Are Reform UK Ready to Govern?

Everyone wants Reform to "professionalise". What does it mean & can they achieve it?

1. Introduction

The UK is in serious trouble, and the electorate are realising - somewhat belatedly - that the recently elected Labour government is going to make things very much worse, very quickly. Things are imploding at an unprecedented speed, for three main reasons:

• Labour are more concerned with insane globalist ideology, epitomised for example by the Net Zero madness, than with the welfare of the British people.

• They were not ready for government, as illustrated by the delayed, shambolic budget - in which, inter alia, they broke their manifesto promise not to raise National Insurance contributions.

• Senior members of the government are disingenuous and incompetent.

  • Ed Miliband, having promised to reduce electricity bills by £300, immediately oversaw an increase instead, with further increases in the immediate pipeline.

  • David Lammy, who further destroys his own reputation every time he speaks, has made an utterly shambolic mess of the Chagos Islands issue.

  • Rumours persist of serious indiscretions, or worse, in Kier Starmer’s private life, possibly most seriously that he is directly implicated in an egregious cover-up relating to the Southport killings. We know that the entire establishment, led by his government, supressed (and continues to suppress) the truth about the alleged attacker, but there are hints that Starmer himself is hiding some deeper, darker involvement.

  • Angela Rayner’s recent car crash interview with Trevor Philips, discussing the housing crisis, was perhaps the “best” yet...

  • … until it was overtaken by the screeching U-turn in dumping support for the “WASPI Women”, who Labour have now betrayed despite endless promises of support in the years and months leading up to the election.

Kier Starmer’s government is utterly shambolic and the country needs to be rid of them at the earliest opportunity. With luck, they will self-implode well before their allotted 5 years is up, but we must be ready for the worst case scenario - namely that they remain in power until 2029 and leave a country in total socio-economic disarray, for the next government to fix.

That next government could potentially be formed by Reform UK - who now have a unique opportunity to avoid the same mistakes as Labour. Following their impressive showing in the General Election, receiving over 4 million votes and winning 5 seats in Parliament, Reform have signalled their intent to rapidly evolve from a populist protest movement into a “professional, democratised” political party ready for power in 2029. Ahead of the last party conference, Nigel Farage stated an intention to professionalise and democratise - an ambition no one could reasonably disagree with.

However, recent exchanges on social media are exposing some dissent in the ranks of those to whom Reform should naturally be appealing. Podcasters, bloggers and “influencers” are questioning whether the party is heading in the right direction, and doubts have been reinforced by the manner in which Ben Habib parted company with the Reform movement.

While much of the criticism is in our opinion overblown - primarily the accusation that Reform and Nigel Farage are adopting a civic nationalist position which is too accepting of UK cultural and ethnic dilution - the critics nevertheless ask a number of pertinent questions that the party’s management would do well to acknowledge. People are asking what “professionalising” and “democratising” the party actually means, and these are questions which Reform should answer if it is to fulfil its promise.

The country needs Reform - desperately, and soon. Critics fall into two camps - those who believe that the Tories can stage a revival and those who call for a different kind of start-up opposition. However, both perspectives are deeply flawed.

• The Tories have shown no sign that they understand where it all went wrong. The electorate is unlikely to ever trust them again but, even if they did, a government of unreformed, “wet” one-nation Tories would be no more capable than they ever were over the past 14 years, of addressing the existential threats we face - which will have worsened significantly by 2029.

  • The Tories did not “get Brexit done” in any meaningful sense, and Labour seem intent on dragging us further back within the sphere of EU influence - even as euro-scepticism is on the rise in many other member states.

  • More people are gradually awakening (albeit painfully slowly) to the fact that the entire Covid “deadly plague” narrative was a deceitful psy-op. Unconstitutional lockdowns, coerced vaccination, and abuse of the elderly and the young, will not easily be forgiven, as increasing numbers come to finally understand the true scale of the madness.

  • The Tories are every bit as committed to the climate alarmist and Net Zero cult as Labour. By 2029, we will be further along the road to unaffordable, rationed power, and the necessary measures to reverse the damage will be further beyond a Tory party bereft of courageous ideas.

  • Last but not least of course, there is immigration where - if anything - the Tories are even more delusional than Labour.

  So no; in summary, the Tories can not and never will be the answer.

• The main criticisms of those calling for a more purist form of centre-right opposition are twofold:

  • Policy - in particular, they take exception to a perceived lack of robust determination when it comes to mass deportation.

    It’s not actually clear what they mean by “mass” in this context but, regardless, this is a case of fiddling while Rome burns. We have an ongoing problem of (legal and illegal) immigration which we need to address now, and Reform have clearly signalled their desire to deport illegals - especially those convicted of criminal offences. It is somewhat disingenuous to claim otherwise.

    Calling for a drive to “voluntarily repatriate” those of foreign descent who are here legally is a whole different ball game - and one which the vast majority of British people will simply not support. Purity-signalling of this kind is both naïve and dangerous.

    We have criticisms of Reform ourselves in some other policy areas, most notably energy. They have, so far, failed to clearly articulate a detailed approach to the total dismantling of Net Zero, and the leadership has been equivocal about “climate change”. But, even with no details, the Reform position is nevertheless already 5/10 compared to 0/10 for Labour and the Tories.

    The British people would be crazy to reject Reform at this stage on the basis of ambiguous policy positions.

  • Party structure and democracy - basically that Reform remains the personal fiefdom of Nigel Farage. This is seemingly one of the to principal reasons for Ben Habib’s departure (he has also fundamentally disagreed with Farage on his Brexit stance).

  However this group is equally misguided. For example, they accuse Reform of undemocratic structures and empty populism, but the simple, inescapable truth is that some level of populism is essential in order to effectively challenge and disrupt the uniparty status quo. Basic human nature is inescapable - people want a charismatic leader who communicates with them in a language they understand. The US has Donald Trump, Argentina has Javier Milei - and Reform has Nigel Farage.

  To criticise Reform on the basis that Farage is “too autocratic” is to miss the point completely. Whatever anyone’s personal assessment of his strengths and weaknesses, he is Reform UK - for the foreseeable future at least. Of course, that is not enough, and we will get to that momentarily.

The idea that any new entrant, other than Reform, can mount a serious challenge in the next ten years is fantasy - and we do not have that long anyway. The issues of uncontrolled immigration, Net Zero and globalist communism are existential, and they must be dealt with now.

The truth is that Reform UK represents the only chance we have of reversing the madness. Yes, there are significant issues to be resolved and improvements to be campaigned for, but to suggest that there is any equally effective, let alone better, opportunity to reverse the UK’s descent into insane communist apparatchik dystopia is to be in denial of reality.

2. What Reform are getting right

2.1 Profile-building and fund-raising

Since the election, Reform have continued to advance significantly in the opinion polls, to the extent that they are now essentially in a 3-way tie for support with Labour and the Tories. Nigel Farage’s personal relationship with Donald Trump and other key members of the incoming US administration is certain to further boost Farage’s personal popularity, in the short term at least.

The leadership team clearly recognises that adequate party funding is a critical issue to resolve if they are to achieve their ambitions. Certainly, the professionalisation we discuss in section 3 below will require significant financing. The appointment of Nick Candy as party treasurer represents a key milestone in securing future financial security, and the recent meeting between Farage, Candy and Elon Musk, with accompanying photo-op, was extremely encouraging.

2.2 Democratising

In a top-down context, the stated intent here is to progressively relinquish control from an elite leadership team, to rank-and-file party members, while also protecting the party from infiltration by extremists at either end of the political spectrum.

This process was started at the party conference, with the putative adoption of a new constitution and the transfer of share ownership from a small group of party founders to the membership at large. While some expressed the view that too much control remained with Farage as leader, the new constitution nevertheless appeared to be a considerable step forward.

However, in what passed effectively for his resignation speech, ex-deputy leader Ben Habib cast doubt on whether these democratising measures have in fact been progressed, at least as yet. If Habib is correct, then the leadership needs to clarify the reason/s for any delay, and provide reassurance that the issues are being addressed.

Yet while Habib made some valid observations - if they had been expressed more moderately - he came across as petulant and divisive, seemingly having learned little from the Tories repeatedly tearing themselves apart through disloyalty over many years. Habib also claimed that constituency branches had been banned from inviting him to speak as a guest at meetings - but he provided no evidence of this and a number of branch chairs have directly refuted this to us.

When all is said and done, four million people voted Reform in the GE because of Nigel Farage, not because of Ben Habib. Habib seems very concerned about being true to those he perceives as being responsible for “building the movement”, but somewhat less concerned about what voters and new members actually want - which appears to be moderate centre-right policies of the kind that Farage is espousing, not the purist demands of Ben Habib.

Nevertheless, whatever the truth of things, the impression has grown among many grass-roots supporters that Habib was badly treated - and dismissive, throwaway comments from Richard Tice and Nigel Farage have not assuaged those concerns, especially when combined with the numerous attacks on Tommy Robinson and his supporters. Reform are in serious danger of ceding too much ground in the PR battle.

From a bottom-up perspective, constituency branches are being formally established with officers appointed temporarily, ahead of permanently elected positions chosen by the local membership - a process which is now advancing at a rapid pace.

The basic plan is clearly to develop a grass-roots movement in the constituencies, in order to campaign for - and win - local council elections (at least, those that are not cancelled by an increasingly totalitarian Labour government). Essentially, to emulate the Lib Dems by building constituency strongholds as a platform to challenge for parliamentary seats.

Passing a claimed 100,000 members - even if Ben Habib and others take issue with the definition of “member” - is testament to the fact that Reform are having significant success with the bottom-up strategy.

However, it is reasonable to ask whether the party is appealing sufficiently to the disaffected youth demographic who have, in so many ways, borne the lion’s share of the UK’s rapid decline and malaise of recent years - disrupted education, youth unemployment, unaffordable housing costs and more. Aside from needing a diverse support base, in terms of age and outlook, Reform desperately need the energy and enthusiasm of the younger generation in order to deliver their vision of a renewed, independent, confidently outward looking, and dynamic Britain.

Furthermore, Reform have often seemed obsessed with the Tories. But the Conservative party is no longer relevant, they will never regain the lost trust of a huge percentage of former supporters. It is traditional Labour voters that Reform must now convince - the genuine working classes that Labour have so disgracefully betrayed. So many of these people have been abandoned to a life of dependency on the state, with the lack of dignity and hope which that entails - no chance of making a valuable contribution to society, of owning their own homes, of believing that the lives of their children will be better than their own.

It is not immediately clear how many of the present 100,000 members are disaffected Tories, compared to voiceless working classes, or how many younger voters are signing up for active membership.

2.3 Professionalising

What Farage and the leadership team mean by “professionalising” however is not so clear, and is open to a range of interpretations.

At a very simple level, it can be interpreted as formalising and streamlining internal party processes, such as the effective vetting of branch officers and electoral candidates. All well and good, and the signs are that these measures are progressing under the chairmanship of Zia Yusuf.

However, there is a lot more to being a truly professional organisation - which can only be achieved top-down, led from the centre. This is where some of the more thoughtful criticism of Reform comes in - that they do not yet have a clearly articulated manifesto agenda covering both the definition and the implementation of policy: The “what” and the “how”.

No one can doubt, for example, the genuine desire of the leadership team to stop the illegal channel crossings. The doubts surface when critics ask; “but how?”

Leaving the ECHR for example - despite the empty waffle of the new Tory leader Kemi Badenoch - is quite obviously a pre-requisite. But it will not, in and of itself, achieve anything. Richard Tice has repeatedly spoken of “turning the boats around”, while Rupert Lowe tweets “detain, then deport”. People are within their rights to ask “which is it?” - what is the actual policy position? For that, detailed documentation is required, underpinned by defined processes, budgeted costs, and all the other “boring” technocratic minutiae.

In a sane, lost world, a governing party might reasonably expect that this is where the civil service comes in. But the UK civil service is totally captured by the woke mind virus. It is not capable of fulfilling its fundamental constitutional role. It is unclear that Reform leadership understands the scale of the challenge which it would face in government - and it is in this area that we are in full agreement with some of the more insightful alt-media commentators.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that, without a lot more serious work to prepare, a Reform government would be able to progress any radical policy ideas at all, in the face of likely constant obstruction from a politicised civil service and criminal justice infrastructure. Remember what happened, for example, to Dominic Raab and Priti Patel. Where we differ from the social media critics is that - even if Reform only has a 10 or 20 percent chance of success - they are the only game in town. Realistically, no one else even has a 1% chance.

We are also firmly committed to the view that, with the right help, Reform’s chances of a successful programme of change can be dramatically improved - to 75%, or more.

3. Areas for improvement

3.1 A definition of “professional”

We would like at this point to propose a definition of professionalism in politics:

A professional political party operates in an organised, competent, and corruption-free way, using formal qualifications, methodologies and skills to achieve long-term viability and well-defined policy objectives. Such methodologies and skills are employed on a daily basis in the business world. While they do not guarantee success, their absence all but guarantees failure.

For Reform to succeed, therefore, they need to learn and apply the lessons of the business world. In a very real sense, it is as simple as that. The complexity, of course, is always in the detail, but there are management approaches to deal with that.

As counter-examples, we can ask, for example:

• Was the previous Tory government’s approach to “stopping the boats” professional - was there a clear objective, a transparent budget, a detailed implementation plan, and a progress-tracking mechanism to ensure the objective was being achieved?

• Is the current Labour government’s approach to “stamping out corruption and sleaze” professional?

• Was the UK’s response to Covid professional - for example was there any analysis of the costs and benefits of the various measures adopted to “control the virus”?

If Reform is serious about becoming a professional party, it needs to do things very differently. So what do we mean, in the above definition, by “using formal qualifications, methodologies and skills to achieve well-defined objectives”?

“Formal Qualifications” means that to act in a professional manner, you need to be professionally qualified. In simpler terms, people have to know what they are doing. In this context, that means as an organisation, not necessarily as individuals. A government health minister, for example, does have to be medically qualified, but s/he should have a balanced team which includes medically qualified advisers. Again, as a counter-example, do Ed Miliband and officials at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) show any sign that they know what they are doing in the mad rush to destroy the UK economy with the Net Zero insanity?

In terms of a professionally run political party, or government, we would highlight two separate areas in which the support of professionals is required - general management, and technical specialists. In government, the UK model is that these professional skills are provided by an impartial civil service. One can perhaps legitimately debate how well that has worked out for the UK in recent decades, but here we are talking about a political party preparing for government - Reform UK needs its own professionals, in order to support the process of professionalisation.

Figure 1: Political “Professionalism”

“Formal Methodologies” means that you have a proven, generalised approach to success, using well-established tools and techniques - for example, cost-benefit analysis. We elaborate on this topic in detail at section 3 below.

3.2 Formal Methodologies

3.2.2 Management Support

The material presented in this section should not be judged as “right” or “wrong” at this stage. The key takeaway should be about the approach, not the detailed content which is simply our first draft proposal for discussion and refinement.

The critical point is that documenting the organisation and operation of the party is not simply about the end result, important as that is. The true value comes from the process itself - the analysis and open debate that the documentation exercise encourages.

3.2.2.1 Organisation - roles & responsibilities

Every large organisation, without exception, should maintain and publish its organisation structure, and the main roles and responsibilities associated with key positions. This typically takes the form of a diagram - an “organigram” (or “organogram”) - with a brief list of responsibilities and accompanying narrative for each role. The role of Reform party leader for example, might cross-reference any constitutional provisions relating to a formal (re-)election process.

Figure 2: Organisation Structure

Figure 2 provides an illustration of a potential high level organisation structure (with names omitted). Lower levels - for example each constituency branch - should each maintain their own populated structures, in line with a common central template.

3.2.2.2 Operating environment & stakeholders

From recent actions, it is obvious (and unsurprising) that the leadership fully understands the importance of fostering a good relationship with confirmed and potential party donors.

But they need to go further. Understanding the overall “business” and regulatory landscape in which Reform UK operates is not some bureaucratic management-speak luxury: For Reform to operate effectively, and for the leadership team to be assured that all areas of party operations, opportunities and risks are being appropriately prioritised and professionally addressed, it is essential that all “stakeholder” interests are recognised.

If, for example, the requirements of the Electoral Commission are not explicitly acknowledged, then there is no means to ensure that electoral compliance obligations are not breached. Similarly, external political alliances should not be left to chance or the transient whims of individuals. They should be strategically managed in accordance with some (small “f”) formal managerial protocol.

Figure 3: Stakeholder Environment

3.2.2.3 Processes

Reform are currently addressing some key process issues, especially in the area of branch establishment and personnel vetting. However, effective management of the party overall will require much more comprehensive analysis and documentation of all key processes, including detailed documentation of responsibilities, controls and exceptions.

Effective process design and documentation is a specialised job, but it is one carried out every day in the professional business world. There is no need to reinvent any wheels - Reform just needs to appoint a professional team to carry out the work.

Figure 4: Top Level Processes

A first draft outline of a top-level process landscape is illustrated at figure 4. In a full definition exercise, each numbered process would need to be further decomposed into constituent parts, with full process narratives (including detailed flow charts as appropriate) at each level. We provided an example of drilling down into each process, via “functional decomposition”, in an earlier paper.

3.2.3 Specialist Support

Specialist support will be an essential factor in Reform UK’s ultimate success or failure. Professional, accurate and impartial research will need to underpin each policy position. This is possibly the most important reason that “uniparty” politics has gone so badly wrong in the UK in recent years - and it is a mistake that Reform simply cannot afford to repeat.

Except in their own areas of expertise (for example, in the case of an MP who is a qualified lawyer or doctor being able to come to their own conclusions about constitutional or medical issues), most parliamentarians’ understanding of key issues, such as climate, Net Zero, and the pro’s and con’s of detailed immigration policies, are largely informed by parliamentary researchers.

Many of these researchers, whose opinions increasingly and vocally proliferate across social media platforms such as LinkedIn and TwiX, are recent university graduates (frequently in philosophy, politics and economics, or PPE) with no in-depth knowledge or experience themselves of the topics they are researching. Having been through the neo-Marxist indoctrination process which now passes for a university education, it is no surprise that these researchers then regurgitate the establishment “consensus” of rampant institutional racism and discrimination, an existential medical or climate emergency around every corner, identity politics and so on.

Uniparty MP’s - including, crucially, most government ministers - have allowed themselves to be hugely and unduly influenced by these lobbying left-wing activists masquerading as independent researchers. Combined with the effect of a captured civil service, it is little wonder that the UK has sunk so far, so fast, into our current dire plight.

For Reform to do better, they must do things radically differently - recruit genuine experts in each key area to provide detailed and genuinely independent analysis which can then underpin effective policy. It may be difficult for many to understand the depth of analysis required for this to be effective - we spent many weeks producing an example paper in an area where we have our own expertise, i.e. the insanity of Net Zero. Each specialist area will need an equally in-depth analysis by appropriately qualified experts.

4. Conclusions

The UK is currently 5 months into a Labour government.

• Democracy is being destroyed. While promising to decentralise and devolve power, Labour is doing the exact opposite - yet more calculated cynical gaslighting.

• Immigration, especially illegal immigration, is not under control, and this Labour government clearly has no intention of bringing it under control.

• We have an unjust justice system, no matter how many times “Two Tier Kier” and his establishment cronies deny it with gaslighting lies.

• Electricity prices are rising, water prices are rising, and inflation is rising.

  Worryingly, Labour costs are rising faster than inflation, putting further pressure on inflation which will inevitably cause it to accelerate.

• We are being dragged, dishonestly and by stealth, back into the sphere of influence of the EU.

• Our national infrastructure continues to crumble. Other than white elephant “renewables”, virtually nothing is being built - roads, railways, airport capacity, nuclear power plants, nothing.

The UK is in deep trouble and things are going to get very rapidly worse, under a government which does nothing but lie to its citizens.

UK Gilt yields are at 25 year highs, reflecting a serious lack of confidence in the financial markets. 10 year yields are currently above 4.5% (higher than in 2022 after the Kwarteng/Truss budget furore) and 30 year yields well over 5%.

Figure 5: UK Gilt Yield Curve at 19th December 2024 (www.marketwatch.com)

Whole groups who trusted Labour to fight for them have been betrayed - pensioners, WASPI women, utility customers, the working class, and more. Everyone in the country in fact, other than the corrupt globalists and grifting money men behind so many of our problems.

With all of these issues, a Labour government dénouement and sudden collapse - and Reform’s chance to capitalise, if they are ready - may come far sooner than most expect. So will Reform be ready - in 2025, 2029, or anywhere in-between?

With the rapid increase in polling support, sufficient funding to mount a high-profile election campaign, a growing grass-roots presence through the constituency branches, and the almost guaranteed support of the Trump administration, there is every likelihood they will be ready to fight a successful election campaign. Their one significant vulnerability will be the charge that they do not have a sufficiently coherent or implementable policy manifesto. It is a certainty that the establishment blob, together with their far-left collaborators in the MSM, will exploit that vulnerability to the fullest extent they can. They will accuse Reform of being empty, “far-right” populists - not serious, professional challengers.

Because the Reform leadership is wary of brickbats from the corrupt media and the far-left activists of the establishment blob, they become unduly defensive around central issues such as Islamist terrorism, and they attempt to distance themselves from natural allies such as the disaffected working classes who support Tommy Robinson in their droves.

Reform must be their own people. They do not have to agree with everything Tommy Robinson believes, but neither should they alienate a huge cohort of the working class - who have suffered directly as a result of low-paid immigrant workers, the ghettoisation of so many working class neighbourhoods, and the dilution/erosion of so much of their traditional culture.

There is no need for Reform to be defensive about anything. Especially, if they professionalise, as we are suggesting, so that they can positively present a constructive vision for Britain’s future. There are some very obvious specific initiatives which follow from this argument:

• There should be positions in the final organisation chart for a “Youth Coordinator”, a “Tsar for the disaffected Working Classes” and so on.

• In planning for government, Reform must be imaginative and bold - e.g. to propose a “Minister for the Working Class”. Imagine how it would look if Reform proposed a private members bill to create such a position, and the Labour government voted it down!

Further ideas are, of course, welcome.

It is the future of the country though, as opposed to the future of the Reform party, which should be the real concern of every British patriot. Reform must be ready not only to win power, but to govern effectively once in office. They must hit the ground running, ready to resist any efforts from the blob to thwart their ambitions to actually reform the UK.

Reform have made massive strides in a short period of time, from both top-down and bottom-up directions. But there remains a yawning gap in the middle, where operational professionalism must reside - Organisation; Processes; detailed, evidence-based Policies; and the Management capabilities to make anything happen in government, in the face of certain hostility from the blob.

To maximise their chances of winning the next election - whenever it comes - and then of using their first term in government both to reverse the decline and cement their position as the long-term government of choice, Reform need to address this critical gap. They must “professionalise”, as promised by Nigel Farage, and - if they have any sense - they will do it in the manner we describe at section 3 above. The good news is that this is easy to do, and we stand ready to assist.

We now expect to be urgently contacted by Mr Farage or Mr Yusuf, for them to request our assistance in making all this happen. If they don’t, they - and more tragically the country - may miss their one great opportunity to end this dystopian neo-Marxist globalist madness once and for all.