Why Reform’s conference was an unqualified success

I WANTED TO WRITE this particular column because, quite honestly, I was rather irritated with the opinion headlines suggesting Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham had been a shambles at best and a disaster at worst. Such reactions, essentially from opponents and critics of the party, were, to me at least, but I suspect also to the many thousands who attended, way off the mark. I needed to provide a corrective, and here it is.

First, let me start by saying I am a seasoned conference-goer. I lost my political conference virginity in 1977 when I attended the Conservative conference in Blackpool Winter Gardens – the same one William Hague first spoke at when he was only sixteen and I was nineteen. I subsequently attended conferences most years, including eventually speaking at them from the floor and then the platform. I’ve seen them from every angle and been to more fringe meetings (and organised a few) than I care to remember.

I also worked for Michael Forsyth Associates in London during the early eighties at the start of my public relations career. Michael Forsyth had recently won a contract based on his idea of commercialising the stalls into a full-blown exhibition as a means of raising party funds. I saw the change it wrought and how conferences for all parties changed from being rather homespun affairs into something more commercial and glitzier.

Fortunately I missed the 1984 Brighton bombing, as I had just been married the month before and had no holiday left, but I have felt the disruption caused by suspected terrorist threats, demonstrator infiltrations and invasive security controls in England and Scotland.

So, in considering the Reform conference, I am probably a little less agitated by the disruptions that can take place, be it through delays, disruptions or intentionally damaging documentary stings. I admit I could possibly be more sanguine and relaxed and a tad susceptible to accept the Westminster bubble’s fixation with instant crises on speed dial, social media outrage and streamed rolling-news schedules.

I also can say I have attended a few UKIP conferences commercially in the past when the party was probably at its height and was at Reform’s conference in the same venue last year, so I have some comparative experiences in which to set this year’s gathering.

In my view, I would therefore say the conference was a tremendous success within its own terms; in its tight focus on messaging (which all good conferences should have), on the strength of attendance (which in scale and numbers was at least three times as big as last year’s) and in providing inspiration and motivation to members – who benefit from coming together and both receiving and giving praise to leaders, colleagues and celebrities.

That’s my take. Here is my reasoning.

In the case of the messaging, the theme of The First 100 Days is clearly aimed to challenge the accusations that Reform is not a serious party, is a one-man band and does not appreciate the scale of the task.

Speaker after speaker made it plain they would resign if they did not deliver on the pledges in the First 100 Days

Given some of the optics of Kemi Badenoch’s behaviour lately – such as her day trip to Rome only to be rebuked for claiming Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had told her not to do any deal with Nigel Farage; her defence of a former Neo-Nazi standing as a prospective Conservative Councillor by saying he “would just be sorting out bins” (only for him to then resign); and her reshuffle, which elevated arch-Remainer Tom Tugendhat to shadow Foreign Secretary despite Priti Patel’s part in the successful campaign to halt Starmer’s giveaway of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius – I would argue that Badenoch has her own problems with being taken seriously and not just a blowhard Burnham berater.

Nevertheless, Reform had to address the seriousness problem, as it was in danger of being believed simply by the opposition using the Goebbels tactic of repeating a lie often enough. The deployment of the First 100 Days answers that in part – it puts a pledge on the tin that various policies being demanded on immigration and the economy will be delivered in little more than the first three months.

But it didn’t stop there. It was given emphasis – and it’s a clincher that can be repeated. Speaker after speaker made it plain they would resign if they did not deliver on the pledges in the First 100 Days – and to cap it all Nigel Farage stated plainly, looking right into the cameras, that he would sack those who failed, no matter who it was. Robert Jenrick went further and even issued his resignation letter for a position he is yet to achieve. It was pure theatre, but for those that think it performative, let me just say this: all these pledges and assurances will be thrown back in the faces of Reform politicians at any general election and afterwards if they are triumphant.

I’ve heard the First 100 Days being dismissed as an imported Trumpesque American political artefact, but that is simply not true. Being long in the tooth I recall how Margaret Thatcher was measured by what she had managed to achieve in her first year by The Sunday Times. By the time of Tony Blair it had been shortened to 100 days, and once Andy Burnham was lined up The Economist was writing about it too.

I fully expect the First 100 Days theme and the offer of accountability to be used right through to the moment the ballot boxes close – and beyond, into those first 100 days. This is serious stuff – for instance, what is Badenoch going to say by comparison – 80 days? Or will she go further on the resignation offers with a group sign-up photocall of her shadow cabinet? When Conservatives resign it’s normally to spend more time with their families, for a wide variety of extracurricular reasons that never seem to involve failure to deliver policies or the breaking of promises.

The theme dovetailed with the need of key personalities to step forward and share the burden of leadership with Nigel Farage by naming their own goals for the First 100 Days and they did not disappoint. Richard Tice (Net Zero and Energy), Zia Yousaf (Home Affairs, including immigration), Robert Jenrick (Economy), Suella Braverman (Education and Skills) – all supported by Malcolm Offord and Dan Thomas championing Reform’s work in Scotland and Wales respectively.

In addition, other speakers such as Danny Kruger (reform of Whitehall), Laila Cunningham (London mayoral candidate) and Matt Goodwin (psephologist and pollster) added to the mix.

Top of the class though was the speech in English by Jordan Bardella (well worth watching). Nigel’s main speech was, of course, interrupted many times – no surprise there. It was, nevertheless, exemplary and he delivered an uninterrupted version at the close of the conference to reach a wider audience.

The old narrative that Reform suffers from a lack of policy and a shortage of personalities beyond Nigel Farage no longer holds

The protesters served to exemplify just how anti-free speech his opponents are and showed how difficult it is to police membership (which is required to gain entry) and impose security with an unobtrusive touch at an event built on open communication. Every party conference could be infiltrated by opponents if people bothered to do it – it just takes sleepers and patience – but those respectful of free speech and law and order never consider such behaviour at the Labour or Green conferences.

Beyond the main stage was the very lively fringe activity, which treated Reform with the respect of a party that could be the next government. The Spectator lounge inside the conference (last year it was hosted at the Hilton) was busy as were Mark Littlewood and Professor David Starkey and then there were all the think tanks and advisory groups that had mushroomed compared to last year – such as the Great British Business Council and the Growth Commission.

The old narrative that Reform suffers from a lack of policy and a shortage of personalities beyond Nigel Farage no longer holds. If anything, that’s the problem the Conservatives have, such is the dearth of talent in their team, with only one or two exceptions.

A good innovation was Jeremy Kyle running live interviews from a plethora of guests from the conference floor as well as politicians, commentators and colourful media observers. Other broadcasters did live interviews in their booths and stands, adding to the vibrancy.

To put it simply, while the exhibition and members’ village layout perhaps needed more seats, signage and better mapping, there was a really engaging and infectious buzz. The choice of food and drinks shacks was impressive and prices were not a rip-off compared with those in today’s city centres.

The scale of the facilities had grown in the last year to accommodate the very impressive numbers, and the main hall had plenty of pyrotechnics, camera angles and giant screens to ensure you could see and hear the speakers.

The sum total was that the members, activists and elected politicians mixed well and bounced ideas and initiatives off each other. There was a positivity about the event that even the Channel 4 sting on freelance unapproved fundraising by two senior staff failed to puncture. And Farage took the issue head on, telling the conference from the stage that there was no illegality on the party’s part, no money taken and no commissioning of any polling. The two staff were initially suspended and then dismissed.

While that may be the focus on which the Westminster media bubble wants to concentrate, the conference, as I say, was a success in its own terms. The one thing we cannot tell, just yet, is whether or not it will produce any significant or lasting impact on the public’s political consciousness that might be measured by the opinion polls or at the ballot box in contests such as by-elections.

Unless we consider these council by-elections, which are truly impressive.

In North Somerset, following a decade of Tory rule that ended in 2019, the council is governed by a broad, cross-party rainbow coalition consisting of the Liberal Democrats, Labour, the Green Party, and Independents – but Reform came from nowhere in a ward previously uncontested to win a by-election with 38.5 per cent. In the Labour constituency of North East Derbyshire with a Labour-controlled district council, Reform won a by-election, gaining a ward from Labour with 40.2 per cent.

And so far, the latest polling shows no perceptible shift for Reform – just shifts around it among the Conservatives and Labour.

Is there room for improvement in the Reform conference? Yes, of course. There was a real problem with queuing to gain entry on the Friday morning that caused the conference to be delayed by an hour at lunchtime and consequently disrupted the fringe meetings, where politicians were subsequently unable to attend. Then there was the disruption during Farage’s speech and the question of how effective the security was. Both issues need to be looked – but they do not detract from the positives, especially in the eyes of the public.

The road to the general election is now most likely to be a longer one than it would have been had Burnham gone early – such are the heavy economic seas gathering. More polling will show if the Conference – or indeed the other party conferences – has an impact. But the idea that the Reform conference was a failure looks more like wishful thinking to an old conference-goer like me.