great personal magnetism and warmth, but it doesn't translate into media. Ben Habib is a sharp, passionate, devoted speaker, but he can't do all the work. It has to be bigger than any one actor.

To that end, it must nurture talent from within its own ranks, to create a shadow cabinet to promote its policy ideas; to present as a party ready to govern, and present as a comprehensive, competent and credible alternative.

If Reform is to win over its sceptics, it must decide, fundamentally, what it seeks to achieve and explicitly communicate that. It should be using the time now, to forge a purpose and identity, with a view to a relaunch.

That relaunch will set out the party philosophy and vision as the beginnings of a major recruitment drive. It must be backed up by efforts to establish a new NEC elected by the membership, a policy unit, and a communications unit devoted to promoting its policies. Definition defines structure.

With or without Farage, Reform cannot break into the mainstream unless it can recapture the authenticity of Ukip. Without it, you cannot build a movement.

Finally, though Ukip managed authenticity, it never quite managed credibility. It never overcame its institutional amateurism. Reform cannot afford to repeat those mistakes. It needs to be on message, and maintain message discipline. It needs to be organised and competent.

If it can manage that, it may find a new generation of star performers in its own ranks. Reform cannot keep trading on past glories. It is not owed the Ukip vote or the vote of disaffected Tories. It has to prove it is the real deal - and it's running out of time.

The results of the Blackpool South by-election were not encouraging for Reform. Blackpool has been a dumping ground for migrants and complex social work cases for as long as I can remember. It ought to be prime territory for Reform. But here we see roughly 11,000 Tory voters staying at home. As such Reform cannot credibly claim it is picking up the disaffected Tory votes, nor can it really say it is eating into Labour. Right now, it's nowhere.

If Reform was doing well, it would have made a comfortable second place, only four thousand votes from winning the seat. But they're not even close. This to me suggests that Reform has mounted a pretty poor local campaign, which is pretty inexcusable given that it's a high density constituency. It clearly has no ground game to speak of, a party that isn’t building locally isn’t building at all

None of this can be written off as voter apathy. Voters are furious. But Reform is not presenting as an alternative with momentum. It is not even looking like a worthwhile protest vote. Staying at home is now the act of protest. Unless Reform can motivate its natural supporters in places like this, then it has no future.

I think Reform is likely to hold its own at the next general election. It will poll well enough to stay in business, but not well enough to turn heads. It must fundamentally reform itself if it is to grow into a movement, and that needs to happen soon in order to use the next five years productively. If it doesn’t happen, voters will rightly look elsewhere for inspiration.