When I was a news presenter at Sky TV I often found myself on-screen the morning after a by-election. I would usually be joined by a bigwig from the political or media mainstream who, after chewing over the result, would generally point out how few people had bothered to turn out and vote. Cue hand-wringing about voter apathy.
But after years in the job, I also noticed a paradox. How unease about declining democratic participation did not run deep. So that, for instance, when voters who normally found politics as interesting as drying paint suddenly became politically engaged - as they did during Brexit - the Establishment performed a U-turn. The newly active weren’t welcomed for sloughing off their apathy. They were demonised, not for exercising their rights as citizens, but for being dangerous populists fretting about leaving the EU, or lowering immigration.
When I could take life at the increasingly woke Sky News no more, I jumped ship for GB News, where I found proof of something I’d long suspected. That Nigel Farage was not only an era-defining politician and gifted broadcaster, but also as cheerful off-screen as he is on it.
Since then I’ve watched in awe as the Reform Party Nigel leads nudges relentlessly upwards in the opinion polls. Part of its success lies in reaching parts of the electorate others can’t reach. Britons who feel ignored and betrayed by centrist career politicians. Nigel has given them a reason to be politically engaged. Social media has given them the means.
But one thing I increasingly notice is that some of those attracted to the idea of Reform (as indeed I am) are very far from being natural Conservatives. On one level this is obvious. Reform has been able to boost its poll ratings by taking chunks out of Labour’s. But the effect - especially online - can be disconcerting. Because many of Reform’s newly engaged supporters, far from being reactionary, are actually radicals.
Reform UK voters have more revolutionary zeal than traditional conservatives, writes Colin Brazier
Getty Images
What does that actually mean? Well, traditional Tories were strong on a sense of duty that borders on deference. They had no trouble deferring to the Royals or the Established Church. They submitted to the judgments of law and order, as dictated by police or courts. They would fight for their country, if asked. They saw the countryside as a sacred repository of all that was best about our nation, and ipso facto accepted the practise of farming or hunting animals as entirely unobjectionable.
But look on social media today and you will see many Reform supporters who, far from adhering to these Tory verities, actually consider them taboo.
Take the monarchy. King Charles is routinely rubbished as a Starmer Stooge. A sovereign who, instead of standing up for his Christian subjects, openly champions multiculturalism.
Now, I agree with those who, for instance, think the King’s Christmas message was off-key. That by asserting the vacuous mantra that ‘diversity is our strength’, he risked wandering onto turf set aside for the culture wars. At the very least, it was not something his late mother - so shrewd in assessing what not to say - would have done.
But it’s one thing believing Charles to be a bit of a dud (and let’s not even bring Andrew into this), another entirely to claim the whole institution is a busted flush. Like many monarchists, I know that for every bad prince there is a good prince, but that overall - the Firm works. It acts as a focus for the nation in times of joy or grief (politicians can do this, but they do so with one eye on the opinion polls). It acts as a reminder of our ancient island story and as a stabiliser during times of rapid change. It puts tourist bums on seats.
And yet there are Reform followers on X and elsewhere who insist that Charles is ‘Not My King’. You don’t need to be a constitutionalist to know that the whole point of monarchy is that we don’t get to choose who gets the gig.
The late, great, conservative philosopher Sir Roger Scruton once said that if Tories did go on protests like Left-wing activists do, they would gingerly raise an arm and whisper ‘hesitate’. He felt to be on the Right was to slow things down, or as the American William F Buckley once said of conservatives: “they should stand athwart history, yelling stop!”.
But there are some Reform supporters who think the urge to hesitate isn’t admirable, but supine. The country, they say, is too far gone for half measures. In particular, they see institutions which might once have nurtured and protected their interests, as inimical to them. So, they say, the police have given up on burglaries, but will arrest for hate speech or silent prayer. The armed forces promote diversity hires, but expect young white men to sign up to defend a country which routinely runs them down.
Much of it has a revolutionary flavour and, like Monty Python’s People’s Front of Judea, it is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. It is one thing, for instance, to see the Church as a woke joke, or full of ‘kiddie-fiddlers’. But how does that view sit with the conviction that Britain must hold fast to its Christian heritage?
Nobody doubts that the radicals of Reform love their country. But if Labour is to be ousted at the next General Election, it’s likely Reform and the Conservatives will need to merge, or at least avoid blue on blue hostilities. Is that something the revolutionaries are willing to accept?
