Last week, I wrote for @GBNEWS about the impressive success of Reform UK, but observed that a few challenges remain if the Party is serious about becoming a contender for government. The reaction was revealing! A 🧵1/ gbnews.com/opinion/reform…
Senior members of the Reform Party responded to the article and the reasonable questions it posed not with measured answers or attempts to explain, but with personal attack. 2/
Andrea Jenkyn claimed that I am “part of the problem”. Richard Tice asked if I am a “real Conservative or a soggy one?” Zia Yousuf inexplicably said my questions amounted to a “bad faith” “tirade.” 3/
Of course, Tice and the others are free to say whatever they want on social media, and their reactions were nothing if not revealing. But this response raises questions about the readiness of Reform to move from party of protest to serious contender for government. 4/
The instinct was clearly to play the man not the ball, to characterise me as a ‘soft Tory’ acting in ‘bad faith’ & who has no right to ‘lecture’ them. This is a bizarre characterisation—I’m well known to be sympathetic to Reform and have very similar political views. 5/
As a backbench MP, I frequently challenged & even opposed my own government on the issues that matter to Reform Party. I was one of just 11 Tory MPs to vote against Rwanda Bill because it didn’t commit to disregard ECHR. I was one of only 38 MPs to vote against ZEV mandate. 6/
I exposed the appalling nature of what is being taught to children under the guise of ‘relationships education’ and secured a review of sex education in schools. While I am not a member of Reform, I am hardly a closet liberal. 7/
If the first response of Reform’s key players to questions from a fellow traveller is personal attack, how will they respond to scrutiny from their political opponents? And even if I was an open borders liberal, would that make my questions any less valid? 8/
On the substance of the response, Tice claimed “Reform’s philosophy is common sense & courage”. These are admirable attitudes but not philosophies. I’m no clearer on whether a Reform government would take a Thatcherite libertarian economic approach or Trumpian pro-nation one. 9/
During the election Farage hit out at Starmer & Sunak, who he called “socialist twins”. Yet Reform’s manifesto’s commits to take 7m people out of paying tax altogether—those who make no contribution to our public services have every incentive to vote for socialist parties. 10/
In the article, I remarked that Reform MPs have admirably taken a stand against “wokism” and asked whether the Party intends to repeal the Equality Act 2010, the Gender Recognition Act and the Human Rights Act if they gain power. 11/
In his attack on me, Zia Yousuf claimed that I had ‘not done my research’ and that the answers to my questions lay in the Reform Manifesto. But Yousuf is incorrect. The manifesto makes no mention of the Gender Recognition Act or the Human Rights Act. 12/
It does say that Reform would replace (not repeal) the ‘Equalities Act’ (I assume this is a typographical error as there is no ‘Equalities Act,’ a small but important mistake). But replace it with what? 13/
And, while no one is expecting Reform or any other opposition party to have a fully developed legislative programme for government 4 years out from an election, it is nevertheless still legitimate to ask for more detail on how Reform intends to tackle institutional leftism. 14/
The one question that none of the key players attempted to answer was over Reform’s relationship to Elon Musk. While I have enormous respect and admiration for Musk, there are good reasons why it is illegal for British political parties to accept foreign donations. 15/
If we want Britain to be a sovereign nation, then the loyalties of our elected politicians & prime ministers must lie with Britain & the British people. Any politician who is beholden—or has the appearance of being beholden—to a foreign business or individual is compromised. 16/
Despite Elon Musk’s admirable commitment to free speech and economic growth, any UK political party funded by him would have substantial conflicts of interests. 17/
Under British law, X will soon have to ensure that children cannot see the enormous amount of pornography on its platform, and the company will be prosecuted if it fails to comply. Would a Musk-owned Reform feel compelled to campaign against age restrictions on social media? 18/
Musk is not only super-rich, he is a senior member of the US government. While the UK is a close ally of the US, we don’t want to be a vassal state. For a UK government to be indebted to a senior US government official would erode British independence and sovereignty. 19/
Speaking about the donations of George Soros to UK campaigns in 2018, Richard Tice said “he doesn’t live here, he doesn’t pay taxes here. What right has he got to interfere with our democracy?” Well said Richard. 20/
Yet the only Reform response to my concerns regarding Musk was from Lee Anderson MP who, speaking to GB News’ Martin Daubney and Chris Hope last week claimed that I was raising concerns about Musk because of “sour grapes” since “I won and she lost”. Man not ball once more. 21/
I offer this challenge to Reform as a critical friend. Britain’s establishment parties have failed us over the last forty years. The careless attitude of our elites to immigration, public debt and the value of our culture and heritage has left us in desperate need of change. 22/
I’m an admirer of Nigel Farage and, as someone committed to Britain and our democracy, I welcome the disruption to decades of damaging liberal hegemony. Reform’s stance on immigration—and the fact of not being the Tories or Labour—will be enough to climb higher in the polls. 23/
It might even be enough to win an election. But it won’t be sufficient to govern well & to implement the radical change that so many want to see. That will require better defined philosophical foundations, a more consistent policy platform.…and a perhaps a thicker skin. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
