Britain needs Nigel’s shock therapy (Image: Getty)
Just a few months ago, Boris Johnson’s old right-hand man – Dominic Cummings – warned Nigel Farage that Whitehall will break the law to prevent Reform winning power. Speaking on The Spectator’s podcast, Cummings said: “They’ll leak medical records, they’ll leak tax records. They’ll bug his phone and leak that. They’ll do anything that they need to”.
Wow! Have we not seen exactly this in the last few months? Reports of alleged schoolboy antics didn’t work so the Establishment went for Farage and co’s financial records. Now sting operations. Let’s all grow the hell up and see this for what it is. Whatever Reform may or may not have done, let’s not be fooled into thinking the Establishment parties are paragons of propriety.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
But the difference is the Establishment wants these two cheeks of the same backside to win elections so keeps all their skeletons firmly locked away in the cupboard. Reform will upset the apple cart, so every piece of mud the elites can throw at Reform they will.
How then can Reform possibly fight this? Nigel Farage‘s party needs to be purer than pure. Ongoing professionalisation – which has been a focus for some time now – is key.
Beyond that, Reform needs to prepare to reform the rotten Establishment itself. Hungary and Poland changed political leadership in recent years. Conservative parties lost but did Hungary and Poland become open borders hellscapes? No.
Why? Because in Hungary and Poland, the civil service, judiciary and media establishments themselves are not in favour of open borders. Ditto Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan.
If Reform doesn’t clean up the UK civil service, it doesn’t matter how big its Commons majority, no major changes will ever take effect. Reform must reform the machinery of law, government and culture.
Nigel Farage knows this and, in some respects, should be grateful our rotten Establishment showed their cards this early. Reform should also take it as a compliment about how much of a threat the party is seen to a disgraced woke consensus.
Going into the next election, Reform may look to a wedge strategy – bringing one or two contentious social issues into the campaign and aligning its position with the dissenting wings of the Conservatives and Labour.
For example, the Tories remain fundamentally split between One Nation wets and those playing catch up with Reform on immigration, the ECHR and net zero.
Despite appearances of unity the Tories are also split on economic policies such as tax, welfare and state ownership.
Burnham bounce aside meanwhile, a huge number of those wavering between Labour and Reform want nothing more to do with the EU, are sniffy about trans rights or the Gaza obsession, and desperately want lower immigration and proper policing.
This puts them at loggerheads with Labour elites even though many Labour MPs represent millions of constituents who feel this way. This is Reform’s for the taking.
The Tories remain split between moderates and populists while Labour is split between socially conservative working-class voters and metropolitan progressives, in both instances ‘wedge’ issues like immigration, crime and energy prices divide these houses.
Beyond that of course, Reform should counterattack the Establishment witch hunt, reminding voters of the disaster of the Tory years and the lunacy of today’s Labour government, all the while making sure they too unearth those scandals being carefully concealed about Labour and the Tories.
Have we really seen all the evidence about Andy Burnham and that £1bn housing investment fund for luxury skyscrapers? How about the Tories and the Child Maintenance Authority? Is there more to see there?
In the end, Britain needs shock therapy, not to be euthanised by stealth.
Nigel Farage’s Shock Therapy and Reform UK’s Challenge to the Establishment
Nigel Farage and Reform UK have become increasingly prominent forces in British politics. The party presents itself as an alternative to the established political parties and argues that Britain requires fundamental changes to the way the country is governed. In a recent opinion article, political commentator Jonathan Saxty describes this approach as “shock therapy” and argues that Reform UK needs to prepare itself for a major confrontation with what he calls the British “Establishment”. However, these arguments are political opinions rather than established facts. To understand the debate properly, it is necessary to examine Reform UK’s political strategy, its proposals for government, its relationship with the civil service and the challenges involved in turning electoral support into effective government.
One of the central ideas in the article is that Reform UK should become “purer than pure” in its political and organisational standards. This argument has emerged partly because the party has faced increasing scrutiny over its finances and the behaviour of some of its representatives. Saxty argues that Reform cannot afford serious mistakes if it wants to challenge the established parties. His recommendation is therefore greater professionalisation, stronger internal organisation and careful management of candidates and officials.
This is an important issue for any political organisation seeking national government. Opposition parties can often campaign by criticising existing governments, but governing requires a much broader range of skills. A government needs ministers with relevant expertise, experienced civil servants, functioning departments and clear systems for implementing legislation. Reform UK’s challenge is therefore not simply to attract voters but to demonstrate that it can transform its political ideas into workable public policy.
The phrase “shock therapy” refers to a much broader programme of institutional change. Reform supporters argue that Britain’s public sector and political institutions have become too slow and resistant to change. Saxty’s article suggests that if Reform eventually wins a large parliamentary majority, it would need to reform the civil service and other parts of the state in order to implement its programme.
This raises an important constitutional question. The British civil service is intended to provide permanent and politically impartial support to successive governments. Ministers change after elections, but civil servants normally remain in their positions and provide advice to whoever forms the government. Reform’s critics could therefore be concerned that major changes to the civil service might weaken institutional independence. Reform supporters, on the other hand, could argue that elected governments need the ability to implement the policies on which they were elected.
The tension between democratic accountability and institutional independence is not unique to Britain. Many democracies face debates about how much authority elected politicians should have over public administration. A government needs sufficient control to implement its programme, but institutions also require professional standards and continuity. Any attempt to transform the civil service would therefore have significant constitutional consequences and would need to be carefully designed.
Another major element of Reform UK’s strategy is its focus on issues that divide the established parties. Saxty argues that the Conservatives remain divided over questions such as immigration, the European Convention on Human Rights and net-zero policies. He also argues that Labour contains tensions between socially conservative working-class voters and more progressive metropolitan voters. According to this argument, Reform can make electoral gains by focusing on issues where established parties have internal disagreements.
Immigration is particularly important in this strategy. Reform UK has made reducing immigration and strengthening border controls central parts of its political platform. The issue has become increasingly prominent in British political debate because of concerns about asylum applications, small-boat crossings and the pressure that population growth can place on housing and public services.
However, immigration policy alone cannot resolve every economic problem facing Britain. Housing shortages, low productivity, regional inequality, public-service pressures and weak economic growth have multiple causes. A political party seeking government therefore needs policies extending beyond immigration. This point was also made by Labour politicians in an earlier debate about Reform’s rise. Chris Curtis, chair of the Labour Growth Group, argued that reducing migration alone would not be enough if voters continued to experience difficulties with wages, healthcare and living standards.
Economic policy is consequently another central part of Reform UK’s challenge. Farage has argued that Britain needs significant reductions in the size of the state and has described this as a difficult process that could provoke opposition. The party has simultaneously proposed tax reductions and policies intended to protect services such as the National Health Service. This combination creates a fundamental policy challenge: reducing government expenditure while maintaining or increasing spending in politically important areas requires substantial savings elsewhere or additional revenue.
The idea of “shock therapy” therefore involves more than political rhetoric. If a future Reform government attempted to reduce the size of the state rapidly, the consequences could be significant. Government departments could be reorganised, public spending programmes could be reduced, and welfare policies could change. Such measures could produce efficiencies in some areas but also create disruption and opposition. The effects would depend heavily on which programmes were changed and how quickly reforms were implemented.
Another issue is Reform UK’s relationship with the political establishment. Saxty argues that established political parties, civil servants and other institutions could resist a Reform government because its programme would challenge existing assumptions. He compares Britain with countries such as Hungary, Poland, Japan, South Korea and Singapore, arguing that political leadership has been able to produce significant institutional changes in those countries.
Such comparisons, however, need to be treated carefully. These countries have very different political systems, constitutional arrangements, economic structures and historical experiences. Britain is a parliamentary democracy with its own traditions concerning the civil service, judiciary, local government and constitutional law. A policy that works in one country cannot automatically be transferred to another.
The concept of the “Establishment” is also difficult to define objectively. In political commentary, the term can refer to government departments, senior politicians, major media organisations, universities, business leaders, courts or other influential institutions. Because the word has no single precise definition, arguments about defeating the Establishment can mean different things to different people. A serious political programme therefore needs to identify specific institutions and specific reforms rather than relying entirely on a general description of an elite group.
Reform’s electoral strategy may also depend on attracting voters from more than one traditional political constituency. The party has already attempted to appeal to former Conservative voters who are concerned about immigration and national sovereignty. At the same time, it seeks support from working-class Labour voters who are dissatisfied with economic conditions or the direction of social policy. This creates opportunities but also risks.
Different groups of voters may agree with Reform on one issue while disagreeing with it on another. A voter may support stricter immigration controls but oppose reductions in welfare spending. Another may support tax cuts but favour continued high levels of public spending on healthcare. Building a broad coalition therefore requires more than identifying controversial issues; it requires policies that can maintain support across different groups.
Reform UK’s financial resources have also become increasingly important. In September 2026, the party received two donations of £36 million from cryptocurrency investors Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne within two days. The combined £72 million gave Reform substantial financial resources for campaigning and organisational development. This demonstrates the party’s growing ability to compete financially with established political organisations, although it has also generated debate about the role of wealthy donors in British politics.
The party’s organisational development is therefore likely to be crucial. Electoral success requires candidates, local activists, campaign managers, policy specialists and administrative systems. A party can gain significant popularity without having sufficient infrastructure to govern effectively. Reform’s reported plans to expand its campaign organisation indicate that it recognises the importance of preparation.
At the same time, Reform faces scrutiny that comes with becoming a major political force. Recent investigations into the party’s finances demonstrate the importance of transparency and compliance with electoral law. Regardless of the eventual outcome of those investigations, political parties seeking national government need robust systems for handling donations, candidates and campaign activities.
The broader political environment may also influence Reform’s future. The Conservative Party is attempting to respond to Reform’s rise, while Labour is under pressure to address concerns about immigration, economic growth and public services. This means that policies initially associated strongly with Reform may increasingly become part of mainstream political debate. Established Reform moves closer to the policies of the established parties, it may appear less distinctive. If it maintains highly distinctive positions, it may strengthen its appeal among voters parties can adapt to changing voter concerns, potentially reducing the distinctiveness of Reform’s message.
This creates a strategic dilemma. If Reform moves closer to the policies of the established parties, it may appear less distinctive. If it maintains highly distinctive positions, it may strengthen its appeal among voters who want significant change but potentially make cooperation with other political groups more difficult.
Ultimately, the idea of “shock therapy” represents a particular vision of political change. Its supporters believe Britain requires fundamental reforms to government, immigration policy and the economy rather than incremental adjustments. Its critics may argue that rapid institutional change creates risks and that complicated national problems require careful, gradual solutions.
The central question is therefore not simply whether Nigel Farage can “beat the Establishment”. It is whether Reform UK can transform political dissatisfaction into a coherent programme of government. Winning votes and governing effectively are different tasks. Electoral success would give Reform the opportunity to implement its programme, but implementation would require legislation, administrative capacity, parliamentary support and public acceptance.
In conclusion, the argument that Nigel Farage needs “shock therapy” reflects the belief that Britain requires substantial political and institutional change. Reform UK has attempted to distinguish itself from Labour and the Conservatives through its positions on immigration, government reform, national sovereignty and the size of the state. Its. Reform would need to demonstrate that its proposals could be implemented within Britain’s constitutional framework while maintaining effective public services and economic stability. The party growing financial resources and organisational development have increased its capacity to compete politically.
However, major political change involves considerable practical challenges. Reform would need to demonstrate that its proposals could be implemented within Britain’s constitutional framework while maintaining effective public services and economic stability. The party would also need to maintain high standards of political conduct and financial transparency as scrutiny increases.
The debate surrounding Reform UK is therefore ultimately a debate about the direction of British politics. Whether its programme represents necessary reform or excessive disruption is a matter for voters and political debate. What can be established is that Reform has succeeded in placing questions about immigration, government efficiency, national sovereignty and political representation firmly within Britain’s political conversation. Its future influence will depend not only on its ability to challenge established parties but also on its ability to present detailed, credible and workable policies for governing the country.
:::