(Neil’s Note: This was written as an internal document
for the local Reform UK branch. Of which, as the by-line above shows, I have
been elected interim campaigns co-ordinator – not to mention secretary as well!
But I feel that the need to understand and to critique why Ben Habib chose to
leave Reform UK goes way beyond the faithful of one party).
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP-jcJzGYC0
0:39: “Yes, he [Boris Johnson] committed us to the net
zero target.” (As part of the Brexit agreement). This statement appears to
be correct:
https://eciu.net/insights/2021/brexit-implications-for-energy-and-climate-change
That was the first I’d heard of this, and I am usually fairly
well up in such matters. This was a typically dastardly deed by Johnson.
0:49: “He also committed us to staying in the European
Convention of Human Rights.” This also appears to be correct.
The “Contract with You” says nothing about abrogating or
re-negotiating any Brexit agreements. Perhaps Nigel’s approach has been
pragmatic – first build public support for getting rid of nett zero, the ECHR
and everything that goes with them, then highlight the issues in the next
general election campaign and build support for abrogating or re-negotiating
the treaty.
1:20: “Nigel says that Brexit was done, it’s just that we
didn’t take advantage of it.” I haven’t found any hard evidence for this
assertion. In May 2023, Nigel did say “Brexit has failed,” which would tend to
suggest that Ben’s statement is out of date, at least.
2:00: “Reform UK Limited is a limited company… It has 15
shares, 9 of which are owned by Nigel.” As I recall, those of us who
attended the party conference back in September voted to end that structure,
and have the party owned by its members. Am I dreaming?
3:33: Richard Tice told Ben Habib that “there would be no
deals done with the Tories.” Well, Lee Anderson was one, but the word “the”
suggests to me that Richard was rejecting, not deals with individual Tory MPs,
but deals with the Tory party as a whole. And rightly so.
5:13: “I realized that it [the party constitution] was a
document I had looked at a year and a half before, and rejected.” It seemed
pretty decent to me. I wonder if Ben has published his specific criticisms?
5:57: “Well, here we are at the end of November, and
actually that conversion [to a company limited by guarantee] hasn’t taken
place.” It is stipulated in the constitution that the party is a limited
company, but no more is said on what kind of company. It empowers the Board to
make Rules on such things. I imagine the conversion ought to be in the hands of
the lawyers by now. The wheels of law grind slow. Perhaps Nigel might care to tell
us about the progress, and any obstacles he is encountering?
6:18: The constitution… “has not been put to the
Electoral Commission for approval.” The original version of the
constitution must have been approved when the party first registered as the
Brexit party. Whether the latest update has been submitted yet is in the hands
of Nigel and Zia.
6:56: “Nigel said he wasn’t against the rapid
demographic change… it was the cultural integrity of the United Kingdom that
concerned him.” And 7:14: “I don’t see how you can separate them.” I, for
one, can separate them. Demographics are about who people are, and where they
come from. Culture is about their values, and how they behave.
For me, the real problem with immigration is “legal”
immigration, not the boats. And the nub of the problem is that this “legal”
immigration has been planned. It looks to me like social engineering by
those of all the factions, that are hostile to the culture of the people of the
UK.
This is a culture, which is rooted in the Enlightenment
and the Industrial Revolution. It is this culture Zia is speaking of, when he
talks about “British values.” And it is a culture which I myself have a very
high regard for. Thus, I strongly agree with Nigel’s concern about cultural
integrity. Though I’m not sure that rapid demographic change is much of a good
thing, either. And certainly not when it causes overloading in housing or infrastructure.
7:19: “Nigel said he was not in favour of mass
deportations.” If I understand this right:
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-offers-simple-solution-mass-deportations
(about 21 minutes in) Nigel actually said that mass
deportations were politically impossible. That is very different.
8:01: Ben
relates the 20th September incident and Richard Tice’s unfortunate
choice of words “that lot” to apply to Tommy Robinson supporters. 8:21: “He
regarded them as unpalatable.” Personally, I think they are
unpalatable. When Nigel formed the Brexit party and left the Robinson followers
and their ilk in charge of the empty shell of UKIP, he attracted quite a number
of people (including me) who were not in any way “far right,” but who saw
Brexit as an absolute necessity for restoration of any kind of sanity in
government. I suspect that the party would lose more members and more votes if
it embraced “that lot” than by distancing itself from them.
8:47: “It is about doing the right thing.” Ben
makes a lot of noise around this point, but he doesn’t tell us exactly what he
means by “the right thing.”
8:53: “Reform seems obsessed with recruiting Tories.”
I think the targets for recruitment should be former Tories (and former
UKIPpers, too), as well as those whose reaction to the four mainstream parties
is “a plague on all their houses.” (I’ve been there, and for a long time, too.
My vote for Graham on July 4th was my first vote in a general
election since 1987). But they must feel able to align fully with Reform’s
goals and policies, and they must disown Tory policies (like “nett zero”) that
go against those goals and policies.
9:35: “Surely, there are some good Tories that are
worth recruiting. Suella Braverman, for example.” She would certainly not
be one of my choices as a “good Tory.” My idea of a good Tory would be someone
more like Christopher Chope.
9:44: “Why would you want to open the party up
wholesale to defections from the Tory party?” My, cynical, reply to that
would be “To help the Tory party along in destroying itself.” Once that is
done, we can go after first Labour, then the Lib Dems. There is a secondary
potential benefit, that we might get some relatively good ex-Tories.
10:10: “Then we must be a democracy.” I thought
that was the point behind the things we are doing here and now – starting up
branches, to be controlled by the members. That was why the “gang of four” who
constitute the interim branch executive had to be voted on by members at a
formal meeting on November 20th.
10:43: “HQ has forbidden the new branches they have set
up from having me speak to them.” I’m wondering if they have formally told
the branch chairs that? It certainly hasn’t percolated down to me.
11:30: “I can’t resign as a member, because the only
members are Richard and Nigel.” This is a rather odd thing to say,
considering the constitution has a long section (4) entitled “Party
Membership.”
As a more general point, I agree with Doug Hainline’s
comment when he says: “We've got to be tolerant of each other. I'm disappointed
Mr Habib doesn't seem to understand this. And I wonder to what extent purely
personal antagonisms are at the root of his alienation.”
I would also note that Ben Habib was very negative in his response to being removed as deputy leader. Though he must have known that Zia Yusuf coming in was bound to lead to very significant changes like that. I was particularly struck by the comparison with the far more positive response of David Bull, who took the whole thing in his stride, and ended up compering the recent conference, with Nigel calling him a “modern Bob Monkhouse!”
No comments:
Post a Comment