
Reform's shenanigans are an inevitable tragedy
I don't know if you've ever ever seen five MPs fighting in a phone box, but it's not a pleasant sight. As I write, Nigel Farage is throttling Rupert Lowe with the receiver, while Rupert tries to jab a 10 pence piece in his eye.
The civil war in the tiny party of Reform is both funny and tragic: consequential, because it was leading the polls before Rupert questioned Nigel's leadership and Nigel, it seems, responded with tact and humility by calling the police (truly the Right has gone woke).
Whether the claims against Lowe, of bullying and threats of violence, turn out to be accurate or not is almost unimportant; it's telling that they emerged shortly after he criticised Farage in public. I'm afraid Farage has form as a dictator. The studios of GB News are littered with people he fell out with then exiled, the Hamiltons having erected a Red Cross tent in the green room.
To paraphrase the sitcom Nighty Night, 'I am not a malicious man, and I will strike down the first person who says that I am.'
To be fair to Nigel, if you're loyal to him, he's loyal to you. When Reform's fifth Beatle, James McMurdock, was revealed to have a police record for an assault in 2006 , he rushed admirably to his defence. But insiders are worried that the leader's refusal to share one tiny shard of the limelight holds his party back from becoming truly parliamentary, with costed policies and a proper front-bench.
On the other hand, none of that stuff matters to the average punter. Opposition politics is a crude battle for attention: Farage is a rare star. If I were Rupert Lowe, I'd think: 'I only got elected last June by accident, thanks to Nigel, and now we have a once-in-a-generation chance to overtake the Tories. So I'm going to shut up and do whatever the boss says – walk his dog, wash his car – because any hint of disunity could sink the whole project.'
Be a team player. Be nice, like Richard Tice.
Ah, but there's the problem: the kind of citizen who wants to run for parliament, let alone for a long-shot party like Reform, isn't into team sports. He is likely an egotist, probably a crank.
Rupert Lowe is certainly enjoying being an MP, tabling hundreds of questions to ministers that civil servants grumble are a waste of money, and becoming Twitter famous – to the point that Elon Musk suggested he might be a better leader than Farage.
Why was never entirely clear; perhaps because Lowe is perceived as more sympathetic to rabble rouser Tommy Robinson, at a time when the online Right is becoming more critical of Islam, more militant on immigration.
It's interesting to note that the Reform blow-out coincides with the first recorded spat between Musk and the Trump administration he helped to put in office (at the cost of around a quarter of a billion pounds in donations). Cabinet members are resisting Musk's plan to sack vast numbers of federal workers, including from air traffic control (necessary to land planes) and veterans affairs (vital to winning elections).
Here's the danger of letting bright amateurs into politics. We live in an era when very clever people – mostly men, and men who've played Civilisation II a lot – think they can answer every problem with a wordy substack.
But while creative destruction might be useful in business, it cannot be applied to a state, upon which millions depend for safety and security. To win elections, you must both excite and reassure people, as Nigel is trying to do. Lowe, by contrast, has a Musky whiff of the radical about him. He has called for a million migrants to be deported. His hero is Oliver Cromwell.
Reform will survive precisely because Farage has such tight control over the party machinery, plus he still benefits from popular hatred of Tories and Labour. But the reason I'm not just amused but quietly angry about the Lowe controversy is because it suggests Reform is like all the other parties in Westminster, more interested in itself than the public, or that it lacks the discipline to translate goodwill into electoral wins.
Chaps, don't do this. Pull yourselves together and stop giving journalists things to write about.
Taking tea at Runnymede
Another day, another argument about the nature of Englishness. Anyone who says 'English isn't an ethnicity' hasn't seen me in shorts, and with the weather so balmy, I'm tempted to tear off my top and parade about the high street with a can of Stella Artois. 'Oh England, my lionheart.'
Instead I drove up the M25 last week to take part in a Moral Maze roadshow – I am ageing gracefully into Alan Partridge – and on route I passed something enticing called the Magna Carta Tea Room, at Runnymede. 'I must visit it on the way back,' I said to 999 's Michael Buerk, who replied with his usual dry wit, 'Yes, you can probably squeeze a column out of that.'
The tearoom had run out of cheese pasties, on a Friday in Lent, but the chef said he could offer me a 'vegan sausage roll that tastes just like a sausage roll' (I think it was a sausage roll). There I relaxed, beneath a cloudless sky, and watched dogs playing in the field where Magna Carta was signed, heralding the beginnings of democracy.
Or, as I like to call it, 'the place where things started to go wrong'. As you can tell, I really don't like Oliver Cromwell.

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


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Mass migration isn't Britain's lifeblood. It's an economic disaster
Within hours of stepping up as Reform chairman on Tuesday, David Bull triggered his first media controversy by remarking that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country – it always has been'. As popular as this sentiment is with Britain's politicians, it isn't true today and it certainly wasn't in the past. From 1066 through to the end of the Second World War, the population of Britain has been marked by relative stability. As a crude illustration, as late as 1951 the total non-White population of Great Britain was estimated at about 30,000 people, or about 0.07pc of the population. Today it's roughly 20pc, and on course to pass 50pc by the end of the century. In other words, the population changes induced by migration over the past seven decades are essentially without parallel in 1,000 years of British history. Even within this modern period, however, it's not quite right to say that migration has been Britain's lifeblood. It would be more accurate to say it's been the default policy of a state that keeps repeating its mistakes. A brief summary of the last 70 years might fairly cast British migration policy as a mixture of blunders, unintended consequences, and myopic pursuit of short-term objectives, right from the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948. As other writers have pointed out, while the narrative promoted today is 'you called and we came', internal government communications show that efforts were made to dissuade Caribbean migration in ways that wouldn't imperil the precarious bonds with Britain's colonies. Shortly after the ship's arrival, Britain adopted a sweeping nationality act that permitted anyone with a passport issued by the British government to enter the country. This act, while 'never intended to sanction a mass migration', combined with policies aimed at attracting workers in specific fields to create a mass inflow. Now, where have we heard that before?


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
The BBC is helping Reform - and has become a danger to democracy
You might not know it - as the national broadcaster, the source of most information for most of Britain has singularly failed to report it - but the BBC has drawn up plans to win over Reform voters. It's strange how the BBC, a channel of staggering narcissism which never misses a chance to talk about itself, isn't saying much about the leaking of minutes from a meeting of its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee. Read more The story was broken by the Byline Times, one of Britain's 'new media' outlets that's increasingly proving to be an excellent source of investigative journalism. BBC Director-General Tim Davie and other senior figures like 'News CEO' Deborah Turness want to reshape the broadcaster to appeal to Reform voters. They believe BBC news and drama is causing 'low trust issues' among the radical right. Turness discussed altering 'story selection' and 'other types of output, such as drama' to win Reform hearts and minds The committee includes former GB News executive Robbie Gibb, appointed to the BBC board by Boris Johnson. Emily Maitlis once called him an 'active agent of the Conservative Party'. Minutes stated that bosses 'recognised the importance of local BBC teams in the plan, given their closeness to audiences'. So keep an eye on how BBC Scotland behaves from now on. Here's the bottom line: the BBC should not seek to appeal to anyone. It should report the news with complete objectivity, impartiality, and political neutrality. The words 'without fear or favour' should be tattooed on the heart of every BBC employee, especially the cosseted, overpaid establishment mandarins who run the organisation. We pay their wages. The BBC should represent Britain in its entirety, not favoured special interest groups. However, this courting of Reform proves impartiality to be a lie. It doesn't matter if Marxists or Nazis like a particular story. It's irrelevant whether coverage makes liberals happy or conservatives sad, or vice versa. No consideration should ever be paid to whether drama is perceived as progressive or reactionary. What matters is that news is reported accurately and fairly, analysis is balanced, and drama has cultural merit and entertains. By attempting to woo Reform, the BBC alienates everyone else. Worse, the BBC reinforces the grievances levelled against it. Scotland's Yes movement has accused the BBC of bias for years. Now independence supporters can continue to do so but with ammunition to back up their allegations. How can the BBC pretend to report news honestly, or reflect British politics and culture fairly, when it has been caught out cosying up to Nigel Farage? BBC Director-General Tim Davie with former Conservative PM David Cameron (Image: free) The BBC slits its own throat. And many of its enemies will gleefully watch the blood spill. Specifically, Farage. He has consistently attacked the BBC. Indeed, he uses his own platform - the disgracefully biased GB News - to do so. With delicious irony, Farage previously accused the BBC of being a 'political actor'. Well, now the broadcaster appears to be acting politically for its nemesis. Farage threatened to boycott the BBC, and claimed editors used 'story selection' to bash Reform. If Farage ever takes power he'll gut the BBC in an afternoon. In truth, the BBC deserves all it gets. It made Farage's career, endlessly platforming him, giving him far higher exposure than other comparative politicians. If you think there's any fairness to BBC coverage ask yourself how much you see the LibDems on air compared to Reform. Then look at the two parties and their parliamentary representation. Reform has five MPs, the LibDems 72. Indeed, the Greens have four. Do the Greens get four-fifths of the time devoted to Reform? Do they hell. Only last month, Davie, the director-general, was sounding off about the 'crisis of trust' in Britain. He grandly claimed the BBC would play a leading role in reversing the decline and help combat division. The BBC would create a future where 'trusted information strengthens democracy'. Davie, though, is doing everything he can to deepen division, damage democracy and foment distrust in journalism at a time when society needs good, honest reporting more than ever. When he said 'reform' was needed, it now appears Davie meant with a capital R. Currently, Reform is causing chaos in councils the party won at the English local elections. Will that be reported under the new pro-Reform BBC guidelines? I'm afraid we now need to ask ourselves whether the BBC will tip the next election for Reform. Davie should go, along with the entire BBC board. They disgrace journalism, and are not impartial or balanced. Read more The notion of politicising drama is disgusting. Artists exist to create and enrich our lives, not do the bidding of tawdry media executives in hock to the hard-right. In Britain, trust is at rock bottom. New findings released yesterday from the National Centre for Social Research found that just 19% of us believe the current system of governing Britain works. Only 12% trust governments to put country before party. As long as I've been alive, the BBC was billed as the last redoubt for fairness and balance. Over the last decade, that claim has well and truly undergone an acid bath. Now, the mask is off. The BBC has shown us what it really is, and we need to take notice. Globally, the rise of the hard-right has caused many to lose their minds - from commentators and business leaders, to political parties and academics. In Britain, the BBC hasn't just suffered a nervous breakdown, it has completely surrendered its principles of fairness. It's now more a danger to our democracy than a line of defence. Neil Mackay is the Herald's Writer-at-Large. He's a multi-award winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics


Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Farage was the Spending Review's real winner
When Chancellors approach a major moment like a Spending Review, they tend to have a figure in their mind's eye – someone who embodies the type of voter they hope to win over at the next election: a Mondeo man or Stevenage woman. Rachel Reeves clearly had a very specific figure in mind for today's Spending Review. But unlike her predecessors, this was no Labour voter. Her Spending Review was laser-focused on Nigel Farage. Between a laundry list of spending pledges that would have you believe Britain is in a boom, Reeves took aim at Farage. She castigated him for backing Liz Truss's mini-budget and for spending too much time at the pub (arguably one of his best attributes). However, in choosing such tangential attacks, Reeves only drew attention to Labour's fear of Farage. Labour's spending commitments confirmed they view 2029 as a two-way fight with Reform. Record funding was announced for Scotland and Wales, ahead of local elections next year in which Reform are expected to wipe the floor. Days after Farage put steel-making front and centre of his campaign for Wales – at Port Talbot, no less – Reeves made sure to underline Labour's commitment to the steel industry, reconfirming half a billion for Tata Steel. This was paired with a cash injection for up to 350 of the most deprived communities: 'Funding to improve parks, youth facilities, swimming pools and libraries', with a focus on jobs, community assets and regeneration. In the absence of a plan to deliver real wage growth and long sought-after 'renewal', Reeves is hoping that, come the next election, quick and dirty projects can be plastered onto the leaflets of Labour MPs, in time for them to claim they have actually delivered change. You don't need to look far back to see whether or not this will work. It was not that long ago that the Conservatives also gave eye-watering sums to the NHS and tried to cling on to the Red Wall with an almost identical 'levelling up' plan, based on pots of funding for local regeneration projects. They too had Green Book reviews and bus fare caps, as recycled by Reeves today. So why double down on a strategy that was hardly popular with the electorate? With Starmer's 'missions' – of which only one even got a mention from Reeves today – so closely echoing the last government's 'five priorities', you'd be forgiven for thinking that Labour strategists are suffering from collective amnesia. Labour's failure to learn from recent political history speaks to their arrogance, rooted in a deeply held belief that Britain's problems are the result of '14 years of Conservative government'. It's why they came into No. 10 with no plan or narrative for what they wanted to achieve in government. And it's why they are pursuing the same strategy, choosing the same policies, to be implemented by the same group of civil servants – yet expecting a different result. The winner? Nigel Farage.