I have been contemplating the spat within Reform UK over the last few weeks, which has resulted in the suspension of Rupert Lowe MP from the party’s whip.
I do not wish to pre-judge the rightness or wrongness of
either side in this case. This is because neither we at the party’s interim branch
officer level, nor the party’s members, nor the general public, have all the
information we would need to make a judgement. Beyond mentioning the Mike Kane
incident, which I have to say reflects no credit on Rupert Lowe, all I will say
is that neither side have exactly covered themselves in glory over the issue.
There has also been fall-out from this within the party. In recent
weeks, one branch’s officers went so far as to resign en masse in
protest. Another branch chair in Yorkshire resigned, citing “autocratic
leadership” as a primary reason, and making strong criticisms of the party’s
leaders. In at least one other branch, an incumbent chair has been replaced by
a nominee from head office; though this may not be directly related to Rupert
Lowe.
My dichotomy
Last summer I became, through the route of “there is no-one
else who can do the job, so I’ll have to do it,” campaign manager for Graham
Drage, Reform UK’s general election candidate in Godalming and Ash, Surrey. We
had zero resources and very few volunteers, but we did as well as we could have
done in the circumstances. I do confess that a large part of my motivation was
my toxic relationship, over more than 20 years, with “my” MP, a certain Jeremy
Hunt. How Hunt survived against his Lib Dem challenger is beyond my ken. And
dishonest, I am sure. But in any case, I am now interim campaigns manager for
our new Reform UK branch.
But I have another side, too. As a Libertarian Alliance
writer, I have access, through my good friend Sean Gabb, to the minds of
thinking people of “conservative” inclinations all over the world. That has
prompted me to release this missive to a wider audience than merely Reform.
It is not at all my intention, in writing this, to wash
Reform UK’s dirty linen in public. On the other hand, I must say this: Dirty
linen must never go back on the bed.
Party organization
Beyond the Rupert Lowe spat, there are issues of party
organization, which are not making life easy for those trying to get our local
branches off the ground. In particular, the candidate vetting system, which
perhaps erred a little on the side of laxity in the 2024 general election
campaign, seems in recent weeks to have moved so far in the opposite direction
that it has become unworkable. I know of three branch chairs in Surrey,
including our own and two who stood in the general election last summer, who have
failed this process, which cannot be appealed until May.
Had the establishment failed to beat off Baroness Pinnock’s
motion in the Lords yesterday, and had the Surrey County Council elections
therefore been back on for May 1st, this would today have become a
live and serious issue.
Non-disclosure agreement
The party also requires signature of an extremely draconian
non-disclosure agreement by those who will require access to the party’s data.
The Telegraph reported on this recently, likely prompted by a “defector”
candidate to Reform from the Tory party in Cornwall, who returned very precipitately
to the Tories.
I myself told the party almost three months ago, giving good
reasons, that I am unwilling to sign the agreement in its present form. Yet I
have heard nothing back in the meantime.
Reactions within the branch
What is also notable is the variety of reactions to the
Rupert Lowe spat from within the party, even among our branch group in our little
corner of Surrey. Several, who last summer were eager volunteers, now feel
nervous about where Reform UK is going. Some have withdrawn as potential
candidates, and some are even contemplating leaving the party.
Many of these people are tending to support Rupert Lowe’s
side in the dispute. Mainly, I think, because they agree more with his
draconian stance on illegal immigration than Nigel Farage’s softer one.
Against this, there are those – including myself – who take
the view that currently, Reform is “the only show in town” for those opposed to
the UK’s mainstream “uniparty.” And on the immigration issue, I understand
Nigel Farage’s reluctance to follow Theresa May down a path all but guaranteed
to lead to mistreatment of innocent people, as was shown by the Windrush
scandal. I therefore maintain, for now, confidence in the leadership of Nigel
Farage, Richard Tice and Zia Yusuf. But I remain watchful.
A wider view
I will try to offer some insights, which may help party
members to understand better what is happening. Before Nigel Farage left UKIP
to form the Brexit Party, the great majority of UKIP people who would later
become Reformers were, first and foremost, patriots and/or nationalists. For
many of these people, immigration, with the consequent dilution of national and
cultural identity, was the most important political issue.
But when the Brexit party was formed, it attracted a new and
different kind of people. These people were not strong nationalists, and did
not think of themselves as in any way “right-wing.” They were united with the former
UKIP followers by one thing: they were sick and tired of the EU, the way it
behaved towards us, and the globalist and internationalist order of which it
formed a key part. I myself was among this “new wave.” As a hard-core
libertarian and individualist, I had lost confidence in the Tories well before
1990. And I had never been tempted by UKIP. Yet I joined the Brexit party only
a month after its formation.
We of the new wave had, and have, many concerns beyond
immigration. For me, the major issues include:
1.
Nett zero, and consequent bad policies in energy
and transport.
2.
Green policies in general, including those
arising from the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals,” and a desire among
extremists to force us to abandon fossil fuels.
3.
Heavy taxes, government dishonesty and waste,
and lack of proper cost-benefit analysis.
4.
Hostility to small business, to vital businesses
such as farmers, and to strategic industries such as steel-making.
5.
Violation of rights and freedoms, such as
privacy and freedom of speech.
6.
The culture of “safety at any cost,” of which
the EU had been policeman, but which has, if anything, become even worse since
“Brexit.”
7.
Wokery and “cancel culture.”
8.
The arrogance and hypocrisy of
establishmentarians like Boris Johnson.
9.
On immigration, the social engineering of
large-scale “legal” immigration exercises my ire far more than the “illegals.”
A need for “unity?”
This alliance of patriots with a far more radical group,
whose orientation is populist rather than nationalist, towards people rather
than politics, has endured more than five years. It survived the Tories’
failure to deliver any real Brexit. It survived the transition from Brexit party
to Reform party. It has been able to survive an influx of former Labour voters
in the traditional “red wall.” It was able to put up a surprisingly good show
in the 2024 general election, given our lack of resources, both financial and
in personnel. It has been able to open up interest among many new people,
particularly younger ones – even though we branch officers out in the boondocks
do tend to have been around for a few decades.
But the recent spat between the party leaders and Rupert
Lowe is threatening the progress we have made. Rupert Lowe and, even more, Ben
Habib seem to be trying to weaken or even to undo this alliance. This must be dealt
with urgently by the party leadership.
The issues being felt by those trying to “do the hard yards”
out in the branches are also a threat to the party’s future. I think those at
the top of the party, whether their work is visible to the public or not, do
need to consider very carefully where they are wanting to take the party. What
policies it should adopt in order to distinguish itself most effectively from
the establishment uniparty. And how it should maintain good relations with its
branches, without trying to dictate to or steamroller them.
No party can realistically plan to govern in a democracy,
unless it is a broad enough church to hold different groups of people, with
different but compatible desires, together in alliance. The party must also
treat those who work for its interests in the branches – officers, members, candidates,
and most of all volunteers – with levels of transparency, consideration and
justice that will maintain their morale, and enable them to continue their
work.
As to the members themselves, as an individualist I would be
the last to call for “unity” if I did not think it is a vital necessity to get
the party moving in directions we all want and need. We may disagree on certain
issues, such as the political feasibility of mass deportations of illegal
immigrants. But as long as we and the leadership both retain our belief in Reform
UK as an organization, and in the core policies by which it distinguishes
itself from the uniparty – affordable energy, convenient transport, low
taxation, a small-business-friendly climate, and real human rights like privacy
and freedom of speech, for example – then we should all be willing to work
together for our common cause.
Neil Lock
25th March 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment