In Farage’s words, the Clacton by-election victory was another strike against Britain’s political establishment. Yet Farage, his party, and the “political establishment” could NOT be more similar. To be “anti-establishment” is not simply just attacking Westminster. It should also consider ordinary people’s opportunities to participate in politics and hold those in power accountable. Following recent Reform UK proposals concerning postal voting and the rights of Commonwealth citizens, an important question must be asked: is the party challenging entrenched political power or is it seeking to dictate who should be allowed a political voice?
Danny Kruger’s undemocratic declaration
Reform UK MP and spokesperson Danny Kruger has stated under Reform UK’s new plans for postal voting: Britons who choose to go abroad during an election are “disenfranchising themselves”. Expressing that postal voting should be curbed and only available for those who have a valid enough reason not to attend polling.
Given that General Elections do not have a set date, it could mean that many voters will lose their democratic right to a vote, simply for wanting to go on a holiday that has been booked for months. That’s before we even begin to consider the implications for those who might have to regularly travel abroad for work, or family they have responsibilities to attend to.
If Reform UK claim that restricting postal voting would improve national security, can they produce any evidence which might imply the present system is vulnerable, to justify removing such a widely used (and helpful) means of voting?
For an attempt to undermine political elites, it doesn’t quite make sense. “The establishment” typically refers to the people and institutions with enduring influence over government, business, the media and public life. Reform UK has built much of its appeal through loudly promising to challenge those elites, yet their definition seems to be quite malleable. How can we be sure they mean it?
Such a policy of curbing postal voting could prove to be a significant blow to democratic rights and civil liberties. A characteristic of the very “establishment” which Reform UK are pledging to fight.
Nevertheless, Reform UK continues to peddle their anti-establishment hogwash, in a concerning pursuit to take over Number 10.
Their first target, Commonwealth citizens
It’s not just holidaymaking Britons within their sights.
Reform UK has also proposed restricting voting in UK elections to British citizens, which would remove a long-established entitlement from many qualifying Commonwealth citizens who are legally resident here in the UK.
Supporters of the move would argue that national elections should solely be decided on by citizens. On the other hand, many opponents would raise that Commonwealth voting rights are a longstanding feature of British constitutional history, and that removal might affect many residents, workers, taxpayers and families who have long made their lives here.
Removing democratic rights should be subject to far more vigorous debate and justification than just simply reducing its holders to being “foreign”.
The contribution of 6 million Commonwealth citizens to Britain’s survival during the Second World War is an important part of our shared history. It reminds us that our bond is far deeper and complicated than the label “non-British voter” might suggest.
Thus, another concerning move towards dismantling democracy from Reform UK.
Recent reactions
The annual Reform UK conference took place in Birmingham recently, filled with much talk of policy ideas and pledges, accompanied by expressing their “patriotic values”. Nothing new.
However, during this conference, a darker side of the party could be seen.
Climate Resistance protesters interrupted Farage’s keynote speech, attempting to highlight the controversial undeclared £5 million gift which Nigel Farage received in April 2024 from Christopher Harborne.
Upon ejection from the conference, several women protestors were subjected to violent abuse. This involved having hair pulled by audience members, with one being hit by a man’s walking stick whilst being dragged away by security, while another woman was stamped on. All the while, Nigel stood at the podium mocking the interruptions and making light of the protestors’ removal. The incidents were filmed and widely shared and condemned on social media and mainstream news. The police are now investigating.
The subsequent response from senior Reform politician Robert Jenrick was far more revealing. Asked about the footage in an interview, he responded, “Oh boohoo” and remarked that the protester should “get a life”.
A damning example of their attitudes towards opposition views, whilst also seriously conflicting with their advocacy for the safety of women and girls. They are clearly not to be trusted.
Alongside this, it represents a further blow to democracy, as it reveals how the party have played a part in sowing serious political division into our society.
The ever-increasing reality that one cannot express a political disagreement without being attacked is frankly spine-chilling.
Of course, the behaviour of individual attendees does not reflect every Reform member or voter. The more significant test is how the party’s leadership responded to the incident. Some of the party’s leaders condemned aspects of the conduct; others mocked and excused what happened. Those contradicting responses should be examined closely, particularly as the party boasts itself to be the defender of women’s safety.
A political party is obviously entitled to remove disruptive protestors during its conference. However, a senior politician should be more than capable of condemning apparent violence. The failure to do so by some Reform politicians is certainly cause for concern.
Unmasking the establishment
Reform will tell you that the establishment are sitting in Westminster, taking your money, and laughing all the way to the bank. And yes, perhaps there is some truth in that, but what they don’t tell you is that although not perfect, our British institutions and democracy are in fact something to be incredibly proud of.
We have human rights enshrined under constitutional statute; free and fair elections on a maximum 5-year basis; a politically accountable House of Commons; scrutiny by the House of Lords; a free press; a Supreme Court to defend our liberties and increasing opportunities for political engagement thanks to social media.
We cannot and will not allow our democracy to be eroded purely because we are facing challenges – this is the time to pull together and strengthen an inclusive Britain that everyone can enjoy.
Reform UK may not yet be Britain’s political establishment: eight MPs do not constitute entrenched power. But the party clearly wants to govern. It must therefore be judged on how it would exercise its governing powers, not only what it opposes.
Restricting the franchise, removing established rights and responding dismissively to apparent violence against protestors do not achieve their stated aim.
The real test of an anti-establishment political party is whether it protects the rights of those who disagree with it. On the evidence of these proposals and reactions, Reform UK has serious questions to answer.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
