A COUPLE of weeks ago I wrote this critically constructive article about Reform UK for TCW.
It detailed problems Reform members have been experiencing across the UK and concluded with some suggestions as to how the party could win the May 2026 election for a mayor of Sussex and Brighton, covering the area where I live. At the weekend I found out that I am no longer a Reform UK approved candidate! What happened? What does this mean for my support of Reform UK?
I have worked with Reform candidates at a local level for three years. A common complaint was a lack of support from the party. Despite this I decided to give Reform a go and in November joined what was a growing local group with visible momentum. Then, following a blunder by Reform chairman Zia Yusuf on BBC Question Time at the end of January, we were told our chair had suddenly and unexpectedly ‘stepped down’. I felt we weren’t quite being told the whole story. When I spoke to fellow Reform members elsewhere, I discovered a pattern of ‘executions’ and rejections with no explanation given. That is what prompted my article.
I had joined Reform in the hope that Yusuf’s promised ‘professionalisation’ of the party would result in local members having a say. I noted a Financial Times article claiming Reform would be data-driven. I felt Reform could be something different: we could revolutionise democracy by actually listening to people. Instead, I have experienced a chaotic and despotic organisation with no clear guidance on selecting officers or candidates, and a vetting scheme which lacks natural justice.
In my case I was not invited to a meeting to select officers earlier this month. While this may have been an oversight, I had been in a different meeting with our new interim chair the day before. He said nothing about the meeting the next day; in fact he did not even acknowledge my presence. I noted this when I wrote asking the minutes to correctly reflect that I had not ‘apologised’ for being absent and made some additional observations. Specifically the new interim chair was chosen by HQ. The email announcing his appointment said he had been an ‘active member of the Tory party’. I pointed out that the reaction to this in my Bexhill constituency had generally been expletives. Many people here hate the Tories. I was merely stating the rather obvious point that being an ex-Tory isn’t seen as a positive. The interim chair’s reaction to this was to send me a long note detailing his achievements and some derogatory assertions about me. Sadly his note lacked attention to detail and in some cases merely repeated lies spread by Conservatives and others during the general election campaign in which I stood as an Independent Network candidate. I responded saying his note might constitute defamation.
On Friday I went to the pub with fellow ‘No To Northeye’ migrant asylum centre campaigners. Half had never trusted Reform. The others had initially been supportive of my involvement but had subsequently been put off by the party’s reference to ‘that lot’. None had anything positive to say about Reform. One reminded me that, until the general election, Reform had taken no interest in our long campaign to oppose the proposed asylum seeker accommodation site at Northeye.
On Saturday I received an email saying my candidate status was ‘unsuccessful’ and that I could not come to the next committee meeting. I checked this with the regional co-ordinator who confirmed it. This meant I could no longer be an officer or candidate. He also confirmed no reason would be given and that he could not tell whether I’d been re-vetted.
I do not know why this happened. In the meantime I was also informed of further attempts to smear me within the local group. I know I am not alone in being treated this way.
Like many Reform members I have run my own business and am used to dealing with problems with people. The standard practice of a verbal warning or frank discussion followed by written warning is absent from Reform. There is no dialogue. This is unacceptable. I was aware that I was taking a calculated risk by writing about these issues; the comments and responses confirm that they matter. My calculation was that, if I was going to get my head chopped off for speaking out, I’d like to have it chopped off sooner rather than later. As a ‘litmus test’, it worked!
When I reflected on things over the weekend I noted that none of the people I had worked with on lockdowns, Net Zero, gender identity or illegal immigration, had come out in support of Reform UK in the last couple of weeks. When we had our Sussex ‘Never Again’ gathering in Brighton on Sunday (to mark the fifth anniversary of the imposition of lockdown) there was a growing sense of disillusion with Reform.
There is plenty of discussion about the challenges of forming a new party. If one is formed it clearly needs to have a functioning infrastructure. My suggestion was building it around the local elections in the first instance, abandoning the dogma of left vs right and focusing on right vs wrong. It also needs to be an organisation which is capable of making friends. This could still be Reform. If not, it may well be that ‘we the people’ need something other than a political party to make our voices heard.
While I will still be going to the Reform UK rally in Birmingham this Friday, one thing is certain: I will not support an organisation that continues to treat people this way. The sand is running down.
