(Neil Lock, Reform UK Godalming and Ash Interim Campaigns, 1 December 2024)
(Neil’s Note: This was written as an internal document for the local Reform UK branch. Of which, as the by-line above shows, I have been elected interim campaigns co-ordinator – not to mention secretary as well! But I feel that the need to understand and to critique why Ben Habib chose to leave Reform UK goes way beyond the faithful of one party).
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP-jcJzGYC0
0:39: “Yes, he [Boris Johnson] committed us to the net zero target.” (As part of the Brexit agreement). This statement appears to be correct:
https://eciu.net/insights/2021/brexit-implications-for-energy-and-climate-change
That was the first I’d heard of this, and I am usually fairly well up in such matters. This was a typically dastardly deed by Johnson.
0:49: “He also committed us to staying in the European Convention of Human Rights.” This also appears to be correct.
The “Contract with You” says nothing about abrogating or re-negotiating any Brexit agreements. Perhaps Nigel’s approach has been pragmatic – first build public support for getting rid of nett zero, the ECHR and everything that goes with them, then highlight the issues in the next general election campaign and build support for abrogating or re-negotiating the treaty.
1:20: “Nigel says that Brexit was done, it’s just that we didn’t take advantage of it.” I haven’t found any hard evidence for this assertion. In May 2023, Nigel did say “Brexit has failed,” which would tend to suggest that Ben’s statement is out of date, at least.
2:00: “Reform UK Limited is a limited company… It has 15 shares, 9 of which are owned by Nigel.” As I recall, those of us who attended the party conference back in September voted to end that structure, and have the party owned by its members. Am I dreaming?
3:33: Richard Tice told Ben Habib that “there would be no deals done with the Tories.” Well, Lee Anderson was one, but the word “the” suggests to me that Richard was rejecting, not deals with individual Tory MPs, but deals with the Tory party as a whole. And rightly so.
5:13: “I realized that it [the party constitution] was a document I had looked at a year and a half before, and rejected.” It seemed pretty decent to me. I wonder if Ben has published his specific criticisms?
5:57: “Well, here we are at the end of November, and actually that conversion [to a company limited by guarantee] hasn’t taken place.” It is stipulated in the constitution that the party is a limited company, but no more is said on what kind of company. It empowers the Board to make Rules on such things. I imagine the conversion ought to be in the hands of the lawyers by now. The wheels of law grind slow. Perhaps Nigel might care to tell us about the progress, and any obstacles he is encountering?
6:18: The constitution… “has not been put to the Electoral Commission for approval.” The original version of the constitution must have been approved when the party first registered as the Brexit party. Whether the latest update has been submitted yet is in the hands of Nigel and Zia.
6:56: “Nigel said he wasn’t against the rapid demographic change… it was the cultural integrity of the United Kingdom that concerned him.” And 7:14: “I don’t see how you can separate them.” I, for one, can separate them. Demographics are about who people are, and where they come from. Culture is about their values, and how they behave.
For me, the real problem with immigration is “legal” immigration, not the boats. And the nub of the problem is that this “legal” immigration has been planned. It looks to me like social engineering by those of all the factions, that are hostile to the culture of the people of the UK.
This is a culture, which is rooted in the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. It is this culture Zia is speaking of, when he talks about “British values.” And it is a culture which I myself have a very high regard for. Thus, I strongly agree with Nigel’s concern about cultural integrity. Though I’m not sure that rapid demographic change is much of a good thing, either. And certainly not when it causes overloading in housing or infrastructure.
7:19: “Nigel said he was not in favour of mass deportations.” If I understand this right:
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-offers-simple-solution-mass-deportations
(about 21 minutes in) Nigel actually said that mass deportations were politically impossible. That is very different.
8:01: Ben relates the 20th September incident and Richard Tice’s unfortunate choice of words “that lot” to apply to Tommy Robinson supporters. 8:21: “He regarded them as unpalatable.” Personally, I think they are unpalatable. When Nigel formed the Brexit party and left the Robinson followers and their ilk in charge of the empty shell of UKIP, he attracted quite a number of people (including me) who were not in any way “far right,” but who saw Brexit as an absolute necessity for restoration of any kind of sanity in government. I suspect that the party would lose more members and more votes if it embraced “that lot” than by distancing itself from them.
8:47: “It is about doing the right thing.” Ben makes a lot of noise around this point, but he doesn’t tell us exactly what he means by “the right thing.”
8:53: “Reform seems obsessed with recruiting Tories.” I think the targets for recruitment should be former Tories (and former UKIPpers, too), as well as those whose reaction to the four mainstream parties is “a plague on all their houses.” (I’ve been there, and for a long time, too. My vote for Graham on July 4th was my first vote in a general election since 1987). But they must feel able to align fully with Reform’s goals and policies, and they must disown Tory policies (like “nett zero”) that go against those goals and policies.
9:35: “Surely, there are some good Tories that are worth recruiting. Suella Braverman, for example.” She would certainly not be one of my choices as a “good Tory.” My idea of a good Tory would be someone more like Christopher Chope.
9:44: “Why would you want to open the party up wholesale to defections from the Tory party?” My, cynical, reply to that would be “To help the Tory party along in destroying itself.” Once that is done, we can go after first Labour, then the Lib Dems. There is a secondary potential benefit, that we might get some relatively good ex-Tories.
10:10: “Then we must be a democracy.” I thought that was the point behind the things we are doing here and now – starting up branches, to be controlled by the members. That was why the “gang of four” who constitute the interim branch executive had to be voted on by members at a formal meeting on November 20th.
10:43: “HQ has forbidden the new branches they have set up from having me speak to them.” I’m wondering if they have formally told the branch chairs that? It certainly hasn’t percolated down to me.
11:30: “I can’t resign as a member, because the only members are Richard and Nigel.” This is a rather odd thing to say, considering the constitution has a long section (4) entitled “Party Membership.”
As a more general point, I agree with Doug Hainline’s comment when he says: “We’ve got to be tolerant of each other. I’m disappointed Mr Habib doesn’t seem to understand this. And I wonder to what extent purely personal antagonisms are at the root of his alienation.”
I would also note that Ben Habib was very negative in his response to being removed as deputy leader. Though he must have known that Zia Yusuf coming in was bound to lead to very significant changes like that. I was particularly struck by the comparison with the far more positive response of David Bull, who took the whole thing in his stride, and ended up compering the recent conference, with Nigel calling him a “modern Bob Monkhouse!”
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1) “5:57: “Well, here we are at the end of November, and actually that conversion [to a company limited by guarantee] hasn’t taken place.” It is stipulated in the constitution that the party is a limited company, but no more is said on what kind of company. It empowers the Board to make Rules on such things. I imagine the conversion ought to be in the hands of the lawyers by now. The wheels of law grind slow. Perhaps Nigel might care to tell us about the progress, and any obstacles he is encountering?”
Ben has stated that it is legally impossible to convert the current limited company structure to a company ‘limited by guarantee’. He says a new company must be set up, and that this is a matter of minutes. No attempt has been made to do this, nor has anything been registered with the electoral commission.
2) “For me, the real problem with immigration is “legal” immigration, not the boats. And the nub of the problem is that this “legal” immigration has been planned. It looks to me like social engineering by those of all the factions, that are hostile to the culture of the people of the UK.”
Immigration, both legal and illegal, is being actively facilitated by the government. Indeed, they are using taxpayers’ money to provide a free water-taxi service into Dover for these criminals, courtesy of the ‘Border Force’.
An estimated 35,000 Jihadis have been brought into the country by this method.
I find it astonishing that there are still people who believe that the government has the slightest desire to control immigration, let alone reduce it.
3) ” I suspect that the party would lose more members and more votes if it embraced “that lot” than by distancing itself from them.”
I disagree. When Tommy Robinson was invited into the bosom of UKIP, that statement may have held true. But that was then and this is now. The situation has become much more dire, and Robinson, although he possesses all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop, has attracted an enormous amount of support, including my own, albeit very recently. I listened to his interview with Jordan Peterson and was impressed by both his courage and his sincerity. He is becoming far more acceptable to the ‘mainstream’, and will continue to do so. It must surely be apparent that the primary role of the police is now to protect the Islamists and to lock up anybody who criticises the Islamic take-over of our country. Robinson is the only one with the sheer guts to tackle them head on, and for that he deserves our respect and support.
Tice has shot the Party in the foot by making such disparaging and downright snobbish remarks about his core voter base.
4) ““I can’t resign as a member, because the only members are Richard and Nigel.” This is a rather odd thing to say, considering the constitution has a long section (4) entitled “Party Membership.”
One cannot be a ‘member’ of a limited company.
5) “I would also note that Ben Habib was very negative in his response to being removed as deputy leader. ”
I thought the opposite! I felt that Ben behaved with good grace after being unceremoniously dumped by the Party. By contrast, I was very disappointed by Nigel’s disparaging ad-hominem attacks against Ben.
Finally, it matters not which of us is right. The fact is that the Party has now had a wedge driven straight through the middle of its ranks. I, and many others, regard ben Habib as one of the Party’s greatest assets, and I am very dissapointed that Nigel sees fit to gloat over his departure. And I say this as an old friend of Nigel’s, having worked with him for the last thirty years.
If Ben were to start yet another party, or join forces with UKIP, that would split the movement in two and could deprive Reform of the very real possibility of an election victory in 2029. And that would be a tragedy, and a needless one at that.
(1) Ben’s statement that a company limited by shares cannot be converted to a company limited by guarantee is correct. See https://www.communitycompanies.co.uk/converting-company-limited-by-shares-to-company-limited-by-guarantee. However, the kicker, I suspect, is that “existing long-term contracts, such as leases, bank arrangements, etc. will have to be renewed or assigned.” I suspect that may be what is taking the time. If you are a political party opposed to the establishment, it is extremely difficult to open a bank account. I know this, because we have a former SDP activist among our branch members, who experienced exactly that problem.
(2) To me, the boats only became a problem because the French are, deliberately, failing to keep to their obligations under a treaty signed back in the 1980s. We do not have the same problem with the Belgians, because the Belgians are respecting their obligations.
But yes, you are right that none of the mainstream parties have any desire to reduce, or even control, immigration. I see this as because the immigration project is a deliberate piece of social engineering, as I said in the article. And its intentions are hostile to the Enlightenment/Industrial Revolution culture of the people of the UK.
(3) I didn’t like the way Tice said what he said – at the time, I described it as “crass.” Nevertheless, Tommy Robinson is toxic in the minds of many people who otherwise might be attracted to Reform and its policies. I have friends who say he has “turned over a new leaf” and become more moderate in his views in recent years. I am not yet convinced of either the truth or falsity of this.
(4) Well yes, you become a member of a limited company by taking a share or shares. Like Waitrose employees do. For that to happen, these shares will have to exist. That process, also, will probably take time. But Ben seems to me to be deliberately confusing his audience by conflating membership of the company with membership of the party.
(5) The split between Ben and Nigel looks to be personal, as well as political. There isn’t much you or I can do about that. And whatever Ben will do, Ben will do. We can only deal with the situation as it happens.
I don’t believe there was an Establishment (‘uni-party’) conspiracy to split the patriotic movement represented by Reform, but … they must have been VERY happy to see it happen, and individual Uniparty members with any political sense probably did whatever they could to facilitate it and make it permanent.
This is exactly my attitude to the emergence of ‘Your Party’. I’ve used my very limited means — I’ve been around a while and have various degrees of contact with people on the Left, where I was for a long time — to encourage people to leave the Labour Party and join Your Party. And also to encourage contention within Your Party. All’s fair in love and war.
Ben Habib is a smart man, with good political instincts overall. I used to read what he wrote with serious attention. But now that he is, objectively, working to destroy the patriotic movement, I don’t. Were he to rejoin Reform, I would. I can’t be the only person who feels like this.
One of the things that helped Stalin gain power after Lenin died was the fact of serious political differences between Lenin and Trotsky before the Revolution. The latter was a very gifted polemicist, and had ,over 12 years before the 1917 seizure of power by Lenin’s party, written some cogent criticism of Lenin’s political perspectives for the coming Revolution. Lenin himself was almost exclusively focused on politics — quite correctly — and didn’t let Trotsky’s differences with him get in the way of welcoming Trotsky into his party in 1917. But Lenin’s long=time rank and file followers hadn’t forgotten how Trotsky had been an opponent of the Bolsheviks for years, before joining them in 1917, and many of them supported Stalin for this reason, even though Trotsky was, after Lenin’s death, the real continuator of Bolshevism.
Could Mr Habib perhaps learn from history? Could we all?