Neva Novaky is Surrey Area Deputy Chairman and was a candidate in the 2019 General Election.
As a small state, low tax Conservative, I can see why some fellow Conservatives have been tempted by Reform. However, I have no intention of joining them. My reasons are not rooted in tribal loyalty but in judgement, delivery and national interest.
Reform will not deliver low taxes. They claim to be a low-tax party but that is already being tested – and found wanting – in the five councils they control.
Residents of Derbyshire, North Northamptonshire, West Northamptonshire and Leicestershire Council’s, are seeing their council tax increase by the maximum of 5 per cent allowed by law. Kent residents face a 3.99 per cent increase. This is a huge betrayal of the public given they were elected on a promise to cut council taxes, whatever Farage claims.
They are also now backtracking on the £90 billion of tax cuts they promised in their manifesto. In autumn of last year, Nigel Farage said that his party now felt that substantial tax cuts were not realistic.
Reform also announced they are against the two-child cap.
They did not propose a tax cut to support families but defended a government hand out. They put the emphasis on the state giving you back the money you pay them in the first place after taking a cut, rather than allowing you to keep more of your own hard-earned money. This is socialism dressed up as populism.
Then there is Farage’s track record as an elected official for over 20 years – he was a Member of the European Parliament from 1999 to 2020 and there was one single issue that he stood for – UK’s departure from the EU. Yet, it was not Farage, the Brexit Party or UKIP that delivered Brexit or even the intellectual arguments in favour of it. We did that as Conservatives in government.
During his 20+ years representing the UK in the European Parliament, he also did not influence EU legislation or arguably do the job he was paid to do. Outside of plenary sessions where he played to the UK media, he did not do the committee work so as to even try and defend the UK’s national interest in the policy-making process. His attendance was notoriously bad. Meanwhile, Conservative MEPs did the job at hand! They were present at votes and negotiations at all levels (committee and plenary) and worked hard to defend our national interest.
He’s had questions around his expenses throughout his time in the European Parliament and they don’t make me confident that Reform would be a safer pair of hands if in charge of the treasury.
During his time as an MEP, Farage and the group he co-chaired faced various spending scandals. From 2004 till 2019, he co-chaired a European Parliament group of MEPs. Farage was personally found to have not respected rules on staff funding and had his salary cut for 10 months to compensate for it.
His political group’s EU wide alliance had to repay their full 2016 grant of €1.1 million.
While Farage’s team in the EU did underline that they were under higher scrutiny on their public spending for politically motivated reasons, this was also the case for Conservatives. The reality is that decisions taken by Farage and under his watch left him and his European grouping vulnerable. Farage is responsible for at least some of those decisions and indirectly responsible for what happened on his watch.
Then of course there is Russia.
Reform’s weak stance on Russia is not in our national interest – amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, threatening the freedoms we fought so hard for decades before, it is difficult not to see Reform’s history and stance on Russia through the lens of national security. Last year, a UK court found Nathan Gill guilty of accepting bribes to promote a pro-Russian narrative. Gill was a former MEP in Farage’s party under his leadership and briefly head of Reform in Wales.
Furthermore, Farage’s voting record on Russia speaks volumes. In October 2019 before leaving the EU, while we were supporting European efforts to take stronger action against Russian propaganda, Farage and his MEPs were opposing it.
Farage did make a public statement last year finally criticising Putin, saying he was a “very bad dude”. However, that was after he had once said Putin was the politician he most admired and repeated the Russian propaganda after the invasion of Ukraine that the West was to blame for provoking Putin. Everyone is allowed of course to change their minds, but historical statements speak to Reform’s inability to make sound judgements in the interest of national security.
Reform’s track record and that of Farage demonstrate to me that my political values will not be better fulfilled by them. This is not about tribalism – after all, Winston Churchill changed parties. It is about making sure that a potential trade is a trade up. As Edmund Burke argued, those in public office fail the public when the sacrifice sound judgement for an applause. Reform are good at playing for applause but they fail the test of sound judgement and delivery needed to lead Great Britan.
I am sad to see some Conservatives who were unsuccessful in fulfilling their aspirations in my party join Reform. There may be a lesson for us on how to manage aspiration and treat teamwork as a key skillset needed from those in public office. After all, national interest must come before ego.
Those leaving because they fear Reform would beat them, my advice is, do not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. With elections three years away, there is everything to fight for.
