An authoritarian power grab. Constitutional vandalism. The dismantling of checks and balances. A threat to the economy. Echoes of Putin. A descent into fascism, even.
This is how Nigel Farage’s legislative agenda will be portrayed — and undermined. None of it will be true, of course. But this is the level of hysteria we should expect if Reform UK pursues the kind of democratic overhaul necessary to deliver on its promises regarding immigration, Net Zero, and the equality agenda — a programme recently dubbed “The Great Repeal Act”.
It will be a powerful line of attack. The British public are proud of their institutions and their history. Which is why Reform must reframe the debate early. Starting now. The party must speak not just of immigration betrayal, deindustrialisation, and bureaucracy. It must speak, increasingly, of democracy itself.
The Great Repeal Act will mean repealing the Human Rights Act, so Parliament can decide who stays in the country. It will mean rewriting the Equality Act to restore colour-blind meritocracy and end the divisive diversity agenda. It means dropping the Environment Act, so we can free ourselves from arbitrary Net Zero targets and pursue an industrial strategy. And it will have to be accompanied by measures to stop the civil service and judiciary from blocking change.
Reform needs to make the case that it would not be a mindless assault on our constitution and the institutions of British life, but a necessary democratic correction. A reassertion of popular sovereignty. A reset to restore the successful, pre-1997 balance of power. You could think of it as the second stage of Brexit: an internal Brexit. We took power back from Brussels. But they have not been returned to the people. They’ve been hoarded by unelected officials at home.
When I worked for the Brexit Party, we pledged to “Change Politics for Good”. That promise has not yet been fulfilled. As its successor, Reform must now deliver. The Great Repeal Act should be explained as what it really is: a Great Democratic Reset.
Narrative matters. Image matters. Understanding and disarming your opponents matters. Reform must speak to those who feel uncomfortable with Nigel Farage, not just to those who cheer him. Because if you thought Brexit triggered a meltdown, just wait.
In fact, it has already begun. Keir Starmer’s speech this week echoed “Project Fear”. The “Anything But Farage” coalition is forming. Call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but the establishment will close ranks — in the media, universities, unions, business, and, of course, the civil service.
We know how they operate. The campaign to stop Brexit was long, bitter and brutal. It took 17.4 million votes, a general election won by a minority government, the birth of a new party, a European Parliament election, a general election landslide, a Supreme Court ruling, a prorogued Parliament and the partial ceding of Northern Ireland, just to get it over the line. And even then, the spoils were limited. Thousands of pieces of EU law remain on the books. Immigration has soared. And within five years, we’ve agreed to give Brussels control over our fishing waters again.
In short, the demand to “take back control” was resisted at every turn — and, in many ways, successfully. It will happen again. Except this time, the stakes are even higher, and winning a general election is just the first step.
Reform’s critics will pretend Britain’s institutions are sacred and neutral. They will speak earnestly of “checks and balances” and “democratic backsliding”. Today, though, in reality, the real check is on the voters, and democratic backsliding is happening because we can’t implement their will.
The judiciary has grown stronger and more vocal. Civil servants have become near untouchable. And ministers are weaker, thanks to the legislative nexus embedded over thirty years of Blairism and managerial drift.
This is not balance. It is capture.
Change is possible. Primary legislation can be undone with new primary legislation. It must be done carefully, as Amar Johal recently argued. But it can be done.
It will not go quietly, however. These laws are now upheld not as policies, but as sacred creeds in a new secular religion. Diversity is our strength. Green is our salvation. Minority rights trump national interests — and, often, common sense. When the sovereign will of the people is deemed too mad or bad to implement, it is dismissed as misinformation or prejudice and quietly ignored.
We must challenge this narrative with one of our own. We must talk about democracy and about power: who has it, and who should. The story is clear. In Britain today, the levers of government no longer work as intended. That’s why nothing changes. Or, as with immigration, change is in the opposite direction to what the public votes for.
Checks and balances are good. Yet the pendulum has swung too far
The point is not to advocate governmental lawlessness. Checks and balances are good. Yet the pendulum has swung too far. As Locke warned long ago, institutional authority only remains legitimate when it is accountable to the people. Today, scholars on the left and right agree that the balance has tipped. In the US, they speak of “policy drift” and “regulatory capture”. In the UK, since the 90s, they’ve written about “depoliticisation”, where ministers outsource power and accountability to quangos and officials, removing difficult policy areas from the democratic sphere.
This is the real democratic dysfunction. Not Reform. Not Farage. Voters are losing faith because the system no longer responds to them.
Making it responsive once again will involve slaying some sacred cows. And we must be honest about them. It will mean a more openly political civil service. It will mean that, sometimes, questioning judicial motives is right. In the United States, prosecutors are elected, and judges are openly partisan. In France, ministers bring in large, politically aligned teams into government departments.
This is not considered controversial. The real controversy is that here, our institutions are often just as political, but hide behind a veneer of “impartiality.”
Other key stages in a strategic campaign of hearts and minds, such as this, include raising the salience of the issue and building alliances with credible third-party advocates.
Reform UK has already utilised Freedom of Information requests to great effect, exposing public sector waste, prompting discussions, and thereby preparing the ground for their future spending reforms. A similar approach can be applied to the issue of democratic accountability.
The party could research and publicise the extent to which power has shifted, collaborating with academics already working in this space, or commission polling to quantify the public’s sense of powerlessness and frustration.
Nigel Farage often references real-world examples of elected decisions being blocked, but he should also consider a set-piece speech on the broader issue and lead this argument from the top.
Building alliances will help demonstrate that Reform is pursuing this agenda in the national interest, not just for party gain. Groups such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance, currently probing the power of quangos, and the new “Judge Watch” project, focused on judicial activism, are natural allies. Even more unexpected voices, like Unite the Union, which has criticised Net Zero targets for undermining democratic accountability, should be cautiously considered.
Announcing a formal commission on democracy would, ironically, risk delaying action and handing control to lawyers and bureaucrats. But a post-election public consultation process — involving civic groups and respected thinkers — could strike the right balance. It would allow concerns to surface and be addressed before major reforms are enacted.
For better or worse, Reform will also have to confront the question of electoral reform if it enters government. Just a year ago, Farage reaffirmed his support for replacing the “outdated” first-past-the-post system. Intriguingly, he added: “We will campaign with anyone and everyone to change this electoral system.”
Could Reform now take that principle further and approach broader constitutional and democratic reform with the same coalition-building spirit?
Trump’s mistake was to fight the establishment without trying to persuade his sceptics. In the UK, where public trust in institutions runs deeper and there is still a cultural aversion to the level of polarisation seen in America, we need to do things differently.
Reform, therefore, must speak to the democratic left as well as the patriotic right, just as the Brexit coalition once did.
After all, leaving the EU wasn’t just about stopping open borders. For the left, it was also about regaining the power to nationalise utilities. This was not a motivating reason for me, personally, to vote for Brexit. But I am glad we have the sovereign right, once again, to do so.
If the aim is to fix totemic issues like immigration, energy, and identity politics, the first battle is not policy
Likewise, repealing the Human Rights Act won’t just allow us to remove failed asylum seekers. It will restore parliamentary authority. Ending DEI mandates won’t just fix broken institutions. It will restore fairness. Scrapping Net Zero dogma won’t just cut bills. It will give Britain back its industrial agency.
In other words, these moves will restore democratic accountability.
If the aim is to fix totemic issues like immigration, energy, and identity politics, the first battle is not policy. It is legitimacy. Democracy means being allowed to be wrong. It means being able to change course. Most of all, it means letting the people decide.
If Reform can make that case, it won’t just win power. It will restore it.
