Angela Rayner has just been forced to resign, following revelations that the Deputy PM and Housing Minister had failed to pay Stamp Duty on her property. Matters are hardly any better on the other side of the benches, with Kemi Badenoch’s claim of a medical school offer from Stanford under question. What is striking about these revelations is that they are being received not as shocking, but as mere confirmations of what voters already know: the British establishment is not to be trusted. Both the governing party and the opposition are seen as illegitimate, and have the polling to match. Projections suggest that were an election held tomorrow, Reform, a party that did not exist before 2018, would win 317 seats and most likely enter government. Labour and the Conservatives would lose more than half of their seats, with the latter sinking to fourth place behind the Liberal Democrats. The political landscape in this country seems to sway before our eyes and beneath our feet — unsteady and unreal.
The question that voters and policy makers alike must ask themselves is increasingly no longer can or should Reform take power, but what it is likely to do when it inevitably does. That this question is still so open tells its own story. Reform has one very strong message and story about patriotism, national sovereignty and border control. Yet outside this one area of clarity, vast uncertainty reigns. Reform has suffered sharp birth pangs on its path to Parliament, from endless internal disputes to unvetted candidates with armies of skeletons tumbling out of their closets. Yet amidst all of this, policy has been a surprising area of strength for the party. Unbeholden to the orthodoxies of left or right, it has been able to be more nimble and get on the right side of a number of questions. Opposing the two-child benefit cap, backing British fishermen, opposing the excesses of the Online Safety Act, and committing to leaving the ECHR have all been positions that have worked out in their favour so far.
But this plasticity ultimately poses a problem — who are Reform? What do they stand for? Patriotism is all well and good, but British and English nationhood has never been more contested or less clearly defined. As a new party with an outsider image, voters have given them a great deal of latitude, content that they simply aren’t one of the parties that has misgoverned the country over the past two decades. But this grace period cannot last, and as the years tick down to a general election, more urgent and searching questions are going to require answers. Working out a coherent policy programme and a unifying story bigger than just migration aren’t optional extras. Though even the most incoherent and chaotic version of Reform is certain to win a large number of seats, getting these foundational questions right could mean the difference between being in government, or having a hung parliament. More importantly, it will mean the difference between success and failure in government.
Reform is moving towards a critical juncture this week. Friday will see a party conference on a never before seen scale, as thousands gather in Birmingham, and the image Reform presents to the public at this moment could set the tone for years to come. We’ve also seen the launch of the first Reform-affiliated think tank, the Centre for a Better Britain.
The new organisation seems to grasp the scale of the challenge, stating that “Britain faces a crisis on a par with some of the most significant in the nation’s history; on a range of levels economic, fiscal, geopolitical and demographic the nation is in not only decline but on a completely unsustainable trajectory.” The challenge for this enterprise and Reform’s own policy team will be to meet these challenges with genuinely original thinking. The Centre’s three stated areas of focus can be summed up as defending traditional culture from the attacks of “the progressive left”, that people should be allowed to make “their own choices without the endless intervention of the state” and that we should “promote and defend free speech”. There may be merit in these points, but there isn’t a single one that veers a millimeter from contemporary Conservatism.
Becoming continuity Toryism with harsher rhetoric on migration is a route to annihilation
This sort of thing is going to be a continual source of danger. For a Reform party possibly set to inherit the smouldering ruins of the two party consensus, becoming continuity Toryism with harsher rhetoric on migration is a route to annihilation. The short term temptation, especially as Tory politicians and staffers defect, will be to maximise the party’s appeal to disaffected Conservatives.
As with Boris in 2019 and Starmer in 2024, Farage and his party looks set to be elected by a new kind of coalition, composed of many voters who don’t fall into traditional political camps. Boris and Starmer failed to understand who and what had propelled them to power, and swiftly lost control. Long neglected parts of the map, from Welsh suburbs to England’s decaying Eastern seaboard, are lighting up turquoise. Understanding these neglected regions, and turning things around for them, may be the most crucial test of all for Reform. Relying on markets and tax cuts may work for a Cameroonian coalition of prosperous shires and moderate urbanites, but the private sector has entirely failed to drag Britain’s ex-industrial heartlands and coastal communities out of stagnation and decline. Generational and geographical problems of housing, growth and investment will demand a government willing to wade into industrial strategy, rather than manipulating tax and regulation from the sidelines.
A successful Reform would need to focus relentlessly on rebuilding state capacity
Even on core non-economic questions, like migration or crime, departure from the Thatcherite consensus is going to be crucial. The logistical, legal and ethical challenges of managing migration would be made much easier were the gig economy to be cracked down on and the labour market more regulated. In the same way, investing in public services and jobs will be a vital tool to offer an alternative to criminality — and dealing with anti-social behaviour will mean improving and policing public spaces.
There are dangers on the other side of the equation too. The temptation to both increase public spending and cut taxes will be huge, and can easily arise by default through commitments made whilst in opposition. Rather than either kind of giveaway, a successful Reform would need to focus relentlessly on rebuilding state capacity and investing in critical infrastructure in areas like transport, energy and defence, rather than pouring yet more money into welfare spending. Unlike Labour or the Tories, Reform has the opportunity to link such a project to a revived sense of patriotism and national pride, and the importance of mobilising people behind the government cannot be understated. This is no easy task, but no other party is going to have the means or the opportunity to attempt it in time for the next election.
