Reform’s lack of history is what its enemies most enjoy pointing at, and they’re half right. We have no Butskellite settlement to draw on, no Institute of Economic Affairs pamphlets from 1978 with our name on the cover, no forty-year archive of Fabian tracts to be mined and misremembered. We have a party that is, in policy terms, seven years old and in serious policy terms about two.
The page is blank, which is a double edged sword. A blank page has one great advantage. It owes nothing. There is no wing of the party that owns an economic orthodoxy and will sulk if it is departed from, no shadow of a previous government to be apologised for. Reform can walk down the corridor of every other party’s lockers and take whatever fits. Right to Buy was Margaret Thatcher’s. The two-child cap was George Osborne’s. The suitability test is older than either. A Conservative research department can’t do this. Every idea on its shelf has an owner objecting to its being moved. We have no shelf, so we have the run of everyone else’s, and the only question any idea has to answer is whether it will work, and whether it cleaves to our spine.
The other edge of the blade is that it has all had to be done at once, and at pace, with no institutional memory to fall back on. There is no cupboard of half-finished papers to raid. Every document has to be started from nothing, argued through, costed, tested and released, while the same people fight a by-election in Clacton, run a few dozen councils and answer the phone to the Times.
A party absent progressives would be good.
Encouraging. Personally I’d like to see more on defence but that’s just me.
The left parties are cooperating – in local council by-elections (around here) they take care to not split the vote. Greens, Lib Dems and Labour all deny they are cooperating – but it is obvious that they are (they pick which of three is going to win a seat – then the other two do-not-campaign there).
On the other side – Restore, Reform and the Conservatives are fighting each other tooth-and-nail and splitting the vote at each election.
For example, there is no way that Restore Party supporters (and there a lot of them – not so far away from where I live, indeed within a few minutes walk) are going to vote Reform Party – because they do not believe that Mr Farage will fight against Islam (indeed he himself has said that he will not – that he will not “alienate” Islam). And local (and national) Conservatives and Reform Party types who agree on all basic economic and legal policy matters (indeed Kemi Badenoch is forbidding anyone who does not agree from standing as a Conservative candidate – if you are pro Net Zero or pro ECHR do-not-bother-to-apply), are pretending that they do NOT agree – and are engaging in endless stupid insults.
So there is no way that the right is going to win the next election. I have been knocking on doors for 47 years (since the election of 1979) and I know how elections are won, and how they are lost, and the right is playing-a-losing-game at the moment – because of the three-way-split.
But let us wish all that away – and assume that, by a magic spell, the Reform Party has a majority in the House of Commons after the General Election of 2029.
Could it save the United Kingdom? Most likely NOT – as it would already be too late.
Old Jack Tar.
Both the Conservatives and the Reform Party are promising more defense spending, but there is no money to honour these promises.
As for war with Russia (a constant drumbeat in certain newspapers that I deliver each morning) – it is possible (possible – certainly not certain) that Russia (given its vast land area) could survive, as a polity, a thermonuclear exchange.
But the United Kingdom? Certainly there would be survivors, millions of them – but Britain would not survive as a polity, civilization would collapse here.
By the way – it is unlikely that the United States would get involved in such a war.
President Trump has an emotional fondness for Britain – perhaps due to his mother (and he does not seem to know how much the British sneer at him), but he is from an older generation – he is 80 years old, born in 1946.
Younger American politicians, whether of the right or the left (the Hassan Piker crowd hate Britain – and they are the future of the Democrat party, so it is not just J.D. Vance and co in the Republicans that are a bit dubious about war with Russia), are not going to get involved in a full scale war with Russia (or anyone else) – not over Britain.
So any American guarantee ends on January 20th 2029 – assuming that President Trump serves out his term.
“All the more reason we should build up our own military” – again there is no money for it.
And, in a few years, the major cities of Britain will be in ethnic conflict anyway – the conflict will be internal (Russia and China, the vicious Mr Putin and the even more vicious Chinese Communist Party, do not have to do anything – just sit back and laugh).
No Russian politician, not even Mr Putin (with his recruitment of so many followers of the Crescent Moon into the Russian armed forces), would tolerate a situation where most of the people in Moscow and Saint Petersburg were-not-Russian.
And if there was any danger of major cities in China not being mostly Chinese – the CCP would go full Third Reich (and I am not exaggerating).
But the British establishment (in their madness – or worse) have betrayed their own people – so, in a few years, Birmingham, London, and so on, will be burning – but it will not be the result of external attack, it will be the result of internal conflict.
I’m not sure why all these position papers and policies matter all that much. As far as I can see, political parties actual actions often bear little resemblance to their pre-election promises anyway. And, FWIW, MAGA was started on enthusiasm and energy, a passion for change and a rejection of the old ways, which is what Reform can do.
I mean the people who care about all that stuff the most are the very people you’d be electing Reform to get rid of, right?
I guess I see this differently.
Reform has inherited – or maybe grabbed and taken – the philosophies and the values and the aspirations that the Tories possessed for decades, but which those same Tories had completely abandoned at some point.
They are Tory Part II, and I say that in a good way. They now represent everything that the Tories CLAIMED to represent, but didn’t.
So, sure, they come into play without an established history in their own name, but they’re a continuation of a lapsed conservative spirit. They’re going to have to houseclean a lot of “Tory” people who are occupying state spots, but they’ll put back people in the same spirit that was supposed to be there in the first place.
This isn’t a revolution so much as it’s a purge back to basics.
bobby b – I voted for Robert Jenrick to be leader of the Conservative Party, but it is hard to argue that he is really to the right of Kemi Badenoch in his philosophies, values and aspirations. Nor was it a question of anyone “abandoning” anything – they found they did not have much power, and the Reform Party (in those councils they control) is finding out the same thing.
Fraser Orr refers to the “actions” of political parties – but they do not really choose these actions in government – they rubber stamp international (yes international) policies that are presented to them as unavoidable. They do not even choose their own slogans – such as “Build Back Better” and “Rewilding” – officials and experts all tell them what they must do and must not do, and it is not different for the Reform Party – as their experience in local government is teaching them (although they should have already known – as they are often ex Conservative councilors).
President Trump is struggling against the power of the International Community (including the American establishment) in the United States – but with limited success. And, contrary to the textbooks on government (which pretend the opposite), a British Prime Minister has far LESS (not more – less) power than a American President – indeed the British establishment can remove a Prime Minister who does not please them – without any election.
Of course, a Prime Minister can put into practice various gimmicks of their own – the “Cone Hotline” of John Major, or “Number Ten North” of “Andy” Burnham (indeed Mr Burnham has lots-and-lots of gimmicks) – but only if these are not policies that will offend the Progressive establishment – which is both national and international, and which the JUDGES are very much members.
As Dr David Starkey (constitutional historian) points out – such judges as the late Lord Bingham were quite open in how they redefined (utterly changed the meaning of) such terms as the “rule of law” – it no longer means the protection of individual liberties against the state, it now means the active promotion (by the state) of various groups – at the expense of other groups (specifically at the expense of white-straight-males – ironically that would include the late Lord Bingham himself).
Any effort to get rid of the judges – and the Bank of England would create an “economic crises” (it has done this before) – and there would be a massive media campaign (including in the “right wing” newspapers such as the Telegraph) against a government that, say, tried to fight back against the “demographic transformation” of Britain – and, if necessary, even the King would intervene – King Charles would be happy to help remove a “racist” government.
Remember Jacob Rees-Mogg could not even stop Civil Servants wearing “Progressive” lanyards – let alone stop them following “Progressive” policies – nothing to do with Jacob Rees-Mogg not “representing” various philosophies, valued and aspirations – and it would have made no difference if he had been a Reform Party minister rather than a Conservative Party minister.
Indeed Nigel Farage has already indicated that he will not really challenge the establishment – we must not “alienate” Islam (and on and on). The Gentleman wants to be Prime Minister – and he understands that the establishment will not allow him to be Prime Minister if he really rocks the boat, and would REMOVE HIM if he became Prime Minister and then went around sacking judges, closing mosques and-so-on.
But it is all water under the bridge anyway – with the three-way-split in the right wing vote (and with Kemi, Nigel and Rupert refusing to work together – and spending most of their time attacking each other) there is no way the right is going to win the next election – and the next General Election is not likely before May 2029, which is too late anyway.
As for the United States – there is still hope, but that hope dies in November. Congress is despicable now – but it is a shadow of the utter evil (and I mean the word “evil”) it will be when Hakeem Jeffries and co win control (officially from January 2027).
Partly because of a war that could have been won in two weeks, but has dragged on for six months – due to people such as Vice President Vance NOT wanting to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran, because (according to him) that would mean “90 million Iranian refugees flooding into Europe” – he made such claims on the Joe Rogan show, showing himself a to be a follower of Tucker Carlson (whose son is one of the principle advisers to Vice President Vance).
I remember Vietnam – talks-and-deals with VICTORY a forbidden concept. The establishment love wars that America is not allowed (not allowed) to win.
The frustrating thing is that there is still time – President Trump could, even now, destroy the IRI (liberate the Iranian people) and ride the military victory to victory in the midterm elections, but it is unlikely (very unlikely) that he will break free of the “limited war” doctrine, break free of the madness (utter madness) of “talks and deals”.
So the midterms are lost – and with them, any chance of turning the United States around, away from drifting over the cliff (demographically and in every other way).
I remind people – that to a lot of New York (and other big city) Democrats, the problem with Hakeem Jeffries is that he is “too moderate” – he does not want to torture traditional Americans enough.
When someone like Hakeem is considered a “moderate” – you are not dealing with a normal political party, you are dealing with a force of evil. The product of an education system that was, long ago now, taken over by the worst ideas on the planet.
The typical Democrat activist is someone who actually believes what their school teachers and university professors said – and that is damning.
As for Britain…..
I disagree with Dr Starkey about the concepts of natural law and rights being silly – indeed I hold natural law (natural justice) to be the basis of Common Law – as the traditional judges did.
But I agree with him that the modern Conventions and Declarations are so horribly drafted as to be worse than useless – indeed they harmful (incredibly harmful), we should get out of the European Convention and the United Nations Declaration and-so-on.
As for modern judges – yes Lord Bingham (Tom Bingham) is indeed a good example.
Every academic qualification, top of his class in all cases, and a saintly privately life – but, sadly, utterly wrong headed. No grasp of the basic principles of law – “how dare you say that!” well please let me justify it….
As early as 1977 Tom Bingham was showing lack of judgement – Rhodesia was in a desperate fight for existence against vicious Marxist terrorists (who slaughtered far more black people than they did white people) – but to Tom Bingham that was not relevant (if he had any understanding of it at all – which he most likely did not), what was relevant was “racism” – the Rhodesian government was “racist” so it must go (Ian Smith had always been AGAINST racial qualifications in voting, believing that any individual property owner should have the vote – regardless of skin tone, but Tom Bingham did not understand that, or did not care) – and so Tom Bingham eagerly investigated British companies for “sanction busting”.
That by enforcing these sanctions the British government was helping bring to power Marxists (such as Robert Mugabe) who would murder vast numbers of people, is something the learned judge either did not understand, or did not care about.
Later on there are such antics as “the Iraq War is against international law” (a wrong headed war perhaps – but what has “international law” got to with anything?), “drones should be banned” (why not ban crossbows as well?) and the endless other absurdities – from the leading-judge-of-his-generation whom the other judges try to follow.
And it stems from his definition of what the “Rule of Law” means – not protecting traditional individual liberties, Freedom of Speech, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and so on – but rather weird new definitions about promoting minorities (till they become the majority?) and general group based rights.
It is no surprise that Lord Bingham loved the European Convention on Human Rights – which is so wretchedly drafted (“the right to family life” and so on) that a judge can make it mean anything – anything at all.
The final end were the Covid lockdowns (which Tom Bingham did not live to see) – all the traditional liberties of British people violated, crushed. And the “human rights” judges and lawyers went along with all of it.
For the modern definitions of “rights” and “law” have got nothing to do with protecting traditional liberties based on natural justice (as traditionally understood) – NO – the modern definition of “rights” and “law” are about crushing (utterly crushing – destroying) the British people and other Western peoples.
Short version.
Britain is a “Liberal” Democracy – rather than a Democracy.
You can vote for any political party you like – but, in office, that party will not be allowed to follow “illiberal” policies.
And “liberal” and “liberalism” are defined in the modern (Collectivist) way – it is not liberalism as Gladstone or John Bright would have understood the term.
An example from another country….
The new President of Hungary (elected by the Parliament) is an ex judge who argued that the laws and Constitution of Hungary should be “interpreted” (read – ripped up) in a way that went along with “European” and “International” “norms and values”.
That is modern “Liberal Democracy” – rather than Democracy.
Just as the best candidates are those with good hair and no record, either police or political, the best party is the one with no record. Just trust them and within 2 years of getting into office, you’ll find they’re no different from their predecessors excepting being less practiced at keeping the deception up.
“Trust ye neither elf nor dwarf, so far as ye can throw them.”