Owen Polley: Unionists need to come up with better ideas and arguments, not 'English nationalist' slurs, if they find themselves contesting elections against Reform
The new Reform UK MP, Danny Kruger, is not well-known outside political circles. Six weeks ago, though, he defected to the party from the Conservatives and it created a lot of media excitement.
That was because Mr Kruger was considered one of the Tories’ sharpest minds, if not one of their most high-profile faces. He was never appointed to any of the great offices of state, but he was the shadow minister of defence when he defected. And he occupied influential positions behind the scenes in Conservative administrations, from advising David Cameron to acting as Boris Johnson’s political secretary.
Although Reform has won over a lot of voters very quickly, there are legitimate questions about what it stands for and what it believes, other than opposing unchecked immigration and ‘woke’ ideas. Nigel Farage is regarded as a shrewd politician, but he is not necessarily known as a deep thinker.
This reputation has transferred itself to his party, which seemed to seize upon popular concerns, rather than explain why it wanted power. It could become regarded as serious, though, if it attracts more representatives like Kruger. And it would have a greater chance of telling a persuasive story about what it stands for.
For that reason, Mr Kruger’s attempt last week to set out Reform’s plans for government was intriguing.
These proposals focused on radically reforming the public sector, by cutting numbers of staff and making sure the civil service is directed by politicians, rather than the other way around.
That might not sound very conservative, because conservatives are supposed to defend historic British institutions and traditions. But Mr Kruger explained the project as a way of restoring important bodies to their previous purposes, rather than ‘wrecking’ the state.
His party, he said, preferred the institutions, ideas and people of the UK to their equivalents elsewhere. “We will restore the basis of our democracy, putting ministers properly in charge of government.”
This is a worthy aim and it is consistent with Mr Kruger’s previous thinking. It is also in line with the ideas of other conservatives, like the late philosopher Roger Scruton, who believed that the organs of our state had been allowed to grow too large and become less driven by the nation’s interests.
Previously, Mr Kruger wrote a pamphlet called ‘On Fraternity’, which argued that the public sector is supposed to help British people get things done, but too often stands in their way instead. This document influenced the Conservatives when they took power back from Labour in 2010.
That these ideas are not new also shows how difficult it is to actually reform the public sector effectively.
Mr Kruger used the line about ‘restoration’ last week, but he also used a very similar phrase in a Financial Times article, back in December 2010, when the Conservatives were in the opening months of their coalition with Liberal Democrats.
Back then, he was defending the new government’s supposed zeal in modernising and decentralising the public sector. Yet, when the Tories left office, partly thanks to the Covid pandemic, the state was bigger than ever, and it interfered more in people’s lives.
In Northern Ireland, Reform’s approach is of particular interest, and not just because it is a serious contender to form the next national government.
Our public sector is the most bloated in the UK and Nigel Farage’s party is apparently thinking seriously about contesting elections here. A recent opinion poll suggested that almost half of unionist voters would consider supporting the party.
In this column, I’ve argued before that there are justifiable concerns about Farage’s attitude to the Union and his understanding of devolved issues. Most recently, he claimed that this province was not a priority, when he was setting out proposals to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights.
Self-styled progressives hate Farage almost as much as Irish nationalists. And the UUP leader, Mike Nesbitt, described his ‘English nationalism’ as the biggest threat to the Union, at his party’s annual conference.
It is actually far from clear that Mr Farage is an English nationalist. He certainly doesn’t describe himself in such terms. In response to the UUP’s claims, the TUV election candidate, Dan Boucher, pointed out that, “Most English people feel English and British.”
That should scarcely need to be pointed out to a unionist leader.
It is also much more difficult to characterise a small ‘c’ communitarian conservative like Danny Kruger in this way.
In fact, Kruger voted against the Windsor Framework, one of only 22 Tories to stand against Rishi Sunak’s deal. And he explained his decision by citing the Acts of Union and claiming that Westminster was “selling the birthright of Northern Ireland.”
If Reform contested elections here, it could create more difficulties for unionism and the existing unionist parties. At the same time, it may persuade people who would otherwise stay at home to get out and vote for pro-Union candidates.
If it becomes broader, and encompasses more serious, centre-right politicians like Danny Kruger, Reform will certainly be less easy to ridicule and dismiss.
The Northern Irish unionist parties, meanwhile, should meet competition from national parties with better arguments, rather than implying they are outsiders or don’t understand us; lines which actually mirror the parochial, anti-UK views of Irish nationalists.
Because, while we’re throwing around the ‘n’ word, it could be that these slurs speak more of Ulster nationalism than English nationalism.