Why Reform UK May Not Survive

The Rupert Lowe Fracas Shows is probably the end of the party

Britain Desperately Needs an Alternative to the Old Parties, but Nigel Farage Is Sadly Squandering the Opportunity

The recent controversy surrounding Rupert Lowe adds yet another name to the ever-growing catalogue of high-profile fallings-out involving Nigel Farage and his political allies. This lengthy roll of discord includes Farage versus Alan Sked, Farage versus Robert Kilroy-Silk, Farage versus Godfrey Bloom, Farage versus Suzanne Evans, Farage versus Douglas Carswell, Farage versus Ben Habib, and now, most recently, Farage versus Rupert Lowe. One might charitably suggest that Mr Farage has simply been extraordinarily unfortunate—a political figure somehow destined to encounter a disproportionate number of difficult and uncooperative individuals throughout his career, thus explaining this remarkable pattern of painful clashes and public disagreements.

Alternatively, we might apply what I have come to term as “Markle’s Law”: if one discovers that one’s entire life trajectory is characterised by repeated interpersonal conflicts, then the common problematic element, when assessed on the balance of probability, is unlikely to be every single individual with whom one interacts, but rather, one’s own self. This principle of introspection seems particularly pertinent in the current situation.

In a notable television interview with Dan Wootton this past Monday evening, Lowe, who now sits as the independent MP for Great Yarmouth following his expulsion from Reform UK, described the campaign orchestrated against him as both “unfair and un-Christian”—strong words that hint at the depth of his personal distress regarding these developments.

It is important to acknowledge that an investigation may indeed uncover genuine wrongdoing. We must not prejudge the outcome of any formal proceedings. Nevertheless, the precise details and suspicious timing of the allegations against Lowe raise legitimate questions about their credibility and motivation. The British public is expected to accept at face value that the party reported Lowe to the police a full three months after the alleged impropriety occurred; coincidentally, this report was made precisely one day after Lowe publicly voiced criticism of Farage. Such remarkable timing inevitably invites scepticism regarding the party’s true motivations.

Whilst the allegations concerning office misconduct were not specifically directed at Lowe himself, Reform UK’s initial public statement appeared deliberately crafted to create the impression that he had personally engaged in mistreatment of staff members. In a powerful rebuke to these insinuations, Lowe’s entire parliamentary team have subsequently signed a heartfelt letter categorically denying the allegations and describing their employer as a fundamentally decent man who has treated them with respect and consideration. Most curiously, they also insist—rather perplexingly—that they have never once been contacted as part of any parliamentary investigation into workplace conduct within Lowe’s office, despite such an investigation supposedly being the basis for the disciplinary action against him.

In this unfortunate episode, Reform UK appears to be exhibiting precisely the sort of behaviour it would normally condemn vociferously when practised by other political entities: namely, cancellation without proper due process, even going so far as to involve the police over what are alleged to be merely hurtful or offensive words. The irony of this position, given the party’s frequent criticism of ‘cancel culture’, cannot be overlooked.

During a subsequent television appearance, Richard Tice, who serves as Reform UK’s deputy leader, strongly implied that Lowe might not be welcomed back into the party fold, even in the hypothetical scenario where his complete innocence were conclusively established. This remarkable stance suggests that the disciplinary measures taken against Lowe may be motivated by factors beyond the specific allegations currently being investigated.

Adding further confusion to the situation, Mr Farage insisted during a televised interview that on “29 February” Lowe was “informed” about a “parliamentary investigation” into allegations raised against him. This claim is doubly problematic: not only does Lowe categorically deny having received any such notification, but there was no 29th February in the current year—2025 is not a leap year. Consequently, as attempted political assassinations go, this one appears remarkably amateurish and poorly executed—displaying the finesse of Fanny Cradock rather than the calculated precision of Francis Urquhart.

In perhaps the most disturbing development, Lowe has alleged that individuals within Reform UK have been deliberately briefing journalists with the false claim that he suffers from early-onset dementia—a cruel assertion that Farage himself may have obliquely referenced in a recent Telegraph article, wherein he described Lowe as having become a “different person” from the individual he had known during their time together in the Brexit Party. As someone who dedicates substantial periods to caring for a parent suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, I found this particular tactic profoundly offensive and morally reprehensible. Dementia is an immensely serious and utterly devastating condition, not something to be callously deployed as a convenient weapon in political squabbles or factional score-settling exercises.

Since his election to the House of Commons, Lowe has steadily cultivated a reputation as a diligent and committed Member of Parliament, taking his responsibilities towards his constituents with appropriate seriousness. The political reporter Christian Calgie has astutely observed that “by removing the whip from Lowe, Reform UK’s total parliamentary activity since the general election has fallen by 46 per cent”—a statistic that speaks volumes about Lowe’s industry and engagement with parliamentary business relative to his Reform UK colleagues. This highlights an essential truth: every successful political party requires not only charismatic figureheads but also its diligent thinkers, its policy specialists, and its meticulous attention-to-detail parliamentarians.

A consistently expressed concern from multiple sources within Reform UK is that under the leadership of Farage and party chairman Zia Yusuf, the organisation operates in an excessively centralised, brittle and overtly presidential style. This approach fundamentally misunderstands the British political system. The United Kingdom’s political framework is not, and indeed has never been, presidential in nature. If Reform UK genuinely harbours ambitions to form a government, as its senior figures regularly insist, they will eventually need at minimum one hundred capable ministers to effectively govern the country—and this without currently having a single representative in the House of Lords. In essence, the party simply cannot function effectively as a private fiefdom or merely as a platform for articulating grievances without proposing substantive solutions.

Lowe’s abrupt removal from the party potentially imperils Reform UK’s aspirations for professionalisation and credibility in multiple significant ways. What serious-minded individual would willingly join Reform UK and agree to stand as a parliamentary candidate when their professional reputation and personal life could be so publicly and destructively undermined at the first sign of disagreement with the party leadership? The risk-reward calculation becomes prohibitively unfavourable for precisely the calibre of candidates the party most desperately needs to attract.

Furthermore, it becomes exceedingly difficult to persuade those voters who are justifiably disenchanted with the conduct of mainstream political parties that Reform UK represents a genuinely different and more principled alternative worthy of their electoral support when the party immediately resorts to precisely the same kind of vicious internal feuding—the proverbial rats-in-a-sack scrapping—that has long characterised the worst aspects of both Conservative and Labour party management, despite having secured only a modest handful of parliamentary representatives.

A political party that can accommodate only a single dominant personality will inevitably struggle to assemble anything resembling a functional shadow cabinet, let alone an actual governing administration capable of running the country effectively.

The Labour Party, for all its well-documented shortcomings and policy failures, generally maintains a culture of internal loyalty, with members routinely defending their colleagues even in situations where those colleagues are manifestly in the wrong. This approach, while sometimes frustrating to outside observers, creates a sense of collective endeavour and shared purpose essential for effective governance.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner may privately harbour profound personal dislike for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, but she nevertheless manages to maintain a professional working relationship with him in the national interest. Similarly, within the Conservative Party, while Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick may never develop the warmest of personal friendships, Badenoch has wisely chosen to give her leadership rival a prominent role in her shadow cabinet, effectively deploying him as a formidable attack-dog against the current Labour government. On balance, astute political leaders recognise that it is invariably preferable to have talented and effective individuals working alongside you rather than criticising your leadership from the political wilderness.

At this critical juncture in British political life, there exists a genuine and pressing need for precisely the sort of rigorous parliamentary accountability and scrutiny that Lowe consistently provided in the House of Commons. The government’s sustained assault on traditional British farming proceeds relentlessly. Labour ministers continue to evade proper scrutiny regarding the controversial Chagos Islands agreement. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s deeply problematic schools reform bill will shortly return to the Commons to continue what many observers perceive as its systematic dismantling of educational standards and rigour. Meanwhile, illegal migrant Channel crossings and the associated use of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers are both increasing under this Labour administration—a stark reminder of precisely the issues upon which Reform UK should be focusing its political energies and public messaging.

Yet instead of addressing these substantive policy concerns, Reform UK has chosen this precise moment to launch what appears to be a remarkably botched internal coup against one of its most effective parliamentarians. One can only imagine that within the corridors of Number 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his influential chief of staff Morgan McSweeney must be positively rubbing their hands with undisguised glee at this unexpected political gift from their opponents.

The tragedy in this situation extends beyond the personal circumstances of Rupert Lowe. Britain genuinely needs a credible alternative to the established political parties—an alternative that could provide authentic representation for those voters who feel abandoned by both Labour and the Conservatives. The current Reform UK leadership, through its mishandling of this internal dispute, appears to be squandering what might have been a historic opportunity to establish such an alternative and thereby reshape the British political landscape for generations to come.

Summary

• Rupert Lowe joins a long list of Nigel Farage’s political fallings-out, suggesting a pattern of conflict
• Lowe, now an independent MP for Great Yarmouth, was expelled from Reform UK under controversial circumstances
• The timing of allegations against Lowe appears suspicious – reported to police three months after alleged incidents but just one day after he criticized Farage
• Lowe’s entire parliamentary team signed a letter defending him and denying any misconduct
• Reform UK seems to be engaging in the same “cancel culture” behavior it typically condemns
• Farage made factual errors in his accusations, including referring to “29 February” in a non-leap year
• There are allegations that Reform insiders falsely briefed journalists that Lowe has early-onset dementia
• Since entering Parliament, Lowe had established a reputation as a hardworking MP – his removal has reportedly reduced Reform UK’s parliamentary activity by 46%
• Reform UK operates in a “brittle, presidential style” under Farage and chairman Zia Yusuf
• This leadership approach is incompatible with the UK’s parliamentary system, which requires a team of capable ministers
• The internal conflict undermines Reform’s credibility and discourages serious candidates from joining
• Other parties manage internal conflicts more professionally – Labour maintains loyalty, while Conservatives give rivals important roles
• Reform UK is missing opportunities to hold the government accountable on key issues like farming, education reforms, and migration
• The party’s internal squabbling benefits Labour and PM Keir Starmer
• Britain needs a viable alternative to established parties, but Farage appears to be squandering this opportunity

Comment

There is no doubt that Reform UK in its current form will not survive this, no self-respecting politician, or confident speaker would go near this party for fear of being subjected to the same abuse as Rupert Lowe.

This all began a long time ago, let’s not forget that from the 1st January 2020 until the 3rd of June 2024, Nigel Farage made no contribution to Reform UK, it was Richard Tice, Ben Habib, Ann Widecombe and all the hard working candidates and supporters who took the party from less than 1% to polling over 20% before the election.

Nigel Farage, not wanting to miss an opportunity to take centre-stage, decided to join in as the boss, by standing for the easiest seat to win, but in the actual election, Reform only polled 14.3% and there are many who would argue that Nigel Farage alienated more people than he attracted, but that of course is just conjecture.

Fast forward to the recent events and it seems that Farage has shown his true colours, firstly, the party HAS NOT democratised, on the contrary, despite lying to Reform UK supporters about the process, his claim that he no longer owns shares in the party were to say the least misleading, because the shares are now owned by Reform 2025, which is owned entirely by Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf, cutting out Richard Tice.

As the facts become clear, it seems that the allegations against Rupert Lowe are malicious lies and the ONLY way forward would be for Nigel, Richard, Lee and Zia to resign, to allow Rupert to take control, invite Ben Habib and all the hard working candidates back into the party and stick to core Reform UK policy at any cost.

Will this happen, or will Reform sink? I have a feeling that Farage would prefer to preside over the ashes of Reform UK, rather than contribute to its success, but only time will tell if I am right.