Reform UK is presented as a threat, but is better understood as a warning

Reform UK has no Scottish MPs and no MSPs. It has nine Scottish councillors but not one was elected as a Reform UK candidate. All but one were elected as Tories in 2022 but have since jumped ship. The party’s poll ratings have varied, though a couple of recent polls suggest it may gain a foothold in Holyrood next year.

Reform has not come close to winning a seat in recent local by-elections. Much was made of the result in Bannockburn in January where Reform came third with 22.4 per cent (according to Reform UK’s website) or 22.7 per cent (according to Ballot Box Scotland) first preferences (Reform UK includes the 22 rejected ballot papers in the total votes case). Perspectives are important in how data is presented and understood. An alternative perspective on that result takes account of the 17.6 per cent turnout which means that 3.9 per cent of the total electorate voted Reform UK in Bannockburn.

If Reform is a big threat in Scotland, then it is not evident in the hard data. What it needs most to do to win a few seats in Holyrood is to get some political limelight. And the first minister has granted Reform exactly that with his announcement that he will host a summit. Reform may not be invited but will get plenty of media coverage – and any publicity is good publicity for Reform.

So why has John Swinney granted Reform what it needs most? There are a number of possibilities. John Curtice offers a rational psephological explanation. With the SNP hovering at around 30 per cent, well below its 2021 vote, its best hope of forming a government is to “sow division in the unionist ranks”. Reform is not a threat to the SNP but threatens Labour’s chances of forming a government.

An alternative, or complementary explanation, is that holding a summit has become part of the standard response from a government that sees a problem, wants to be seen to be doing something but is unsure what to do. It may also speak to the tendency to make an announcement before thinking through the implications. And it is not only Reform which saw the summit announcement as an attempt to deflect from the SNP’s awful record in government.

The purpose of the summit is, according to Swinney, to “draw a line in the sand” against the “politics of fear”. But what does that mean and how is this to be achieved? Potential supporters of Reform are likely to see such an event, no doubt encouraged by Reform politicians, as a gathering of establishment Scotland. If ever there was a way of creating the kind of binary choice Reform needs – establishment vs the left-behinds – then this is it. If ever there was a way of suggesting that the main parties are all the same, then this is how to do it.

Reform appeals to the disgruntled. Exploiting grievances is its stock-in-trade.  Reform does not have, nor does it need, a programme for government. Its aim is to get a foothold in Holyrood. It enjoys being the outsider. 

Aaron Banks, co-founder with Richard Tice, of the Leave.EU campaign, entitled his book, The Bad Boys of Brexit: Tales of Mischief, Mayhem and Guerrilla Warfare in the EU Referendum Campaign. This sums up Reform though Banks is not involved, having had a falling out with his former political allies.

And that is another feature of Reform and its antecedents. Fissiparous tendencies are usually associated with politics on the left, but the right displays a similar pattern of splits. There is one difference: the left more often splits over doctrinal differences over the meaning of sanctified texts written over a century ago, spiced with a fair amount of personality clashes. Doctrine is largely absent from Reform, but it is not short of personalities liable to clash.

Reform is presented as a threat. But is better understood as a warning. It is easy to criticise and condemn its support but what is needed is understanding the nature and causes of its support. The harsh truth is that the political ground in which Reform may grow has been fertilised by those who now seek its political ostracism.

Reform thrives on grievances and there is much about which to feel aggrieved. It is much easier tackling the symptom while ignoring the cause. If this summit is simply an occasion for party political gaming, hand wringing and moralising then it will not only fail to draw a line in the sand, but it will help Reform. It is not difficult to work out how Reform will react to take advantage of this summit. 

If, on the other hand, there is a serious effort to get to grips with public policy challenges in a considered and consensual way then it might just serve a useful purpose. If only…