The Rupert Lowe fracas shows Reform won't survive
Or we could apply what I have come to call 'Markle's Law': if you spend your whole life falling out with people then the common problematic factor, on the balance of probability, is not going to be everybody you happen to meet, but you.
Speaking to Dan Wootton on Monday evening, Lowe, the now-independent MP for Great Yarmouth, described the campaign against him as 'unfair and un-Christian'.
Of course, it is possible that an investigation will find wrongdoing. While we cannot prejudge, details and timing of the allegations look sketchy. We are supposed to believe that the party reported Lowe to the police three months after the alleged crime took place; coincidentally one day after he publicly criticised Farage.
Though allegations of office bullying were not directed at Lowe himself, the initial Reform statement appeared to give the impression that he had personally mistreated staff. Lowe's entire parliamentary team have since signed a heartfelt letter denying the allegations and describing their boss as a decent man. They also insist, oddly, that they have never been contacted as part of any parliamentary investigation.
Here, Reform may be exhibiting behaviour it would normally condemn; cancellation without due process, even calling the coppers over some alleged hurty words.
In a television interview, Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, implied that Lowe might not be welcome back in the party, even if his innocence were proved. Mr Farage insisted on TV that on the '29 February' Lowe was 'informed' about a 'parliamentary investigation' into allegations against him. Not only does Lowe deny this, but there wasn't actually a February 29 this year. So as hatchet jobs go, it's not the most convincing – and many party members remain unconvinced. The whole thing smacks of amateurism; more Fanny Cradock than Francis Urquhart.
Lowe claims that Reform insiders have briefed journalists that he has early-onset dementia; which Farage may have alluded to in a Telegraph article, describing Lowe as a 'different person' from the one he knew in the Brexit Party days. As someone who spends prolonged periods of time caring for a parent with Alzheimer's, this greatly offended me. It's a serious, hideous condition, not something to be opportunistically chucked around for score-settling purposes.
Since entering the Commons, Lowe has earned a reputation as a committed MP. The reporter Christian Calgie points out that 'by removing the whip from Lowe, Reform UK's total parliamentary activity since the general election has fallen by 46 per cent'. Every party needs its thinkers, its details-men and women.
A common complaint from Reform insiders is that under Farage and chairman Zia Yusuf, the party operates in a brittle, presidential style. Yet UK politics is not, and has never been, presidential. If Reform wishes to form a government, as it insists, they will also need 100 plus ministers to govern, without (so far) a single peer in the Lords. In short, the party cannot exist as a private fiefdom, or a talking-shop for airing grievances without solutions.
Lowe's defenestration threatens the party's hopes of professionalisation in more ways than one. What serious person would want to join and run as a candidate, when their life could be so visibly detonated?
Moreover, it is hard to convince those furious about the conduct of recent politics that you are different and worth voting for when you immediately resort to the sort of rats-in-a-sack scrapping, at which the Tories and Labour excel, as soon as you gain even a handful of MPs.
A party that can only accommodate one strong personality will struggle to assemble a cabinet.
Labour, for all its faults, is generally loyal and members will go out to bat for each other even when they're manifestly in the wrong.
Angela Rayner quite possibly loathes the PM but manages to keep it as professional as she can. Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick may never quite be BFFs, but Badenoch wisely gave her leadership rival a prominent role, unleashing him as an attack-dog against the Government. On balance, it's better to have effective people onside than airing their grievances from afar.
Now, more than ever, there is a need for the sort of accountability that Lowe provided in the House. The assault on British farming proceeds apace. Labour are still ducking scrutiny of the Chagos deal. Bridget Phillipson's loathsome schools bill will soon return to the Commons to continue its assault on educational standards. Migrant crossings and hotel-use are rising under this Government; a reminder of what Reform should be talking about.
Yet it has chosen now to launch a botched internal coup. Over in No 10, Keir Starmer and chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and must be rubbing their hands with glee.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Reform UK accused of 'writing Holyrood manifesto' from London over beefed up staff operation
EXCLUSIVE: Reform are hiring staff to work on policy for the Holyrood election, but they will be based in London. Reform UK have been accused of planning to write their Holyrood election manifesto from desks in London. Nigel Farage's party is beefing up their team for May's crunch poll in Scotland by hiring more staff at Westminster. Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: "It is no great surprise that a party that does not care about Scotland will be dictating their Holyrood manifesto from London. "Despite pretending to be a man of the people, Nigel Farage took a private jet when he visited here ahead of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, which his party went on to lose. "Farage is nothing more than a chancer who thinks he can take the Scottish public for mugs.' Opinion polls show the anti-immigration party is in line for a major breakthrough at Holyrood, with some snapshots predicting second place could be doable. Reform are now going on a spending spree by bringing in policy gurus to draw up their offering to Scottish voters. The blurb for the one of the jobs - 'Scotland policy advisor' - says: 'Play your part in shaping Scotland's future. Join Britain's fastest-growing political movement. 'Reform UK is seeking a proactive, passionate, and detail-oriented Policy Advisor to lead on policy development for Scotland. "You'll help shape bold, evidence-led proposals that will form the backbone of our manifesto for the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections, and support our wider policy direction across the UK. "This is a unique opportunity to work at the heart of a dynamic political movement committed to common-sense reform, national pride, and real change.' According to the advert, the election-related post will be based in 'Westminster, England'. An ad for a second policy advisor job involves coming up with policy proposals for the 'devolved manifestos' and is also at Westminster. A press officer job is based in Glasgow and involves championing the party's 'common-sense policies' on immigration and law and order. Reform have faced claims in the past that Farage leads a highly-centralised party with little autonomy outside of London. They have no leader in Scotland and Farage wanted to water down Holyrood's powers when he led UKIP. He recently backtracked by saying 'devolution is here to stay' but has signalled he supports an end to the system of funding Holyrood.
Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Telegraph
If Reform wins, they will need Tory support to defeat the institutional intifada
Nigel Farage is right. Every political party in Great Britain willing to nominate peers is represented in the House of Lords. The Green Party and Plaid Cymru have four MPs and two peers each. Reform too has four MPs. So it would be reasonable for Farage's party, given the representation of Plaid Cymru and the Green Party in the Commons, to be granted a couple of peerages when the next tranche of appointments are made. This is the case, more or less, that Farage recently made. It goes without saying that Sir Keir Starmer shows no sign of recognising Reform's claim: why would he help to build up the party he currently sees as Labour's foremost rival? He could argue correctly that there is no formal relationship, under the terms of our constitution, between the number of MPs and the number of peers that a party has in Parliament. And point out that there is a smattering of peers, of whom the most active is Baroness Fox, that were members either of the Brexit Party or of Ukip. But there is an injustice about Sir Keir's stonewalling – one might call it two-tier appointments – that many voters will intuitively grasp. And if it's unfair to exclude Reform altogether from the Lords now, how much more will it be if they win, say, 50 seats in the Commons after the next election? What would the position be – thinking on – were the party to win outright? Or to form a government with the support of other parties? I don't believe that such a result is likely. In a hung Parliament, Sir Keir has more potential partners to approach than Farage: the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Welsh nationalists, the Irish ones, the Left-wing independents. It may also be that the public mood changes, Kemi Badenoch seizes voters' imagination and that, in this age of fissile politics, my own party, the Conservatives, recover. But the prospect of a Reform government – either with a majority or perhaps supported by the Tories – is no longer so absurd as to be laughed off. How would such a government approach the Lords? At the last general election, Reform proposed to replace the Upper House with an elected chamber. But that was then, before the party's opinion poll and local election take-off, and tomorrow is another day. Farage will presumably want a Reform government to, for example, leave the ECHR, scrap the Climate Change Act, abolish the Equality Act, reform the civil service and sack activist judges. He may well conclude that a protracted constitutional struggle with the Upper House would be one confrontation too many, since it would hold up all his other plans. Furthermore, Farage, if hunkered down in No 10, would hold the power of patronage. And prime ministers, once they have it, are reluctant to give it up. So were Reform to form a government, either solely or with others, Farage would gain the peers he is demanding today – and more. How many could reasonably be appointed? A hundred? More? How swiftly could they be approved, given the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission? Or might such a government simply abolish the commission outright? Even so, there would be a trade-off between the speedy introduction of new peers and efficient passage of the new government's business. Would scores of new Reform peers – conceivably hundreds – have the skills, know-how, and determination to legislate and govern competently? What would happen to the present balance of the chamber, in which no party has a majority? These are deep waters in which not just the Upper House but our constitution itself could flounder. Conservative peers would have a responsibility to help to navigate them. I have no confidence in Reform. The party is a one-man band. There is no sign of it making serious preparations for government – for the institutional intifada of resistance it would meet from elements of the state. Coalition with such a force would be in no-one's interest, neither the parties nor the voters'. Nonetheless, Tory peers, in such circumstances, can learn lessons from the past. (And what's conservatism all about, if not learning lessons from the past?) In 1924, the first Labour government had no peers in the Lords at all. So Liberal ones, for a mix of political reasons, helped the new government to pass its legislation. The Upper House has changed radically since the introduction of life peers – of which I'm one. In the event of Reform leading a government, Conservative peers would have a responsibility – whatever our own party's relationship with it in the Commons might be – to help the new government get legislation through the Lords in good order. All this may never happen. And these are early days. But not too early to think ahead.
The Independent
11 hours ago
- The Independent
Larger families could gain more than £20,000 if Labour scraps two-child benefit cap
Tens of thousands of families with multiple children could receive thousands of pounds more in annual payments if ministers scrap the two child benefit cap, according to official figures. More than 70,000 households would be entitled to over £18,000 a year in child benefits if the policy is lifted, with the largest families gaining more than £20,000 compared with the current system. The cap, introduced under Conservative welfare reforms, blocks parents from claiming the child element of Universal Credit worth £292.81 a month for a third or subsequent child born after April 2017. Figures released in response to a parliamentary question show 71,580 families with five or more children would benefit from its removal. That includes nearly 15,000 families with six children, almost 5,000 with seven, and more than 400 with ten or more, who could be eligible for the child payments. Labour MPs are pressing Sir Keir Starmer to deliver on his pledge of fairness by abolishing the cap, which they argue is punishing children growing up in poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has previously estimated that ending the policy would lift around half a million children out of hardship. But Conservatives insist the cap is a matter of fairness for taxpayers, arguing that it prevents families on benefits from receiving packages worth more than the minimum wage. Nigel Farage has also called for it to be scrapped, leaving the Conservatives increasingly isolated in defending the measure. The prime minister must find around £3.5 billion to fund the move. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is weighing proposals, including a push from Gordon Brown to raise gambling levies. Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: 'Without a cap, Labour will end up giving households thousands of pounds in extra benefits — a top-up worth more than a year's full-time pay on the minimum wage. Not only is this unaffordable, it's also unfair. If you're in work you don't get extra pay for another child, so it doesn't make sense for parents on benefits to get more.' She added: 'Working people shouldn't see their taxes go up to fund uncapped payouts to others who've opted out of work but opted in to multiple children.'
