The establishment is already plotting the destruction of a Reform government
The local elections proved that vast numbers of English voters are considering political revolution over politics as usual. But we will only know if they will stand by Reform when the full weight of the political establishment fights back.
Much of the establishment mobilised against Brexit, and these same organisations view Reform with greater horror. Quite soon, the establishment will send signals it is moving into direct confrontation with Reform.
The public will then realise that a Reform government will lead to political combat on a scale that dwarfs post-Brexit fighting. The big question is whether voters will stomach another decade of political stasis and societal division.
Talking about 'the establishment' can make you sound like an ancient pub bore or a modern bedroom conspiracy theorist. Maybe it is the wrong word, but I refer to those groups which define modern politics: the main political parties; the BBC; the universities; the judiciary and legal profession; the civil service; the country's biggest businesses; and the monarchy. Reform can expect hostility from each of them.
The hostility of mainstream parties is to be expected. It has made no difference to date because of their collective poor performance in government. Failed politicians struggle to persuade anyone of anything.
Hostility from the BBC and universities can similarly be expected but will also likely have little impact. Amongst those considering a Reform vote, the BBC has long ceased to have relevance and many doubt its political independence. Universities, for this group of voters, are even less relevant.
Other parts of the establishment are potentially much more problematic for Reform. In short order, we should expect senior civil servants to reveal they are 'wargaming' a Reform victory, with the impact on the economy and national security in mind. The implication being that a major shock to Britain's prosperity and standing in the world will follow a Reform win.
We will surely also hear from junior civil servants in the most obviously exposed government departments – the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office – suggesting they will not implement Reform policies.
Incidentally, outside of the establishment, the same dynamic is likely in the NHS over time. Senior leaders will express concern about their ability to run the NHS with lower levels of immigration. Junior NHS staff will talk about the development of a climate of fear in Britain and will imply strikes.
The judiciary and legal profession would once have retained a dignified silence, but there is no prospect of that. KCs regularly campaign online using the most intemperate language. Extraordinarily, even some judges make their political views on such matters known.
Collectively, the judiciary and legal profession will warn that Reform plans are illegal, unworkable and immoral. Much nearer the time, if it looks like a Farage government is possible, senior business leaders will warn about the impact of a restriction of visas on growth, and others will suggest investment will flee Britain. As with the civil service, they will talk about the prospect of a re-run of a Truss government.
And, on the eve of an election, if Reform look set for power, it is easy to imagine the King suggesting everyone should vote with tolerance in mind. This will be seen as a rebuke to Farage; even a raised eyebrow from the King can splash news for days.
In a climate of political failure, Nigel Farage can easily brush aside attacks from Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch. He has done this effectively to date.
But it will be much more difficult to brush off warnings that his economic plans are worrying the Treasury and the markets; or that his immigration plans will lead to strikes that will cost people their place in the queue for NHS care; or that his proposed changes to human rights laws will see courts grind to a halt; or that his entire programme is generally un-British.
All Reform can do is to stay ruthlessly focused on policies they know carry overwhelming public support – and to junk those policies which do it for a small number of activists but leave the public cold. At its most basic, that means talking about border control and not net zero.
You have to doubt Reform will survive such an onslaught, but the public is in a revolutionary mood.
James Frayne is a political consultant
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's attack on the BBC is part of an endless campaign to undermine public trust in information
The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, recently gave a press briefing about Palestinians killed close to an aid distribution centre in Gaza on June 1. A key question, she suggested, was whether the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) were really to blame, as had been reported. 'Unlike some in the media, we don't take the word of Hamas as total truth,' she said. 'We like to look into it when they speak, unlike the BBC.' Given the explosive war of words that has broken out between US president Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, Leavitt's accusation may now appear to be small potatoes. But it matters: this is the latest twist of Trump's undermining of a free press that has been evolving since he first repeated the words back in 2016 that would shake the public's belief in journalism: 'Fake news!' Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. On inauguration day in January, my international journalism class and I were examining the seating chart for the White House press briefing room. We discussed the prime position of the Associated Press's (AP) seat (front and centre) and the seats further back, where in the seventh row the BBC shared a position with Newsweek. We wondered if Trump might shuffle the pack, but decided that decisions were safely in the hands of the White House Correspondents' Association. Since then, the whole game has changed. Even an organisation as large and venerable as AP can be turfed out of the White House press pool on its ear. Meanwhile selected, right-wing newcomers like Brian Glenn of Real America's Voice can throw a curve ball putting such an extraordinary question to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky during a White House press conference that it temporarily disturbs the course of a war. The White House later decided to take away access given to other wire services such as Reuters and Bloomberg rather than allow AP to return to its previous access. Media appearances and briefings for Trump are now purely performative. Friendly media companies get special invitations to Trump's often explosive meetings with world leaders (such as that with Zelensky above), and 'legacy media' have to keep raising their hands for access. Leavitt, Trump's young spokesperson, came out swinging at her briefing, brandishing a handy A4 printout of BBC online news stories on the shootings in Gaza on Sunday. As she waved her piece of paper – as curiously old-fashioned as Trump's tariff whiteboard – she appeared assured of her facts. While referring to the page, compiled by a student activist on X, she announced that the BBC had edited 'multiple headlines' about the death count, and changed claims about the deaths from being the result of tank fire to gunfire. Without a hint of irony, she observed: 'So we're going to look into reports before we confirm them from this podium. I suggest that journalists who actually care about truth do the same to reduce the misinformation that's going around the globe.' Back in London, the BBC released a timely statement arguing that it updated its breaking stories throughout the events on Sunday, saying this was 'normal practice' and that all its figures were 'clearly attributed'. Meanwhile, the corporation's analysis editor, Ros Atkins, put out a brief but carefully worded video, via BBC Verify, that concluded Leavitt's accusations were 'repeatedly false'. It affirmed that BBC reporters had quoted figures 'with clear attribution' from the 'the Hamas-run health ministry'. It also used sources such as the independent Red Cross and quoted the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in stories that day. Atkins refuted Leavitt's claims that the BBC had taken down any of its articles and confirmed that they remained online. He said that BBC Verify had examined a separate online video posted on social media (not a BBC video) and deemed it unrelated to the aid centre deaths. He said that once again the student activist had 'misrepresented what BBC Verify had done. The White House then repeated this misrepresentation'. Interestingly, following the BBC Verify examination of the other video, the Israeli army has admitted responsibility for 'a previously unacknowledged strike on the al-Mawasi area of southern Gaza', which reportedly killed at least one Palestinian and injured 30 others". Two days after her initial briefing, Leavitt doubled down with similar accusations against the 'fake news BBC'. However, it is Atkins' final comment on his video that knocks out arguments that the White House is an arbiter of truth that is most chilling: 'But in this case either the White House didn't look into its claims about the BBC before bringing them to the podium or had no concern that they weren't true.' Part of Trump's playbook involves sowing uncertainty among the public about the truth. He and his associates repeatedly hurl accusations, and then sit back and see what sticks. Going after one of the world's most trusted media organisations neatly serves this purpose, even though the BBC is a UK-based corporation and there are no straightforward domestic political gains in so doing. This attack does however do a job of tarnishing the BBC's reputation with some members of the public which can only please the Israeli government, whose own reputation within the international community could not be lower, according to the Pew Research Center. At the UN security council, this week, the US was the only country out of 15 to veto the draft resolution calling for an 'unconditional and permanent' ceasefire in Gaza. While British and international media correspondents are still calling for permission to enter Gaza to report on the situation, it is clearly not in the Israeli government's interests to allow this. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has now confirmed he has authorised the supplying of weapons to another, purportedly anti-Hamas militia in Gaza, further muddying the waters of exactly who fired on whom. Welcome to the latest twist in the Trump government's media strategy that is designed to promote uncertainty while distracting from troubling events: 'Oh look, a squirrel!' This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Colleen Murrell received funding from Irish regulator Coimisiún na Meán (2021-4) for research for the annual Reuters Digital News Report Ireland.


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Police arrest ‘Billboard Chris,' Christian activist in EU capital for denouncing child transgender treatments
Belgian police arrested a prominent conservative activist and an Alliance Defending Freedom International employee in the European Union capital of Brussels on Thursday while they were displaying signs opposing transgender medical treatment for kids. Chris Elston, also known as "Billboard Chris," and ADF International official Lois McLatchie Miller were detained by Brussels police while protesting gender-affirming care for children. They were released after several hours and not charged but were instructed to destroy their signs. "Chris and I were arrested for stating a simple truth in public: no child is born in the wrong body. I called the police because we were being surrounded and felt threatened. But instead of addressing the aggression of the mob, the police arrested us—two people standing peacefully with signs, open to conversation," McLatchie Miller told Fox News Digital. "That this happened in the heart of Europe is deeply troubling. If speaking up for children is now grounds for arrest, then our freedom to speak the truth on any important issue is truly in danger," the ADF International employee added. Elston, well known for wearing billboards decrying transgender medical treatment for children out in public, stood out in the streets of the Belgian capital alongside McLatchie Miller. Both wore billboards, with the ADF employee's sign reading, "Children are never born in the wrong body" and Elston's reading, "Children cannot consent to puberty blockers." According to ADF International's press release, the signs drew a crowd of onlookers, some of whom got aggressive. In a video recorded before their arrest, Elston showed Brussels police forming a ring around him and his colleague to keep onlookers from getting too close. "And we have quite a scene unfolding in Brussels, Belgium," Elston said in the recording. "We have been getting incredibly harassed for about the last hour. We've remained perfectly calm as always, having conversations about what is the greatest child abuse scandal in modern medicine history." Elston continued, saying they were the ones who called the police to protect them from harassment; however, he noted that the officers then ordered them to put away their signs. "We called the police because a man was harassing and following Lois everywhere she went, trying to stop us from filming. The police have now arrived, and they've told me I have to put – and Lois – they've told us we have to put our signs away. I have refused. He said I was violating the law. I said, 'What law?' He can't name it," he said. Elston added that he was told he was going to be arrested, stating, "So I said, 'That's fine. Go ahead.'" ADF International's press release stated the two were eventually arrested and taken to two separate police stations, where they were "ordered to remove their clothes and searched." They were released several hours later. In a statement, ADF International executive director Paul Coleman ripped Brussels' government for the action. "The Belgian authorities not only failed to uphold the fundamental right to speak freely, they turned the power of the state against those who were peacefully exercising their rights at the behest of a mob," he said. "This is the type of authoritarianism we challenge in other parts of the world, and it's deeply disturbing to see it here in the very heart of Europe. While we are grateful our colleague has been safely released, we are deeply concerned by her treatment at the hands of the police in Brussels," Coleman added. Fox News Digital reached out to the Belgian police for comment but did not immediately receive a response.


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Musk's Empire at Risk After Trump Feud Opens Multi-Front Fight
What began as Elon Musk's embrace of right-wing populism has become a defining — and potentially harmful — chapter in his business career. By endorsing Donald Trump's MAGA movement and far-right parties in Europe, Musk alienated a big portion of his original customer base, eroding Tesla's brand, sales and market share around the globe. Then came this week's rupture: a personal and public breakup with Trump that prompted threats of retaliation from a man with control over the world's most powerful government.