The rise of Reform in the East Midlands: Why I believe Brexit opened the door to chaos

We’ve heard a great deal about democracy in recent years, most particularly, after the result of the referendum nine years ago in June 2016 to decide whether we should remain in the European Union (EU).

The outcome of this vote, which attracted an unusually high turnout (72.2%) of every citizen eligible to vote in the United Kingdom (UK), some 46,501,241, when 17,410,742 (51.9%) wanted to leave, compared to the 16,141,241 (48.1%) who thought we should remain, resulted in a monumental shift in our economic and social relationship with our former partners in the EU.

However, the decision to leave the EU created social divisions within communities and families.

Unfortunately, the referendum outcome was the catalyst for what sometimes seemed like a situation whereby our elected representative appeared incapable of achieving agreement on anything, let alone a deal to leave the EU that wasn’t economically self-destructive.

Memorably, a ‘revolving door’ of Conservative Party leaders occurred including Boris Johnson who promised us an ‘oven ready’ deal but which, ultimately, has delivered little discernible benefit.

With In hindsight, we might have been better not to have held a referendum on an issue as complex as our continued membership of the EU.

For all of the latest stories from Derby and breaking news sign up to the DerbyWorld breaking newsletter.

Perhaps, if such a vote was so vital, there should have been a wider range of options and the threshold for achieving change made much higher than a simple majority of at least one vote.

Significantly, Margaret Thatcher, who was definitely not shy in expressing strident views on a range of issues, declared her reluctance in holding referendums which she instinctively knew were divisive.

Whether Thatcher would have voted to leave the EU is unknown as she died in April 2013.

Thatcher was a politician whose relationship with the EEC (European Economic Community) – the forerunner to the EU created by what’s known as the Maastricht Treaty on 1st November 1993 – was somewhat fractious.

No longer Conservative Party leader by 1993, Lady Thatcher, as she’d become in 1992, understood how opposed some within the party could be on the issue of Europe.

Exalting in their status as rebels, and known as ‘Eurosceptics’, they were avowed critics of an organisation they believed to possess overweening power which had the objective of federalism in creating a ‘United States of Europe’.

What they were especially vociferously against was the single market which, by the removal of member states of technical, legal and bureaucratic barriers enabled movement of goods, services, capital and persons.

The last of these, freedom of movement of people, was totemic to critics of the EU as it meant citizens of any country could move to another for employment as well as enjoying all services available such as health, housing and education on a reciprocal basis.

One such critic was Nigel Farage, arguably the most influential political leader since Lady Thatcher.

Having reigned in protest at the then leader of the Conservative Party John Major’s signing of the Maastricht Treaty, Farage founded UKIP (UK Independence Party) in 1993.

UKIP was initially perceived to be an insignificant irritation.

However, Farage and UKIP proved to be tenacious and gradually developed support from the Eurosceptics within his former party, a reason why David Cameron included the promise to hold a referendum in the 2015 general election

Subsequently, UKIP would garner support from disillusioned Labour voters in former manufacturing areas who believed established political parties were oblivious to unemployment and deprivation they were experiencing.

Significantly, it’s widely acknowledged, UKIP’s support included those who perceived immigration to be a major reason their economic prospects had suffered.

Voting to leave the EU by voters, it’s speculated, would vastly reduce immigration and they anticipated, restore jobs and improved their environment.

Farage had proved himself adept at creating a populist trend on an issue uniting voters from the right and left.

Some nine years on from the referendum, and only just over five years on from having left the EU on January 31st 2020 following Boris Johnson’s win in the ‘Get Brexit Done’ election of December 2019, it’s somewhat premature to conclude how Brexit is progressing.

However, there’s evidence that no longer being a member of an organisation made up of our closet neighbours and, as the world’s largest trading bloc, representing a significant market, has negatively impacted on us economically.

Potentially, the economic impact of leaving the EU will be a decrease in the Gross Value Added (GVA) of around 4% in the long run.

Given our economy is worth around £2.56 trillion, that would represent a loss of around £102billion each year.

A consequence is that we’ll become collectively poorer.

Intriguingly, because of internal differences, Farage resigned from UKIP and formed the Brexit Party in February 2019.

Having previously threatened to stand against the conservatives in all seats in any general election, when Johnson replaced Theresa May in July as Conservative leader, Farage withdrew Brexit Party candidates from standing against Conservatives who’d declared their intention to support Johnson’s deal.

As such Farage undoubtedly contributed to Johnson’s surprising 80 seat majority.

Memorably, in signing of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement in late December 2019, Farage seemed satisfied his work was complete and stated the "war is over.”

This, we might have assumed we’d heard the last of Nigel Farage.

Farage’s Brexit Party morphed into Reform UK, a limited company which he led until March 2021 until resigning to become honorary president.

When Rishi Sunak announced there’s be an election, Farage surprisingly stated his intention to return to active politic by standing as MP for Clacton and to resume leadership of the party.

Finally achieving his ambition of entering Parliament, Farage would surely have been very pleased to see his party winning 15% of the votes though presumably cursing the ‘first past the post’ system meaning only five seats for Brexit.

Last week’s elections clearly demonstrate that Farage continues to be a consummate disruptor and shapeshifter par excellence.

To say that Reform performed well is something of an understatement.

Winning the by-election in Runcorn and Helsby when the Reform candidate Sarah Pochin became MP in defeating the Labour candidate by just six votes showed that seats assumed to be safe are no longer so.

Reform winning mayoral seats and a swathe of council seats in local elections demonstrates Farage’s party is capable of winning support across the country.

So, what do these results tell us?

Firstly, Labour’s ‘loveless majority’ of 174 achieved on the basis of only 33.7% of the votes cast (about 20% of the electorate), means that unless its popularity radically increases before at the next general election (likely in May 2029), it will not win sufficiently to achieve a majority.

For the Conservatives, in losing 676 council seats, largely to Reform, the outcome is pretty abysmal and far worse than the 500 suggested by party strategists.

Kemi Badenoch’s party has much to do to restore its fortunes and many believe she’ll not survive as leader.

Significantly, claims by Farage and his supporters that Reform is now the main opposition party appear credible and it’s entirely possible Farage could become next PM following the next election.

So, what are Reform’s eleven key policies?

• Freeze on 'non-essential' immigration
• Big tax cuts for small businesses
• Royal commission for social care
• Scrap net zero target
• Ban 'transgender ideology' in schools
• Tax relief on school fees
• An extra £17bn for NHS
• Scrap the rest of HS2 rail link
• Raising stamp duty threshold to £750,000
• Leave the European Convention on Human Rights
• Scrap the licence fee

Some might consider these policies avowedly populist and purposefully intended to appeal to disgruntled voters who feel let down by the Conservative Party that’d been in power for 15 years and by Labour who took over claiming that things would get better but, worryingly, not before they’ll probably get worse.

Whether, if implemented, they’d make people feel more prosperous is impossible to say.

Crucially, in local elections there’s always a sense that voters tend to think nationally in terms of political allegiance rather than what’s good for them locally.

Rather, given the evidence of last week’s election results, it increasingly appears many are swept along by a zeitgeist by which they think they can have everything they want but without any cost.

Leaving the EU should have demonstrated that’s not possible regardless of the latest announcements by Starmer concerning on trade deals with India and the US.

They’d have to be a lot better than they appear to even dent the loss of economic growth caused by Brexit.

What’s happened in the US under Trump offers glimpses of what we may experience under Reform.

It’s worth noting that councillor Donna Edmunds resigned from Reform after being suspended because of her social media post described the party as a "cult" and believes Farage treating members with contempt.

Farage’s critics assert he’s created Reform to be a personal vanity project to enrich the richest but with minimal benefit for the poorest.

Worryingly, and this is true of all political parties, we entrust responsibility for overseeing of essential local services to people who we assume have been vetted by their party’s hierarchy.

Past experience of Farage’s political parties indicates that there may be councillors whose pedigree is far from ideal.

Time will tell.

Alarmingly, we’re likely to see our politics likely to follow the zeitgeist of the US under Trump whereby the culture of politics could become as fractious as experienced in the period following the EU referendum of 2016.

Isolationism and intolerance are likely to be increasingly characteristic of the political narrative.

Harmonious relationships between political parties are, of course, not mandatory.

However, sensible policies combined with cooperation and collaboration makes their implementation, intended to improve our lives and prospects, easier.

Brexit has left deep scars yet to start healing.

It’s to be hoped that all elected officials appreciate the responsibility thrust upon them by the democratic process exercised by voters last week.

More critically, voters should recognise the importance of them fully considering the consequences of their actions in the ballot box.

As science fiction writer Isaac Asimov famously stated, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

It's to be sincerely hoped we don’t allow ourselves to go down the same dreadful ‘rabbit hole’ the US is experiencing under Trump second presidency.

Dr Steve McCabe

Steve is Professor and Pro Vice Chancellor, DoctorateHub.

Previously, having worked for Birmingham City Council, he spent the last 35 years as an academic at Birmingham City University teaching and researching economics, management and business. Additionally, he has written extensively for edited texts examining economics and politics.

He regularly writes and comments regularly in the national and international media on politics and the economy and has published texts on quality management, benchmarking, ‘Brexit’ and its economic and social impact, the green economy and manufacturing, house prices and India’s progress since independence.