TOM ARMSTRONG
I first started this article several weeks ago, just as the Farage v Lowe squabble broke out. I had intended to call it ‘Is Nigel Farage Now a Liability?’, but things got worse, so I let it stew to see what happened.
So, should we continue to support Reform? I have been in two minds, and still am to some extent, so let’s look again at where we are.
I’ve never thought that Farage was the Establishment-smashing insurrectionist we so badly need. He has always been a traditional conservative though, I think, a patriot. He’s also an egoist who finds it hard to work with talented, intelligent people, commonly left with a sense of betrayal by not so nice Nigel.
But from its inception until recently, Farage was foremost of Reform’s three major assets, the other two being the treacherous Tories and, very importantly, its highly motivated members. Yes, Farage has his shortcomings, but without him Reform would probably still be down among the living dead with the purist UKIP and Heritage Parties.
Instead, they came third in the popular vote, with over four million votes, 14.3% of the poll, only getting 0.8% of the seats – five – the most disproportionate gap between vote and seat share on record.
Reform and Farage went together, like fish and chips, Starmer and two-tier governance. Farage was Reform, and he was going to lead it into the next election and enter Downing Street in triumph, Reforms five MPs, Rupert Lowe chief among them, started off well, asking embarrassing questions of the government. Things were looking good.
By December Reform was picking up members like nobody’s business and overtaking Labour and the Tories in the polls. Farage basked in praise from Donald Trump, and Elon Musk, rumoured to be about to give Reform £80 million, a thought that gave the British establishment the conniptions. Farage said that the tech tycoon was “fully, fully behind us” and that “He wants to help us, he’s not opposed to the idea of giving us money, provided we can do it legally through UK companies”.
And then it all changed. Possibly because over the Tommy Robinson and the Muslim rape gangs business. Farage had made his disdain for Robinson public, and instead of keeping quiet after Musk asked questions, he repeated the Establishment’s line that Robinson was a convicted criminal with no place in polite society, apparently miffing Musk in doing so. Musk withdrew his support, along with any chance of an £80 million donation.
In any other organisation losing eighty million quid would have consequences for those responsible, but the Reform leadership shrugged it off, giving the appearance of almost welcoming it.
And then came Rupert Lowe’s criticism of Reform’s organisation and reliance on Farage as Messiah, a role he obviously enjoys. I think Lowe’s criticism was justified, especially after what many see as the leadership reneging on it’s promise to democratise the party, when in fact it merely changed the format leaving its ‘owners’, Farage and Zia almost untouchable.
Though perhaps he might have best kept his council or found another way of saying it, Lowe’s comments didn’t initially make much of an impact among Reform members and potential voters, who want to see sensible discussions and public participation in debate. But the response was borderline hysterical and certainly did make an impact, an adverse one, though just how adverse remains to be seen.
What followed was absurd, with immediate claims of Lowe bullying and threatening violence. The police were called in. Lowe said that he had been silenced on the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs by the Reform Duopoly. That’s a strange one, as Farage had spoken out on this subject before, eventually acknowledging Tommy Robinson’s part in bringing it to light.
Farage even promised that, if the government hadn’t launched an inquiry into the mass rape of young girls by the end of January Reform would hold its own, saying that there was “overwhelming demand” for the public to know the “full, unvarnished truth” of the scandal.
The chances of a proper Inquiry recede into the far distance, but so far Reform has not launched an inquiry. And it now seems, according to Chairman Zia, it will only do so if elected.
And, of course, there is Chairman Zia. He’s a Muslim. Many don’t like him. Pakistan born Ben Habid might also be a Muslim. Many like him a lot. Farage says criticism of Chairman Zia was racist. He’s criticised Ben Habib himself, but that’s not racist. And it gets tediously deeper, with claim, counter-claim, allegation and so on.
Worse, it seems that regional party chairmen have been dismissed from the party for siding with Lowe, and there are rumours that members have been shown the door for criticising Islam. Regional chairmen report that they are inundated with complaints about the way the party is now run, like a mini dictatorship. Much of the discontent is focussed on Chairman Zia, who does seem to have a very autocratic style.
There is, therefore, much discombobulation among the Old Guard, the men and women who rallied round the flag when it was first unfurled. Some, a goodly number I suspect, have resigned their party membership, and many others are swearing never to vote Reform. Farage is controlled opposition they say, and Chairman Zia is an Islamist implant. And, worst of all perhaps, Reform is just a slightly more Right wing Tory Party, and just as untrustworthy.
So where is Reform now?
Well, if a recent local council election, in Thameside Manchester is anything to go by, they are where they were in December last year, short of 80 million quid perhaps, but still riding high in the polls, if the recent result in Manchester Thameside council election is anything to go by. Labour lost its safest seat on the council, with their vote collapsing, down 32%. The Tory vote was down 10%. Reform won the seat from a standing start, with over 46%. Not a bad result for a party in turmoil.
And this brings us to the heart of the dilemma. What do we on the patriotic, freedom-loving Right do? Before answering that question, we have to stop and consider the problem from the enemy’s point of view. They, the Globalist Left, undoubtedly see Reform as a major threat, even if Farage and Chairman Zia are their men. They see it as a vehicle that might run out of control and so, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will use all their wiles, tricks and deviousness to destroy it as a force for change. Who knows what their role in all these unseemly shenanigans has been, but we can be sure that they have had a role.
And perhaps that role was a mole? They are certainly capable of getting someone into a senior, or influential, position in Reform. It could be anyone, Farage, Chairman Zia, one of the MPs, or some poisonous ear-whisperer we’ve never heard of, playing ego against ego. Guessing, we will choose the one we like the least. Most will go for Zia, but perhaps he’s a bit too obvious, or maybe that’s the trick, a double bluff on obviousness.
Or perhaps it’s Rupert Lowe? That would be the clever thing to do from an Establishment point of view. Get an MP, get him to say everything everyone on the Right wants to hear – and then use it to bust the party apart. Now I don’t think Lowe is an Establishment plant. He seems perfectly genuine to me. But the point is we just do not know what’s really gone on, except that it is exactly what the Establishment wants.
Or then again, it might be a Machiavellian play by playboy Nigel. He knows that the militant Right, like us, are as yet too few to enable Reform win a general election. He knows that he has to broaden his electoral appeal. Maybe he has decided that Trump is more of a hindrance than a help in this, and that the people he needs to win over are not especially sympathetic to Tommy Robinson. Who knows? Maybe the plan is that in the event Reform wins the next election, it will emerge as a seriously Right-wing government.
But in the end does it all matter? You need to ask yourself who you would vote for, if a general election was declared tomorrow. I couldn’t even think of voting Tory, based on the hard evidence of their proven treachery and betrayal of what they say they stand for. And who can stomach the thought of another Labour government? And even if, at the last moment, Rupert Lowe, Ben Habid, St, George, UKIP and assorted other Right-wing figures formed a party, is it likely to get anything other than a relatively minor protest vote? I think not.
But Reform has the infrastructure. It now has the name. It has a core vote and, as it says it opposes net zero and mass immigration, and as Farage has recently said that anyone arriving here illegally should be deported. Despite the vagueness and lack of hard policies, nor other party with a chance of winning a general election is saying anything like that. And Reform has an active membership, many all too aware of past Tory betrayals and on the look out for signs of it in their party.
So, I’m inclined to think that yes, we should continue to support Reform. We should not trust its leadership, who should be fully accountable to the membership. And we need to make it known that we want Reform reformed, and that we will work to stop it turning into a tightly controlled reincarnation of the Tories. So maybe all of us who have been disgusted at Reform’s treatment of Habib, Lowe and other dissidents should actually join, or rejoin, the party and try to change it from within, while also working to get it in government at the next election.
The world is changing, and today Reform is best placed to get Britain back to a state of sanity. It’s not perfect, no political party ever is, but there is no alternative in site. So, should we cough up £25, join and try to get Habib, Lowe and the rest reinstated? Maybe Chairman Zia can be sacrificed to achieve it?
One thing is sure, a vote for Tory or Labour is a vote for the Uniparty. A vote for Reform might, just might, be a vote for Britian.
This article (Should We Continue To Support Reform?) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Tom Armstrong
See Related Article Below
Reform Needs to Get its Act Together if it’s to Become a Serious Party
TOM JONES
I am not a big fan of bro-ish life advice quotes. But two in particular have always stuck with me, from Draft Animals, an autobiography by ex-pro cyclist Phil Gaimon. They shed some light on the present challenges facing the UK’s two competing Right-of-centre parties, Reform and the Conservatives – my own party.
The autobiography of a moderately successful American cyclist, whose biggest result was second in General Classification and a stage win at the 2014 Tour de San Luis, may seem an unlikely source of insight into British Right-wing politics, but the lessons are strangely apposite.
The first applies to the Tories. After failing to prepare properly for a particularly difficult race, Gaimon is embarrassed by a disappointing result. His coach, however, welcomes the valuable lesson, telling him: “There’s no better workout than having someone kick your fucking teeth in.” That was certainly the Tories’ experience at the last election – now it will be a long hard slog to get back into voters’ good graces.
The second can be applied to Reform. While waiting to start a race where he is being scouted by the Garmin team for a professional contract – a major prize for any cyclist – Gaimon starts to find the pressure difficult to handle. When he’s told it’s time to head to the start, Gaimon admits that he can’t move: he is paralysed by the pressure. He only ends up moving after his coach tells him: “You don’t go to the start line because you’re ready. You go because it’s time.” Ready or not, nervous or otherwise, now is Reform’s moment to take the starting line.
Gaimon went on to win the race (having learnt the first lesson, he had prepared meticulously). Can we say the same of Reform?
For all the talk of Reform’s potential to replace the Conservatives, and of Farage as the real Leader of the Opposition – even potential next Prime Minister – the evidence so far seems scanty.
Initially, the party’s approach to Parliament was remarkably coherent for a small party. Nigel Farage was the public face, appearing on mainstream outlets in an attempt to carry the party’s message to the centre and soften their image. Ousted leader Richard Tice would continue to carry the banner in the burgeoning Right-wing media landscape. Rupert Lowe would become the Parliamentary engine, subjecting the opposition to death-by-a-thousand-FOI-cuts and generating countless headlines for the party along the way. Lee Anderson would be himself: a pugnacious Red Waller who provided a visible, vocal reminder to Red Wallers that Reform was for people like them. James McMurdock would also be there. As a division of labour amongst a party of five MPs (now four), it would make Adam Smith proud.
Still, as a way to provide a coherent political platform, it leaves much to be desired. So far, both Reform’s policy framework and messaging feels unfocused, undisciplined and at times downright clownish. Recently, Lee Anderson tweeted a photo of an unusually-cut bacon sandwich telling vegans to “look away now” and asking if he should add “brown or red” (sauce).
Without strategic direction, this’ idiocy becomes the focus – only made worse by the departure of Rupert Lowe, hitherto Reform’s most serious and policy-minded MP. It could be doing so much better.
After all, even numerically small parties are capable of great influence. In Denmark, the record of the Danish People’s Party (DPP) shows that with rigorous discipline, even a small party can achieve the mainstreaming of its policy platform. Despite never having led a government, it has managed to mainstream its immigration policies over the past two decades thanks to a disciplined focus on this critical issue.
From its inception in 1995, the DPP maintained a clear and unwavering narrative: that immigration, particularly from non-Western countries, was a cultural and economic burden on Denmark. It argued that unchecked immigration threatened the cohesion of Danish society and the sustainability of its generous welfare system, a source of national pride. This message was simple, emotionally resonant and repeated consistently across platforms – public speeches, media appearances and election campaigns. By focusing on this core theme, the DPP avoided diluting its stance with extraneous issues, ensuring its position remained simple and memorable.
This consistency made its narrative a reference point in public debate, pressuring mainstream parties to respond. Over time, the repetition normalised what were once fringe ideas, such as deporting asylum seekers to third countries or limiting citizenship access. It also forced a reaction from the centre-Left Social Democrats; by the mid-2010s, after losing voters to the DPP, the Social Democrats were forced to adopt an ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ approach. They co-opted the Right’s rhetoric and policies, advocating a ‘zero asylum’ policy and externalising asylum processing (e.g. to Rwanda). This shift, cemented by the Social Democrat’s 2019 election victory, demonstrated how the Right’s relentless focus had redefined the political centre.
It ought to be easy to force Labour’s hand on this in the same way. For now, though, that seems like it would require a professionalism that is beyond Reform. We can only hope now that it starts getting more serious. Britain will be better, in the long term, for mainstreaming effective immigration controls. Let’s hope our Right-wing parties have the stamina to go through with it.
Tom Jones is a writer and Conservative councillor.
This article (Reform Needs to Get its Act Together if it’s to Become a Serious Party) was created and published by Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Tom Jones
Featured image: x.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply