Reform should not make the same mistake as the Conservatives

Telegraph

3 days ago

Strict ideological coherence is overrated in politics. Very few voters talk about politics like insiders do. Conversations in Westminster about being 'Right-wing' or 'Left-wing' baffle most people.
But basic political coherence is underrated: in choosing who to vote for, people need a clear image of their prospective party choices; they must know what their preferred party would do in a range of scenarios.
The Conservatives, Labour and even the Lib Dems have established clear political brands in the last 30 years. Rightly or not, people thought they knew what they would get if they voted for each of them.
In the past, voters 'knew' the Conservatives would bring competence at the expense of kindness; they 'knew' Labour would seek equality, even if it was more prone to mistakes. Indeed, the Conservatives are tanking in the polls now – and have likely ended as a viable political force – because their hypocrisy and failure in government destroyed any sense of predictability in the public mind.
This matters greatly for Reform, which is set to announce an array of policies over the course of the next six weeks, culminating in its September party conference. For while it is rightly junking ideological coherence in the name of electoral popularity, the sheer randomness of its policy announcements may undermine its need to build a coherent picture for voters.
People strongly believe Reform will cut immigration, stop the flow of small boats and reject most asylum claims. They also believe Reform will be tougher on crime, reject 'woke' policies in the public sector and cut Government waste. Its policy conference, which threatened to send hardened criminals to El Salvador, was faintly amusing but drove home the point it takes crime as seriously as the public.
We have all become blasé about Reform's rise. That it has communicated these policy priorities to the public is a massive achievement. Having done so, it is perfectly possible that this narrow platform will be enough to put Reform in government.
However, as we saw at the last election, other issues count: while immigration has been a consistent top-three issue for 25 years and crime a top issue for a significant minority, many people voted primarily on health and the cost of living at the last election because their desperate personal circumstances trumped everything else. At the next election, these issues, or entirely new ones, will complicate electoral choices. Reform therefore need an attractive, broader policy platform.
Its announcement a few weeks ago that it would remove the two-child benefit cap was strange and out of line with what the bulk of its core voters think is fair. Its announcement at the weekend that it would effectively nationalise – or 'half-nationalise' – the water sector was even stranger. Here is a party that usually rails against the incompetence of politicians ultimately choosing to give them even greater control. The bureaucracy Reform would have to create would be vast in scale.
It seems very likely we will see further unusual policy announcements in the coming weeks. The danger is, by the end of its party conference, voters are surer than ever about Reform's positioning on immigration, crime, woke and waste, but clueless about what Reform would do on those other issues that count.
This will be a bad outcome. When vast numbers are actively considering a Reform vote, it must be reassured that Reform MPs and candidates are serious enough and, crucially, predictable enough, to be trusted. It simply must establish broad coherence.
This is why its random policy generation matters so much. While the future of the water industry is a niche issue at best, saying something completely unexpected, bordering on eccentric, builds suspicion and raises doubts about what it would do in government.
While Boris Johnson's government ended in disastrous failure, between 2019 and 2022 he ran the most brutally effective campaign machine of recent times. Under Dominic Cummings' guidance, he pursued prorogation, a hard Brexit, an 'Australian-style' immigration points system, and the start of 'levelling-up'. It was an ideological mess but a political triumph; the image was clear: a man who would take tough decisions to deliver for working-class voters.
Nigel Farage needs the same approach to building a coherent platform. A party like Reform, which has not yet established even vague credibility with most voters, will always need to ensure its announcements have enough detail to persuade people it knows what it is doing. More so even than the Conservatives, it needs to reassure voters that policies are costed and can be implemented.
But just as important is building the sort of image that Boris Johnson did. Voters want to know that Mr Farage will always take decisions in their interests. Its slogan that 'Britain is lawless' rings true. But giving generous welfare to those that have kids without the means to pay for them is hardly in line with this sentiment.
Mr Farage should follow his own instincts to build a coherent image.