About a week ago or so the Reform Party (est. 2022) claimed that it was about to overtake the Conservative Party (est. Mists of Time), in terms of membership. It even put up a ticker to demonstrate this. On Boxing Day, the ticker ticked over to the magic number of whatever it was and Nigel Farage, drank some beer in a field.
I was rather cynical about the numerical accuracy of this – political party membership is a weird and wonderful thing – but I had to admire the low cunning involved. The Conservative Party is in deep trouble. It governed very indifferently for a very long time. It made promises it not only did not keep but had no intention of keeping. And the result was that at the last general election the electorate gave it a thoroughly deserved kicking. But despite all this it has one thing going in its favour: size. It is very difficult for a new party to succeed in British politics. They get squeezed out by the big boys. This is a reason – perhaps the only reason – Steve Baker is still a member. So for Reform to be able to claim that in one respect – and it need only be one – that it is in fact bigger than the Conservative Party matters. It chips away at the edifice.
And there it might have ended. But Kemi Badenoch – the Conservative Party’s new leader – just had to stick her oar in.
This just may win the award for the world’s worst tweet. In less than 140 characters she has:
-
- Kept the story alive.
- Demonstrated that she is worried about Reform.
- Suggested that she – or someone acting on her behalf – has been engaging in hacking. Or that she doesn’t understand what a “back end” is which is a little embarrassing for someone who not only was once a software engineer but keeps reminding people of the fact.
- Given Farage the opportunity to show that his number was independently verified.
- Given Farage the opportunity to demand an apology.
- Given Farage a win.
I have been generally pro-Kemi since she first gained attention on this blog. She quotes Thomas Sowell. She seems to be prepared to confront the blob. But her first few months as Conservative leader have been… underwhelming. She hasn’t outlined a bold new vision. She hasn’t sidelined the crypto-communists in her own party and my understanding is that there is very little to write home about when it comes to confronting the Prime Android in Parliament. This is not necessarily the end of the world. I once asked one of Margaret Thatcher’s staff what she had been like as leader of the opposition. “Dreadful” came the answer. But then the Labour government of the 1970s with its strikes, inflation and financial crises did most of her campaigning for her.
But this time is different – well, not in the dreadful Labour government sense. There is serious competition for the position of Alternative Government. And that competition has only got more intense.
She seems very easy to bait. Apparently she claims she doesn’t make gaffes but she seems to have spent the last few months little else but making them. They’re all unforced as well.
Well you would expect the Conservatives (and Labour – £20 billion black hole) to be experts at fakery, failing to do anything except make excuses.
Is Reform the answer? Maybe yes, maybe no – but we know the other parties have been corrupted by the ‘everybody shall be nice’ mind virus.
With a Donald J. Trump tweet what normally happens is – the media denounces it as a lie, but on investigation it normally proves to be largely true. The media then try and change the subject – but more and more people find out (in various ways) that DJT was telling the truth and it was the media (and the establishment generally) who were lying.
This tweet by Kemi may (may) prove to be the opposite – the media, at first, supported it (because it seemed to expose Mr Farage and the Reform Party as frauds), but if (if) independent investigation proves that the Reform Party membership figures are real – then Kemi is in trouble.
True this it NOT as serious as when Rishi Sunak said (in 2024 – long after it became obvious that the Covid “vaccines” were doing terrible harm) “I state, unequivocally, that the Covid vaccines are safe” (a vicious lie, said in the House of Commons, about a matter of life and dead) – but to accuse, in writing, Mr Farage of fraud is a serious matter.
It was in writing (so, if false, libel – not slander, which the courts consider less serious) and it was not in the House of Commons – so not a legally protected comment. “False and defamatory” if (if) false.
It now all depends on whether or not the Reform Party membership figures are true – if they are false then Nigel Farage is in trouble, if they are true then Kemi Badenoch is in trouble. Not a matter of opinion – a matter of fact that will be proved one way or the other.
More broadly – the only way that the left will be defeated is if the Conservative Party and Reform work together – any comment that makes agreement to cooperate more difficult, is not helpful (to put the matter mildly).
It does seem like a significant mis-step, for most of the reasons cited. I had formed quite a good opinion of Badenoch after watching several long-form interviews with her – right on most economic and social positions, clear and forthright. What I did not get a read on was the thin-ness of her skin, and this certainly appears to indicate a lack of dermal density. President Trump suffers from this malady sometimes, as well, and both would do well to rid themselves of it.
llater,
llamas
Kemi Badenock mustn’t let Farage and the rest of them live rent-free in her head. She needs to focus on being clear on what went wrong, how to craft a pro-liberty/prosperity agenda, make the most of Brexit, and let Starmer implode.
It may be that the Tories will have to do some kind of deal with Reform. A lot depends on momentum. Farage has not put a foot wrong yet, tactically. He knows how to play the media. I wonder if getting too cozy to Musk might be a big mistake.
Kemi has two problems that will be hard for her to overcome.
Her Party is very widely detested, not least by former members, and is not believed by anyone except a rapidly ageing rump. There is no guarantee that a growing and even greater hatred of Labour will automatically swing votes back to the Conservatives when there is a viable alternative.
A large number of her current MPs, and all of CCHQ are Cameron-type Conservatives (ie not Conservatives at all)
One of the brilliant things about this latest Trumpesque stunt by Farridge is alerting people to just how few members the Conservatives now have.
PM – after Johnson’s last betrayal of Farage, I don’t imagine he is in any mood to do any kind of deal. Perhaps he has in mind the complete collapse of the Mulroney/Campbell era Conservatives in Canada, who collapsed to 2 seats after the rise of the Reform Party there.
“A large number of her current MPs, and all of CCHQ are Cameron-type Conservatives (ie not Conservatives at all)”
This is Badenoch’s problem above all others. Regardless of what wonderful and popular (with the electorate at least) set of policies she might come up with, the fact is at least half of her fellow Tory MPs are as wet as Lib Dems and would provide as much opposition to those policies as her nominal opponents. The history of the Tory party over the last 15 years (at least) shows that. We know the Parliamentary Tory party won’t vote for strict immigration control, the abolition of Net Zero, lower State spending and lower taxes, and the abolition of State regulations because they have done exactly the opposite while in government for a decade and a half. So it doesn’t matter what Badenoch says, she’ll never get her party to vote for anything other than UniParty policies. So there’s zero point voting for her.
There should be some sort of process by which citizens could be polled to determine which party has the most support.
Everything else is politicking and puffery, and subject to few rules.
llamas and Johnathan Pearce – there is the point that Kemi Badenock made a charge of fraud – if that charge is true then Nigel Farage is in trouble, if that charge is false then Kemi Badenock is in trouble.
This leaves aside the words “watching the back end for some days” – in computer language that means examining the system itself, i.e. hacking – a criminal offense. But I hope there was just a confusion of language and no computer hacking took place.
A possible defense was suggested to me over a lunch (by someone rather wiser and more experienced in these matter than myself) – someone is not a member of a political party till they have proof of membership (such as a membership card) and till their payment is cleared, so, it could be argued, that the “membership ticker” is not recording real membership – but rather expressions-of-interest from people who may not even exist.
Johnathan Pearce – I agree with you that an agreement with Reform has to be made – but there are people in both parties who are dead-set-against such an agreement, so it will be difficult.
As for policy – the vital core.
On policy Kemi Badenock was not as specific as Robert Jenrick – not even committing to leave the ECHR and any other agreement that prevents us defending our borders.
As for “what went wrong” – I get the feeling that some people do not want to be told what went wrong, indeed that they already know, but do not want to admit it.
What went wrong was that Conservative Party Prime Ministers allowed MASS IMMIGRATION for 14 years. Rather than stopping it as we promised to do in 2010 (yes Mr Cameron promised to stop mass immigration – so did every other Conservative Prime Minister and they all broke-the-promise).
The public (at least that part of the public that might vote Conservative or Reform) do not want mass immigration – they do not care if it is legal or illegal mass immigration, they do not want it, they want it stopped. That was what such things as the vote for independence in 2016 was about.
Nigel Farage and Elon Musk understand this – the media (or most of it) do not, or pretend they do not.
Eventually Robert Jenrick (who started off as a moderate – yes he did) understood this – which is why he resigned from a Conservative Party government which had failed to keep its promises to end mass immigration – promises that (again) even David Cameron had made, as far back as 2010.
It is all very well talking about a “pro-liberty/prosperity agenda” – but that is not going to win any elections, only being believed when you say you are going to end mass immigration is going to win elections. And the sort of influx, and then natural increase, that the United Kingdom and some other countries have seen is not pro liberty – quite the contrary, this new community is not pro liberty. Even more than the native population it wants ever more benefits and public services – and it also wants the crushing of such things as Freedom of Speech.
After all, voters think, what does it matter what economic policy is followed if you have lost your country? And, again, the sort of influx, and then natural increase, that the United Kingdom and some other countries have seen is not pro liberty – quite the contrary, this new community is not pro liberty. Even more than the native population it wants ever more benefits and public services – and it also wants the crushing of such things as Freedom of Speech.
Select immigration of a few high skill people is one thing – but mass immigration, so that towns and cities in Britain are no longer British, is quite another. Especially as it is now clear that assimilation has not happened and is not going to happen – how could it when the majority of a town or city is, over generations, not British. In some areas there is no British culture to assimilate into.
Assimilation is what happens, or hopefully happens, when a few people come to a new country – hopefully, over time, they become integrated with the existing population.
That is what immigration used to be a long time ago – it is NOT what immigration has been in recent decades in the United Kingdom (or some other countries).
It is not really different in other countries – for example do most voters support Prime Minister Orban because he keeps income tax down to a top rate of 15% (his pro-liberty/prosperity agenda – and, yes, I agree he has such an agenda and is not shy about talking about it – I do not deny any of that), or because he is believed when he says he will keep Hungary Hungarian? I suggest the latter is the more important reason for his success in elections.
I would also point out that the only people in politics in Hungary who opposed Mr Organ’s Covid policies – opposing semi lockdowns and Covid “vaccines” (which are anything but vaccines) are even more anti mass immigration and “Identitarian” than he and his political party are.
The same is true in other countries – most of the time (not all the time – but most of the time), the people who are against the Covid and other “World Health Organisation” tyranny are also strongly anti mass immigration and nationalistic.
Their attitude being “if you really want to come here and join our nation then you are welcome, but if you want to come here to replace our nation with your own – then get out”.
This also explains their opposition to world governance bodies – it is a mixture of libertarian opposition to tyranny, with the nationalist view that a nation should rule itself – not be ruled by world bodies and agreements.
Remember if the international community win there will be no liberty – none. Things such as Agenda 2030 (including its land control and cultural aspect of censorship and persecution) are not just the fantasies of groups such as the World Economic Forum (itself a successor to organisations that go back decades before), they are also very much the agenda of the United Nations and all other international bodies – both government and corporate, and of the education systems and official bodies (including the judges – who are now the enemies of what Bastiat, rightly, called “The Law”) of most Western nations.
In the end you are either a servant of the international community – or you are an enemy of it.
“Leaders” come and go.
But what of the mob from the inner circle, who whisper in their ears?
I doubt that these whispers include: “Remember; thou art MORTAL”.
Or, for the classically trained: “Memento Mori”.
In the 17th century, in the cloistered order of the Trappist friars, they often repeated the phrase “memento mori” to each other and even dug their graves a little each day in order to always keep their death in mind and not lose the meaning of life.
Now, there’s an idea.
Paul Marks – long time since I read for the law, but I’m not sure where the charge of ‘fraud’ would lie – where is the ‘intentional deprivation of the benefit of another’ in mis-representing the membership of a political party? Whose actual, real ox is being gored? Seems to me that all she may be guilty of is telling an untruth – which is, in itself, no crime. Legal eagles, jump right in . . . The computer hacking, maybe, if the system is secured or non-public.
llater,
llamas
Is that real fraud, or is that Sears fraud?
(Yes, an obscure reference. Sorry.)
I would be grateful if someone could set me straight here. I was not at all surprised to hear that Reform membership was greater that the Conservative as I thought the Conservatives were not particularly interested in individual members. I’ve seen it said that the Conservative Party conference is entirely aimed at business and individuals are discouraged by very high ticket prices. Was I mistaken?
Paul Marks has written at some length here about mass immigration.
The truth is that the 14 year Conservative government did not stop it because they did not want to stop it.
The same with the illegal immigrants coming across the Channel.
Our current Labour government will be no different.
The state of immigration is not a failure of policy – on the contrary, it IS policy.
Your/our government does not like you/us.
That is nearly always true.
Perhaps Trump, and perhaps a Reform UK government here, can make that sad statement an untrue statement.
@James Strong
Yes, this is precisely the point. Changing this country (and all other western countries), balkanizing it and reducing its internal cohesion IS the policy.
What the imagined “befits” of this could possibly be, and to whom these “benefits” would accrue is what can be argued, not in any way, shape or form the intent.
The only difference between labour and tories is that any last pretense that it was not deliberate seems to have disappeared. Although on this point I would be willing to concede that such lack of pretense may just be a facet of the inability of the mindless, robot like Der sturmer to accept even simple variations to basic programming.
Maybe when it get dumped, the replacement drone may be a little more pliant.
I suspect that gimmigration will become – may well already be – the largest single concern of the electorate.
If this is so, then reform may well be the last chance for any sort of relatively peaceful resolution.
If reform fail – or gain a real degree of influence and fail to use it as the electorate require – then it may well be all bets off and what comes next could be rather unpleasant.
llamas – “manipulating your supporters” is indeed vague, but “fake” and “fakery” are not – that is not a claim that Mr Farage has made an honest mistake about the membership numbers of the Reform Party – that is a charge that he has engaged in FRAUD, that he is pushing membership numbers that he knows to be false.
James Strong and others – please watch the film the Wall Street Journal opinion team has made about the time in office of former Prime Minister Liz Truss – it clearly shows that elected politicians do NOT control economic policy, unelected officials do (not just the Civil Service – also endless independent agencies such as the Bank of England).
Why do you assume that elected politicians control immigration policy? After all there were ministers under the last government who did want to stop mass immigration – but they found they did not have the power to do so, they did not even have the power to stop Civil Servants and other officials wearing leftist political signs (such as the rainbow stuff) and all the rest of it.
Why do you think that Reform Party ministers would have any more power than Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick had?
There is this weird custom in the United Kingdom to refuse to see the obvious – elected people may indeed be “in office”, but that does NOT mean “in power”.
“Personal are policy” – if you can not hire and fire the admin staff – you are not in power. As for officials making regulations with the force of law – see former Lord Chief Justice Hewitt “The New Despotism” (1929) this problem has been growing for a very long time. Even Disraeli in the 19th century warned of the danger – indeed this is just about the only matter upon which I agree with Disraeli.
This is also a terrible danger in the United States – the danger was warned about as long ago as the 19th century by Senator Conkling (a man who has been unjustly smeared for a very long time indeed) – Senator Conkling was correct, if the elected can not hire and fire the staff, then the elected are NOT in power.
To give you a little practical example – I am now going to go for a walk, taking a shooting-stick (a form of walking stick) with me. The reason I am taking this tool with me is because I can not reach an offensive sticker that is covering a traffic sign, I am going to use the tool to rub off the vile thing which is obscuring the sign.
“But you are an elected councilor – why do you not order staff to remove it”.
I can “ask”, I can “request” – and I have done so, several times. But, as with so many things, I am ignored – as are other elected councilors (including Executive Members) – and if I tried to give an “order” I would be guilty of “bullying” and I would be punished – I, NOT the officials, would be punished.
I would remind James Strong and others what happened to the former Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab.
Officials lied about Mr Raab – it is now admitted that his so called “bullying” was just trying to give them orders (nothing else that was claimed was true), yet “Deputy Prime Minister” Raab was still forced out.
Why can so many British people not see the obvious? Democracy is NOT democracy if the elected can not hire and fire the unelected – if the unelected are making the decisions.
When organisations such as the European Union and the United Nations talk about the “rule of law” or “international norms” or even (irony of ironies) “democracy” – what do they actually mean?
They mean the rule of unelected “experts” (such as the World Health Organisation and all the other international government and corporate bodies), officials (including unelected JUDGES – who now hate-and-despise the old principle of law) – with elected people as, basically, glove puppets – rubber stamping a leftist agenda falsely called “liberalism” (a “liberalism” that is just about the opposite of the principles of Gladstone or John Bright).
This is true all over the world – including Israel. This undermining of democracy is most certainly not just a British thing.
@ Paul Marks – sorry, still not ‘fraud’. ” . . . . pushing membership numbers that he knows to be false . . .” may be an intentional lie, but until someone can be shown to have suffered a tangible loss as a direct consequence of the lie, that’s all it is – a lie. And – let’s face it – lies are the stock-in-trade of every politician. Her calling him a liar does not amount to a false accusation of the defined crime of fraud (which might be actionable) when no such fraud has occurred.
If his claim can be shown to be true, Mr Farage may have some basis for a claim of reputational damage, although only a blithering idiot would press such a claim at law – it is nothing but a giant landmine, as many have found out before him. If his claim is shown to be false, while his reputation may suffer, his lie is not a crime. Perhaps you are using the term ‘fraud’ in a generic and descriptive sense, which is all well-and-good, but better avoided.
llater,
llamas
While I’m aware that unelected officials have disproportionate powers over policy, I don’t think the previous conservative government was a mere victim of this. This article details how the Tory government helped create the so-called ‘Boriswave’ of immigration.
Here’s a quote:
Martin,
While not disagreeing with you in substance, I think it more accurate to say “Here’s what the Tories agreed to.” As I would expect all of those policies were “suggested” by the civil service.
For example, I’ve seen it said that scrapping the winter fuel allowance was a treasury policy. Labour ran with it where the Tories didn’t, but it wasn’t a Labour idea.
llamas – understood, but people have been found liable for defamation for a lot less than what Kemi’s social media post said – ask Katie Hopkins about that. However, Nigel Farage is a not popular with the establishment – and the courts and the “justice” system, contrary to what they endlessly claim, have a massive cultural and political bias – saying bad things about Nigel Farage may be considered NOT defamation whereas saying the same bad things about (say) Mayor Khan WOULD be held to be defamation.
Martin – “ministers” do what they are told to do, often they sign things without any clear idea what is in them. It is better that way – after all you are going to have to sign (or be removed for “bullying” on whatever) so it is better not to torture yourself by reading the dreadful thing you have “signed off” on (which will be policy whatever you do).
I ask again – if Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Robert Jenrick had no power to stop mass immigration (and they all certainly wanted to), what power do you think Nigel Farage would have? Is Mr Farage going to repeal the Civil Service Acts, abolish the independent agencies, and impeach the existing judges and appoint new judges?
That sounds more like the powers of a Lord Protector (such as Oliver Cromwell) rather than a British Prime Minister in 2024 – let alone 2029, by then the country will be in an even bigger mess and the officials and judges will have even more power.
This is NOT Hungary – elected people here in the United Kingdom are, to some extent, “in office, but not in power”.
When the international community talk about “the rule of law”, “the independence of the courts”, “international law”, “international norms” (and so on) this is what they mean – the elected people NOT being in power.
As for Parliament – Parliament claimed unlimited (unlimited) power, that has proved to be not a strength, but a weakness.
Because if Parliament can do “anything” (as it claimed) it can give its powers away to officials and other such – and that is what it did.
In theory it could take those powers back – but do not hold your breath for that.
On 3, non-experts might well say “back end” and mean “the JS code on the page”, which is, of course, accessible to everyone looking at it (especially if it’s not minified or obfuscated, and why would they even bother in that context?).
I’d be shocked if the counter was anything like Real Data, rather than A Vague Guess based on a calculated rate, and anyone who thought it was a live update from a central registry of party members, well …
Er, no: as a national membership organization, the Conservative Party was established in 2001. And that’s the problem: the old, wonderfully conservative, setup of independent affiliated Associations and Clubs which rooted the politicians in the country and forced them to listen to the thoughts and concerns of ordinary people whether they liked it or not has been torn down and replaced by a blue-tinged mirror-image Labour Party with a central organization, branches (oh, they still call them Associations, because of course they do), and a phoney-baloney “democracy” to make it look as if they actually give a damn.
This is why although it’s the best we have for the moment, I don’t hold much faith in Reform, long term. As long as there’s competition for conservative voters, they’ll both claim to be listening to us. And Reform might actually do it. But if it ever gets comfortable as the de facto conservative party we’ll be back to square one, because when all’s said and done it’s just another political corporation.