Work, Family, Fatherland. No, not the political slogan of the Reform UK Ltd, but it is quite close to Reform’s “family, community, country” political slogan. The former line is in fact the Vichy Republic’s slogan, used in the rump state of France unoccupied by the Nazis between 1940 and 1942. Either someone within the Reform Party has a poor grasp of European history, or perhaps they think voters in England won’t notice.
It’s election time again, and voters are being asked to elect councillors to a zombie council or councils. In Kent, it’s Kent County Council (KCC), a body that ought to have been put out of its misery by Angela Rayner’s devolution deal last January, but was instead allowed to soldier on without hope of an improvement in its circumstances.
When I asked the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG), as to why it ignored KCC’s expression of interest on devolution, all I received from it was a refusal to answer, allegedly on grounds of cost. From this I can only assume that either they don’t have a cogent explanation as to why Kent was written out of the devolution process, or that the explanations were so threadbare that their public exposure would leave the MHCLG open to ridicule.
What exactly is Reform UK?
Reform is an interesting political party. It is in fact a company owned by one Nigel Farage Esq. It is the product of a process that started with UKIP, continued via the Brexit Party, and is now fronting up as the Reform Party, with much the same policies and contentions as before. These are:
- Britain is Broken.
- There are too many immigrants, and those seeking asylum should be sent back.
- The two main parties have failed to stop the rot.
- There is too much ‘wokery’ over equality and diversity.
- Man made climate change is a myth and green energy policies are the reason for high energy prices.
- There is a war against the motorist.
You can add others but you get my drift. I won’t fact check any of these ‘policies’, but instead examine the appeal of Reform and political parties like them.
For a start, all their politics is about blame, and pointing out the bogeymen in our midst. Reform is therefore not exceptional in having targets to aim at, but how it does it is exceptional. Reform revolves around Farage. This larger-than-life character exudes home counties golf club mateyness that other politicians cannot emulate.
Nigel Farage and his MAGA friends
Who would go around on a pub crawl with Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch, let alone the ‘worthies’ in the Greens or Liberal Democrats? The only politician that did fit that bill was Boris Johnson, and he is part of the reason why the Tories have veered off into a death spiral. The other notables in the Reform party, like Richard Tice and Lee Anderson, are bit players orbiting around planet Farage. Unfortunately for Reform, Farage is toxic to many voters.
Farage’s friendships with Donald Trump and Elon Musk are hurting his prospects, and thanks to the threats and insults issued almost daily by Trump and JD Vance, taking back control is increasingly pointing Britain towards a customs union with Europe and the nationalisation of key industries.
False solutions to real problems
What is driving Reform onwards? I would suggest a number of factors. First, a deep dislike for the current state of the nation. This covers issues as varied as potholes, NHS waiting lists, and poor customer service elements of the state and corporate Britain. This concern is mainstream. Many voters would agree that things are not optimal. The next dislike is globalism. As in the US (as the MAGA movement has noted), deindustrialisation has left many communities in Britain bereft of wealth and purpose. Much anti ‘DFL’ (Down From London) sentiment in Kent is a reaction to the winners in the globalisation stakes buying up property on the coast and thereby excluding locals from access to housing.
Globalisation, to Reform voters, means fewer manufacturing jobs, which they call ‘proper jobs’, and increasing the number of immigrants, particularly from Asia, to fill vacancies in a broken social care system. In this they are not alone, but their single minded response to everything is to blame the tiny minority crossing the channel in rubber dinghies for all the failings of the world. This marks them out from most of the electorate, with the possible exception of some Tory voters.
Another key distinction is the Reform voter’s dislike of the modern world. Reform voters tend to be socially conservative, and that leads to a backward glance to a supposed golden era of empire and Victorian values. This is not unusual. ’Things ain’t what they used to be’ has probably been said by the old about the present in every era in modern history, but it has become a policy, not just a complaint. A reference back to the supposed freedoms achieved by the signing of the Magna Carta is also interwoven into this mysticism. Magna Carta is, they imagine, the get-out-of-jail-free card for those who don’t want to pay tax, and represents the freedom to do as they wish irrespective of their effect on others.
It is a mistake to follow the US Democratic Party in its reaction to MAGA, by treating Reform in the same manner. The way you beat Reform is to focus on action, by fixing potholes, fixing adult social care, fixing the NHS, and yes, by reducing the number of migrants desperate enough to cross the English Channel by rubber dinghy. Reform prospers because of the lack of focus in the past by the various conservative administrations, and Labour’s focus on bean counting, rather than doing, now.
The local elections in May
How well is Reform likely to do in the May elections? According to Farage they are going to sweep the board and sluice out the Augean stables of corrupt and woke politicians. Their UK opinion poll rating would suggest they have a fighting chance, but with first past the post, a tiny shift in voting patterns can produce absurd outcomes, as shown last year, when Labour achieved a landslide on a very low level of support.
Unlike the past where the Tory party vote, especially in rural areas, has delivered substantial numbers of seats, this time out, there could be many three- or four-cornered fights between Reform, Labour, Conservative, Green or Liberal Democrat. Reform does well in places like Dover and Thanet, but the Liberal Democrats are embedded in West and Mid Kent and the Greens have a strong voice throughout the county.
One thing is certain: 140 years of Tory dominance in Kent may be on the way out, which is astounding considering 70% of the current councillors are Tory. The strength of Reform is that they are on a roll, and the cut of their jib suits the older, more socially conservative voter. This is important, as those voters go out and vote, unlike some other generations.
The weakness of Reform is its constant unsavouriness, rows, goof ups, and its hold on older voters, because, not to put too fine a point on it, they are getting fewer by the day.
Reform will hope to hoover up disaffected Conservatives and some old Labour voters. The problem with that stratagem is there may not be enough of those voters. Not all disaffected Tory voters are Little Englanders. There is still a pool of ‘one nation’ Tories who could conceivably jump to the Greens or Liberal Democrats. Neither will the Labour or Conservative parties sit pat while Reform makes hay with their supporters.
Who will stand up for Kent?
It does seem however, that this most pointless of all elections may turn out to accelerate, not retard, the pace of devolution, by forcing the bureaucrats at the MHCLG to do something, because the dysfunction caused by a protest vote could damage an already troubled county council, possibly fatally. What happens if no one has control, and no one will work with Reform?
As a voter I am concerned that no one, and especially not Reform, is focused on the problems of Kent. Even if Reform took control, what will they do to address the Broken Britain issues? Shouting about migration fixes no potholes, and rumours of creating a UK version of DOGE (Musk’s method of reducing public expenditure) in Kent only shows how unsuitable they are to govern the county.
If this election creates a dysfunctional county council, it will be the fault of Labour for not devolving Kent when it had the chance. Some blame will also lie with voters who allowed their anger about Broken Britain to rule their thinking, instead of insisting on constructive harmony which might enable Kent to work its way through its problems.
