.png)
3 hours ago
1
I have one primitive but foolproof tool of political analysis. Trying to balance competing claims in any matter of party discipline – unless it’s a party of which I am a member, in which case, of course, I have already picked a side – I think: “Does it sound as if anyone’s done the kind of vetting even I would know how to do?”
Rupert Lowe has been suspended from Reform over claims of bullying and physical intimidation, which he says are without basis. He went on to say, on X, that he was “disappointed, but not surprised” by the allegations, which has a conspiratorial whiff. He has already said the allegations are false, so if he is not surprised to hear them made, it surely indicates that he thinks he is dealing with the kind of people who will expediently exploit any kind of nonsense.
In other words, it’s time to settle in for this fight, which will not end quietly.
Any party that returns more MPs than it expected to ends up with some dodgy ones – that is just a fact. It was as true for Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 (I know he didn’t win, OK?) as it was for Boris Johnson in 2019. General elections are just one rolling exam crisis and nobody prepares for the questions they don’t expect to come up – questions such as: “What happens if Labour wins Sheffield Hallam?” (The answer being, of course, that within months it finds itself suspending the new MP over misogynistic and homophobic comments.) Then there are the questions that aren’t so much niche as existential: what happens if another large party, which gets much of its energy from racist dog-whistling, turns out to contain MPs who whistle a lot more audibly when they are not in front of a camera? You can’t really prepare for that eventuality – you just have to hope nobody is taking notes.
You would think Reform would be immune to this kind of jeopardy, having returned only five MPs – it’s a lot to get to from zero, but it’s not much for a compliance team to get their teeth into. But Reform wasn’t immune, so here we are. Let’s return to my primitive rule: how long would it take a person like me to discover a blot on anyone’s copybook? I don’t have any connections with the police, a background in IT or experience in HR. I am not a psychologist, or psychic, so even though, like all middle-class women of a certain age, I am pretty confident I can spot a wrong ’un when I see one, I have no qualifications in this area.
All that being said, if anyone had ever had a tantrum at work, if they had even put their cup down in an irritable manner, I would definitely, positively have known about it five minutes later.
None of which is to adjudicate on Lowe’s guilt or innocence, merely to note that you can understand why people might think that either Reform’s leadership has been keeping these charges in its back pocket, for use in an emergency, or that they are not true.
The only demonstrably true thing about this debacle is Lowe’s inflammatory remark that Reform is a “protest party led by the messiah”. If Nigel Farage has anything to say, he is more likely to say it on GB News than in parliament. If he has any discernible long-term strategy, it relates to how close he wants to stay to Donald Trump, and how vocally. That doesn’t even align with the views of his own party, let alone try to meet the rest of the country halfway (although, sure, how you meet an electorate halfway, between “I hate Trump” and “I should like to apply for the position of his lickspittle running dog”, is open to question).
None of which, again, is intended to determine the truth about Lowe: it’s possible for everybody in this party, plus all its members, to be wrong. This doesn’t have the air of a professional political organisation because it was never intended to be one; it’s like the dog who chases cars, in that it would have no use for the car if it caught it. The car – by which I mean every other party in British politics – should stop running so scared of the dog.
