Written by David Allen

 

[Read Part 1 here]

 

Whose party is it?

Any organisation needs to have some form of legal standing. A popular format for clubs of all types, associations and political parties was the unincorporated association. Its main feature is that the members own the assets, they do not belong to any particular individual and on winding up, the assets would be distributed amongst the current membership.

More recently there has been a move to a newer legal entity called ‘company limited by guarantee’. It means that the total liability of the company is a guaranteed amount, usually a small amount, as opposed to the equity of a company whose liability is limited by the value of its shares. This formal structure is similar to the unincorporated association in that no person may own the assets of the organisation, except in this case, where the company to be wound up the assets must be distributed to an organisation with similar aims. Were it to be a golf club, which went bankrupt, any assets would have to go to another golf club, for example.

This is a popular legal format for a political party and most have a company limited by guarantee, underpinning the political party registration.

The benefit of this is that donors, members and benefactors of the party can be assured that their money isn’t going into anyone’s pocket and cannot be used for any purpose other than that of the stated aims of the company in its articles. It is unusual therefore that Reform UK is underpinned by a private limited company limited by shares and not by guarantee, so the answer to the question, who owns Reform UK, is Nigel Farage. He is the only person with significant control, so he appoints and fires. He appointed Richard Tice to be leader, but Nigel owns the party and its assets. This doesn’t mean that the articles wouldn’t necessarily have stated aims consistent with a not-for-profit basis, but at the end of the day it is a privately owned company.

Politically, this isn’t a good move if you want a membership, because members might not like the idea of their contributions belonging to an individual. This is one reason why Reform UK hasn’t got any members, just supporters. It is also the reason why they aren’t likely to seek members and if the party has no members, it cannot be run along democratic lines. The one thing people insist upon if they are to commit time and money to a political organisation is to have a say in who leads it and what the policies are. If those opportunities do not exist it is hard to see how any mass movement can be created.

So why do it this way?

Richard Tice is a political novice. His sidekick Dr David Bull, the doctor who doesn’t actually do any doctoring, has even less political acumen. Being popped on a Brexit party list, selected as a Tory candidate or standing for the Brexit party in by elections shows enthusiasm but leaves a lack of understanding about the reality of politics. A recent David Bull tweet says it all. In response to a comment pointing out that nobody actually votes for Reform UK in real elections he tweeted ‘That will come’. The clear inference is that nothing needs to change, everything is right on target and it’s only a matter of time before millions will begin ticking the Reform UK box. It is a position doomed to fail.

Nigel, on the other hand, is a master of securing his position.

I don’t think that Nigel is keen on overly democratic party structures, and I can see why. The interminable series of leadership elections that UKIP punished itself with was brought about democratically. Its rise was largely due to Nigel Farage and its decline due to its membership, poor electoral proceedings, and a squabbling hierarchy (not that such is unusual in political parties). However, winning elections is a very effective glue, constantly losing them was always going to make life difficult. Nigel battled hard and occasionally angrily (I’m told) with people given power in the party’s democratic processes and consequently with a freedom to be obstructive.

However, he had Brexit. In fact, he is widely acknowledged around the world as Mr Brexit, and rightly so. He frightened Mr Cameron into agreeing to a referendum, he won that referendum, the government was intent on backing away from the people’s decision and everybody knew it and so The Brexit Party was born.

Then came the last of the European elections in May 2019 and this hurriedly created ‘The Brexit Party’, fought them. The Brexit Party was set up along the same lines as Reform UK is now, but the landscape, the objective and the electoral system were very different indeed.

The first significant thing about this election is that it is not a local election but a national one. This is of enormous significance, because the essential groundwork needed to win a local election, even a parliamentary local election is entirely unnecessary with the European Parliament elections. In fact, it’s impossible to do, because there is no candidate and no geographical attachment to a locality other than region. As there are only 12 regions any sense of local doesn’t exist.

The next factor is that the election is held using the D’Hondt election system, which is one of the many bastardised voting systems so enamoured of by geeks and mathematicians. Suffice to say that nobody voting has a clue how it’s worked out (a common feature of complex and artificial voting systems) but oddly, nobody cares either. From a voter’s perspective one can only vote for a party. There are lists of candidates, but in common with UK general elections, nobody votes for a candidate anyway (unless they have a very specific profile) and the combination of party votes only and the pseudo proportionality of seat allocation ensures that decent support is rewarded with seats. Unlike the 2015 general election when UKIP achieved 3.8 million votes (more than the SNP and LibDems combined) and only 1 seat in parliament (as opposed to their 64), the European Parliament elections would be rich pickings for The Brexit Party as it was for UKIP in 2014.

One very powerful link here was Nigel Farage, his association with Brexit, the public’s annoyance with the government for not getting on with it and the third would be the major differences between Euro elections and Parliamentary ones. In Euro elections nobody really voted for representation. What people did vote for was sending the government of Mrs May a very loud message, which they did.

The Brexit Party was set up in record time to contest and win this election. That it did so with such a huge margin was testament to the absolute suitability of the top-down approach to this type of election as it is so equally unsuited to local elections. It was horses for courses.

I don’t blame Nigel for getting out of front-line politics. He’s achieved more than any politician since Churchill and the effort shows. I also don’t blame him for passing the whitest of elephants to Richard Tice, who has little idea of what’s happening, whilst keeping a position of power, just in case, you know? However, the structure of Reform UK needs, well, reform. It cannot possibly be an electoral force for the reasons I’ve explained. It would appear to have no intention of changing, so to you Richard Tice, and your chum David Bull, enjoy the C list celebrity status of the occasional radio appearance, the adulation of those who are on your side politically but are not properly prepared for the massive failure, and the ego boosting nature of leading a political party.

But is there anything that can be done?

Well, there might be, but some re-evaluation is needed.

In 2015, UKIP had a fantastic manifesto, a basket of policies that the ordinary person wanted, but it counted for little. Better to have one big one, like Brexit. Reform UK does! immigration, particularly the illegal kind. Are you strong enough to commit to turning the boats back, returning illegal immigrants and can you devise a plausible strategy to achieve that? Nobody cares about cladding, no, really! They do care about potential terrorists flooding our shores and the million or two illegals already here. Can you handle a woke backlash?

Reform UK’s commitment to no vaccine passports has already been fatally wounded after today’s announcement, so any policy has to be a commitment that cannot be trumped. The website still leads with a policy that is already dead 12/09/2021 22:08. This is unforgivable and it will probably be there for days. The rest of the site is unattractive, focussing on internal stuff when it needs to engage the voter.

The next election is 2024, so plenty of time to build a party in the country. The problem is that Richard Tice isn’t in control. If Nigel was driving the bus, I could wish for nobody better suited, but he is the very last person I would want to be in the back seat. The reality is that Nigel owns the party, he owns the Reform UK Tice and nothing can be done that he doesn’t approve of. Quite a millstone, eh?

The UK is a conservative country, and we have a socialist government, albeit misnamed. In a conservative country, a conservative party ought to do well, but the conservatism is fragmented. It’s residing in a number of like-minded small political parties with egotistical leaders. One of the first jobs ought to be to bring the support together, even if that meant a change of leadership of whatever the party is called that would emerge. Could Richard do that? Would Nigel allow it? Richard Tice may not have what it takes to get elected but he does have a profile big enough to elicit support for an alliance. Extend the olive branch, we all want the same thing, a truly conservative government, because without that all the changes needed will not happen. You cannot win a chess game in just one move.

All the people are there, all the support is there, the magic would be to bring it together. It’s likely that Nigel would need to be left in the bus alone to achieve this, but then again successful politicians don’t need a mum.

 

 

 

Photo by derek4ukip