Bim Afolami, the economic secretary to the Treasury, was asked during an interview on Sky News how worried he was about Reform and he replied: “Honestly? I’m not particularly worried about Reform. Should I tell you why? I’m not worried about Reform because they don’t have a plan for reforming anything.”
He added: “It’s easy to shout from the sidelines, if you’re Nigel Farage or anybody else, to shout and say ‘all of the parties, all of the established parties, they’re rubbish’.
“It’s easy to do that. They haven’t put out a plan for anything. Frankly, at least in the days of Ukip, they actually had a policy. These guys don’t even have a policy.”
Having a policy or two would be useful if about to gain government. But in the current climate it’s only necessary to shout “Yah! Boo!” from the sidelines to cause you pain and grief.
they don’t have a plan for reforming anything.
Rather like the conservatives for the last 14 years except for brief pre-election periods when they switch into outright lying mode.
We’re way beyond the “Fool me twice” stage Mister Afolami so you can F right off. As can Sky News
………along with the telegraph.
Can’t believe I missed saying that.
Didn’t Farage shout from the sidelines about Brexit?
John,
“Rather like the conservatives for the last 14 years except for brief pre-election periods when they switch into outright lying mode.”
This is the bottom line. Even if they have plans, do I trust them to care about delivering on them? The only serious reform in the past 14 years has been Brexit, which was forced on them. They were never going to leave if it wasn’t for Farage.
“We’re going to pass a bill to protect women from dangerous trannies”. Sorry, this wasn’t a problem that started yesterday. This has been going on for years. Why wasn’t it done long ago?
“We’re going to get flights to Rwanda”. You’ve had 18 months as PM. This isn’t building the Channel Tunnel, it’s arranging some flights and accommodation. There’s no EU to stop you and you have a healthy majority. What’s the excuse?
It’s all a promise of reform even though they’ve had 14 years to do that and haven’t.
Reform’s not even a real political party, it’s a limited company with Farage as main shareholder. As far as I’m aware it has no actual party members, just subscribers, and nothing resembling a branch structure. Basically it’s a vehicle for Farage’s media career. It doesn’t need any actual policies to fight the culture wars or perpetuate a ‘stab in the back’ narrative of how the inconsistent, contradictory and incompatible mess of claims about what a “true Brexit” should be have been betrayed.
“We’re going to get flights to Rwanda”. You’ve had 18 months as PM. This isn’t building the Channel Tunnel, it’s arranging some flights and accommodation. There’s no EU to stop you and you have a healthy majority. What’s the excuse?
It’s doubtful he’d have a majority on the subject even with a 3 line whip because thanks to the legacy of Cameron installing Blairites in safe seats the party is still Blairite. As I’ve said before, my current, until July 4, MP said would but Blair on a UK Mt Rushmore.
And as they’re in the safeest seats they’ll still be around after the forecast call and will have control of the party.
https://www.reformparty.uk/become-a-member
Happy to help you out!
‘and nothing resembling a branch structure.’…that is the bit of the tory party that you usually hear about when it is ‘enraged’ by the imposition of CCHQ’s pick of candidate on them that they dont like
MJW: «Basically it’s a vehicle for Farage’s media career. »
Even if what you write in your first two sentence were true and some of it undoubtedly is, it looks as though Farage’s Media Career Party is within an ace of overtaking the Tories in the polls. That ought to be more depressing for Tory supporters than if Reform UK were a properly constituted political entity with constituency parties and printed membership cards.
All the other parties have a wishlist rather than plans. And “if wishes were horses, all beggars would ride”
Western Bloke.
To be fair they also legalised gay marriage. This was something my local mp (one of this heavily overrepresented group in the parliamentary party) stressed to me at great length when I questioned his slavish support for Cameron while completely ignoring the serious failures I was writing about.
Reform have a list of policies on their website which I found after 30 seconds’ Googling.
I recall reading the other day that Labour and the Tories are also owned by limited companies, so why it’s only a noteworthy thing for Reform should be explained.
It doesn’t need any actual policies to fight the culture wars or perpetuate a ‘stab in the back’ narrative of how the inconsistent, contradictory and incompatible mess of claims about what a “true Brexit” should be have been betrayed.
Just asking – what would a ‘True Remain’ or ‘True Rejoin’ entail?
– Euro membership
– Total acceptance of complete movement of people from Macedonia, Albania and other countries who are looking to join
– Pooling of UK pension funds to pay for Continental pension deficits
– Loss of control of our Armed Forces to the new EU Army
– Loss of the remainder of the City of London to Paris at EU behest
I’m sure it’ll all work out famously!!
Loss of the remainder of the City of London to Paris at EU behest
That’s one bit I don’t get. How does the EU order *customers* to go to Paris? “The City” is where-ever the customers go, not where some politico dictates. There’s no longer a Stock Exchange in Manchester because the customers chose to go to London, not because some quasi-government told them to.
Does the Reform Party need any policies when the Tories have left so many good ones just lying around unused? What it’s failed to do is implement them ie “A Referendum on UK membership of the European Union which we will abide by the result of.” Ad infinitum.
Bim Afolami, the economic secretary to the Treasury
There’s your problem.
John,
I’m all for gay marriage (although it was really just a rebrand of civil partnerships) but it’s a nice to have. And it wasn’t a distinctively Conservative thing. Any party was going to do that.
But it shows how clueless the average Conservative MP is that they think this is what people voting Conservative care about rather than health, immigration, tax etc.
BiND,
I have a feeling there are going to be Reform and Conservative areas after this election. The Conservatives will keep their safe seats, but Reform are going to get 2nd places or be snapping at the Conservatives heels in places like the marginals, the midlands, the North.
MJW,
“As far as I’m aware it has no actual party members, just subscribers, and nothing resembling a branch structure.”
Unlike the Conservatives that impose candidates on constituency and disregard their choices of party leader and decide to just put in who they want?
If you’re a Conservative Party member, you’re the recipient in the gloryhole. Nothing more.
MJW – It doesn’t need any actual policies to fight the culture wars or perpetuate a ‘stab in the back’ narrative of how the inconsistent, contradictory and incompatible mess of claims about what a “true Brexit” should be have been betrayed.
If you didn’t have gaslighting, you’d spend the rest of your life in the darkness.
WB – I’m all for gay marriage (although it was really just a rebrand of civil partnerships) but it’s a nice to have. And it wasn’t a distinctively Conservative thing. Any party was going to do that.
The Tories decided to fundamentally change the legal nature of marriage – which used to be the bedrock institution of our society, before we degenerated into Clown World – with zero mandate or public debate.
Five minutes later, the Tories are complaining about how they “can’t” keep LGBTQIA groomers away from primary school children.
That’s a Hell of a slippery slope.
‘and nothing resembling a branch structure.’
It wasn’t so long ago that the Conservative Party was essentially a confederation of constituency branches with little power devolved to the London HQ. Who changed it?
The Tories decided to fundamentally change the legal nature of marriage – which used to be the bedrock institution of our society,
Been there before on this. It’s not the legal aspect that’s important. It’s the societal. Marriages were never actually about the couple. It was about the relationship of the couple’s offspring to the two families & the families to each other. Two families uniting to ensure the future for their joint progeny. In that context single sex marriages have no meaning.
«Any party was going to do that.»
Is there a Cabin-Crew Party?
If you look at it this way, single sex marriage is just the latest instalment of the State’s campaign to undermine the networks of mutual obligations that hold a society together & replace them with the State. Something both Tory & Labour have complicit in.
I’d vote for this guy and fuck your human rights.
https://x.com/tuckercarlson/status/1798520181112664531?s=46
Person in Pictland: Bingo. I’ve been saying that till I’m blue in the face. It was becoming a “real party” that destroyed the Tories.
“ We’re going to pass a bill to protect women from dangerous trannies””
That’s the crux of the problem. Stop passing bills to correct the bollocks you’ve already passed. Try repealing some of the god awful legislation passed in the last 25 years.
BiS – Yarpsolutely.
The estimable Dalrymple used to (?) write about this stuff.
Interested – I would vote for him ten times.
It appears I was wrong, you can be a member of the Reform Party, I assume that membership is akin to a Patreon account without any special commitments to the patreons?
As for the complaints about CCHQ, I remember directly the response to David Cameron’s ‘A-list’ and the complaints it caused in branches. But this is not unique, all parties do it, the incumbent for St Helens South would have been in post far earlier had she not been persuaded* to stand aside for the former Conservative minister who vacated his Witney seat and opened the door to the aforementioned Cameron.
So Reform members/patreons can have no complaints about central office imposing candidates or having any sort of directional control, given it’s a private company. Although that raises the question are the candidates employees of company’s owners, or subcontractors, or workers, or some other classification of labour for persons who provide services to a private company?
* From memory the persuasion coincided with an appointment to a regional quango, coincidence only mind.
@bloke in spain – “It was about the relationship of the couple’s offspring to the two families …In that context single sex marriages have no meaning.”
Equally, a marriage which cannot produce offspring also has no issue. While Such a rule has been applied in some times and places, nowadays, for example, we consider it perfectly reasonable for a woman long past menopause to be able to marry nor for a man who has had a vasectomy.
And with DNA testing, the rationale of providing for the welfare of offspring is no longer relevant.
Nowadays, it’s just a ceremony and party and a few legal consequences which are being eroded.