The threat to the Tories from Reform is one element of their unprecedented crisis. The party has lost votes to the right before, but never in a way that cost them so many seats. As well as picking up five of their own MPs, picking off Tory votes and driving a general apathy among Conservative voters was enough to let Labour through in dozens of seats this summer. Now, Farage’s outfit is looking at making that a permanent threat.
So far, a big criticism of Reform is that it has been a top-heavy organisation. They have money and a Westminster presence but little impact locally. That is now changing. Membership is reportedly surging, perhaps even making the party bigger than Conservatives. In May, the party will look to pose a big election threat in councils and mayoralties. I’ll write more about this in future, but the slate of elections in 2025 could barely be better suited for an insurgent right pushback against the old guard.
Reform is also trying to pull away more defecting Tories. In recent weeks, former MP Andrea Jenkyns and Westminster influencer Tim Montgomerie have signed up with the party. Machinations are happening at lower levels, too. Councillors up for election in May are being courted by Reform, with incumbents receiving Farage-headed letters tempting them to cross the floor and be the victor of a Reform surge, not the victim. Some will probably take the bait.
Alongside this lies the rumour that Elon Musk is set to plunge $100 million into the party. It feels like this is not entirely credible, and both receiving and using the money would need to navigate UK political spending regulations. It is, however, more than enough cash for a credible start-up party, and even a fraction of it would make you a significant threat (my wish list for a new party would probably say £20 - £30 million). Even the very thought of this shows that Reform is building momentum and attracting donors. Indeed, I’ve heard that ahead of May’s elections, they are paying campaign managers roughly double what CCHQ offer.
Many in the Tory Party seem to be missing this threat. There is a sense that the purpose of Reform is to act like a pressure group, to drag the Conservatives to the right and use them to their ends. This feels naïve. The stated aim of Reform is to crush the Conservatives, to ease it out of existence and entirely replace it. This should be obvious. Farage and co mention it often enough. More than that, if Farage ever wanted to be inside the Tory project, he could have been. He’d have had a decent chance of getting selected at any point in the last forty years. But he hasn’t.
This points towards a bigger problem. The Tories don’t seem quite to understand why they want to beat Reform. Or, rather, they see it in the wrong terms. Most discussion around Reform is seen purely within electoral rather than political terms. Beating them is important as a precondition to winning back power, but about what it means for policy or for outcomes. This is a strategic mistake that will hamper the Conservatives from actually achieving their aims. They are more likely to try and ape reform rather than offering something different and to do deals that empower a party that is ultimately their opponent. This will likely only increase Reform’s chances of success.
One of the wisest things a former boss told me is that “strategy comes from knowing what you’re not, as much as what you are.” Reform grasp this. They understand that they are not Conservatives and want to defeat the party, that is, not simply as a route to winning but because they disagree with them. The Tories, on the other hand, seem to be struggling with having the same single-mindedness. They reform purely as electoral disruptors without having a deep sense of why they don’t want them to win. That’s not enough.
To really take on Reform, the Conservatives need to understand what they want to offer that’s different and why. They need to fully understand the differences between the parties and where to press them. They need an answer to the question “Why don’t you want Reform in power?” that goes beyond “Because they are not us”. They need to reciprocate the relationship and see the insurgent party as opponents rather than just as allies who are going through a phase.
This change in mindset would yield two real benefits. The first is that it would help the Conservatives formulate more of their policy platform and ideas. Rather than simply chasing the Reform vote, it would be motivated by setting out an alternative, more confident vision. Some of this may overlap, but it would be distinct. Taking this approach would be more robust, but it would also help square some of the circles about how the Tories would build back an electoral coalition.
We know already that the party must pull voters back in from all sides. Equally, we know that this is easier said than done. Voter behaviour is complex, volatile, and often hard to explain. People view themselves and parties in more complex ways than moving left or right. It’s bound up in policy, identity and a bunch of other things. Having a broad Conservative position as a unique offering could appeal to people in ways that a hodgepodge won’t. It could squeeze Reform and bring back voters lost elsewhere without stressing the contradictions.
It also serves as insurance. The reality for the Conservative Party is they may have to do some sort of deal with Reform. Already, some are calling for this. I am very sceptical of pre-election pacts and suspect the central party remains so too. On current polling, however, to come even close to forming a government, the Tories would need a coalition with Reform. Having a clear sense of where you disagree with them is vital for these sorts of negotiations. Right now, it is hard to infer what Tory red lines for a coalition would be and when they would be prepared to walk away. That will only hinder them unless they fix it before the time comes.
With a bit of thought, the differences between Conservatives and Reform are there. The most obvious worldview level is Reform’s full swing into isolationism. Farage, in particular, has been sceptical of support for Ukraine and broader international institutions. More widely, Reform positions themselves against globalism and organisations like the WEF and UN. This is not a stance that the Conservatives have ever really had much truck with beyond Euroscepticism – and one they could easily differentiate themselves from, both in their own heads and with voters.
The same is true around the environment and climate change. Reform has repeatedly been critical of the very idea of human-driven climate change. This has been largely only a fringe view within the Tories. The last few governments made significant progress on decarbonising Britain and, in policy (rather than rhetoric), have cut a pragmatic line between economic and environmental costs. Given that public opinion on this is far closer to the Tories than Reform positions, it would be a wise point of difference to push.
The point is that there is already real cleavage between the two parties. They are not interchangeable. The Conservatives need to seize on this at a strategic level. Reform wants to crush them; they should want to do the same in return and shape their approach accordingly. Some points will overlap, but the differences should be seen in sharp contrast. A Con-Ref coalition should be seen as an awkward failure, not a triumph.
This comes down to the larger problem the Tories need to get past. Too much of their time in government was spoiled by power being something you held rather than exercised. There was a lack of vision and confidence about where the party was going and what it stood for. Too many of its people thought winning was about getting a red box and a ministerial car rather than achieving outcomes. The worry is that the fight for Reform is seen in the same way.
For the Conservatives, the issue with Reform should not simply be that the insurgent party might stop them from winning. It’s that given power, they will do things we think are bad. It’s the same as any other party, whether on the right or left. We should think we are better at governing and better for the country than they are. When I speak to friends on the left, they seem to get this. Labour wants to beat the Greens, not be in a coalition with them (except when forced on them), and vice versa, which is usually true. Reform understands why it wants to crush the Tories. One of the noticeable things in the leadership contest is that Kemi Badenoch does seem to get it. She should work to embed that in the strategy.
In politics, you should be convinced that your opponents are bad. They are not necessarily bad people, but you should have a sure sense of why you want power and why they shouldn’t have it. Viewing your opponents primarily in electoral terms is a block to this. The Tories should want to take votes off Reform not just because it helps them win but because they see the divisions between themselves and the insurgent party. Establishing this is an essential part of the strategy to contend with them.
"The last few governments made significant progress on decarbonising Britain ....... Given that public opinion on this is far closer to the Tories than Reform positions, it would be a wise point of difference to push."
Many people are waking up to the fact that 'decarbonising Britain' is not necessarily a good thing if it results in industrial decline and job losses - as it seems to be (Port Talbot/Vauxhall/Grangemouth etc).
Secondly, when (not if) the first rolling power blackouts start, hitherto indifferent voters will see first hand where Net Zero is leading, and the issue could very soon become toxic. If the Conservative party is still wedded to this - and Reform continues to push the line that it was always against NetZero - their popularity could surge at the cost of both Lab and Con.
(I firmly believe that the 2029 GE will be the most significant one since 1979)