Britain needs Nigel’s shock therapy (Image: Getty)
Just a few months ago, Boris Johnson’s old right-hand man – Dominic Cummings – warned Nigel Farage that Whitehall will break the law to prevent Reform winning power. Speaking on The Spectator’s podcast, Cummings said: “They’ll leak medical records, they’ll leak tax records. They’ll bug his phone and leak that. They’ll do anything that they need to”.
Wow! Have we not seen exactly this in the last few months? Reports of alleged schoolboy antics didn’t work so the Establishment went for Farage and co’s financial records. Now sting operations. Let’s all grow the hell up and see this for what it is. Whatever Reform may or may not have done, let’s not be fooled into thinking the Establishment parties are paragons of propriety.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
But the difference is the Establishment wants these two cheeks of the same backside to win elections so keeps all their skeletons firmly locked away in the cupboard. Reform will upset the apple cart, so every piece of mud the elites can throw at Reform they will.
How then can Reform possibly fight this? Nigel Farage‘s party needs to be purer than pure. Ongoing professionalisation – which has been a focus for some time now – is key.
Beyond that, Reform needs to prepare to reform the rotten Establishment itself. Hungary and Poland changed political leadership in recent years. Conservative parties lost but did Hungary and Poland become open borders hellscapes? No.
Why? Because in Hungary and Poland, the civil service, judiciary and media establishments themselves are not in favour of open borders. Ditto Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan.
If Reform doesn’t clean up the UK civil service, it doesn’t matter how big its Commons majority, no major changes will ever take effect. Reform must reform the machinery of law, government and culture.
Nigel Farage knows this and, in some respects, should be grateful our rotten Establishment showed their cards this early. Reform should also take it as a compliment about how much of a threat the party is seen to a disgraced woke consensus.
Going into the next election, Reform may look to a wedge strategy – bringing one or two contentious social issues into the campaign and aligning its position with the dissenting wings of the Conservatives and Labour.
For example, the Tories remain fundamentally split between One Nation wets and those playing catch up with Reform on immigration, the ECHR and net zero.
Despite appearances of unity the Tories are also split on economic policies such as tax, welfare and state ownership.
Burnham bounce aside meanwhile, a huge number of those wavering between Labour and Reform want nothing more to do with the EU, are sniffy about trans rights or the Gaza obsession, and desperately want lower immigration and proper policing.
This puts them at loggerheads with Labour elites even though many Labour MPs represent millions of constituents who feel this way. This is Reform’s for the taking.
The Tories remain split between moderates and populists while Labour is split between socially conservative working-class voters and metropolitan progressives, in both instances ‘wedge’ issues like immigration, crime and energy prices divide these houses.
Beyond that of course, Reform should counterattack the Establishment witch hunt, reminding voters of the disaster of the Tory years and the lunacy of today’s Labour government, all the while making sure they too unearth those scandals being carefully concealed about Labour and the Tories.
Have we really seen all the evidence about Andy Burnham and that £1bn housing investment fund for luxury skyscrapers? How about the Tories and the Child Maintenance Authority? Is there more to see there?
In the end, Britain needs shock therapy, not to be euthanised by stealth.
Nigel Farage’s shock therapy and how Reform UK can beat Establishment
Nigel Farage has spent much of his political career presenting himself as an outsider confronting Britain’s established political order. Now, with Reform UK seeking to transform itself from a protest movement into a potential party of government, that message is being combined with a much more ambitious programme for changing the way Britain is governed.
Farage’s latest strategy has been described by supporters as a form of political “shock therapy”: move quickly, challenge established assumptions and promise major changes during the first 100 days in office.
But Reform UK faces a different challenge from the one it confronted when Farage first became a dominant force in British politics. Winning attention is no longer enough. The party must demonstrate that its policies can be implemented, that its candidates and organisation can withstand scrutiny, and that it can broaden its appeal beyond its existing supporters.
The 100-day strategy
At Reform UK’s September conference, Farage presented what the party calls its “First 100 Days” programme.
The pledges include stopping small-boat crossings, deploying the Royal Navy in the Channel, increasing the personal income-tax allowance to £15,000, reducing energy bills by £250 and changing the balance between universities and vocational training.
Farage has deliberately presented these measures as immediate actions rather than distant ambitions.
The political calculation is straightforward: if Reform UK wants voters to believe it represents a fundamental change from the established parties, it needs to show what that change would look like from the moment its ministers enter government.
The party has therefore promised that its ministers would be required to deliver meaningful change within 100 days. Reform’s published policy platform says ministers who fail to deliver their pledges should resign and that ministers who refuse to do so should be dismissed.
This is a significant shift in emphasis.
The language is no longer simply about opposing Labour or the Conservatives. It is about creating a government with a timetable for action.
Immigration remains central
Immigration remains one of Reform’s most important political themes.
The party’s “Operation Fortress” policy proposes using the Armed Forces in the Channel and states that a Reform government would seek to prevent illegal Channel crossings from reaching British shores.
Reform also promotes “Operation Restoring Justice”, a policy framework centred on detaining and deporting people it considers to be in Britain illegally.
These proposals represent a substantial change from the current system and would raise significant legal, operational and diplomatic questions.
Farage has attempted to connect the immigration issue to a wider argument about government competence. His case is that successive governments have failed to control irregular migration and that a new administration would therefore need to use stronger measures.
Critics argue that the practical and legal difficulties involved in carrying out some of these proposals would be considerable.
The political significance, however, is clear: Reform wants immigration to remain one of the areas where voters can most easily see the difference between its approach and that of the established parties.
Energy and Net Zero
Energy policy is another central element of the shock-therapy strategy.
Farage has promised to cut household energy bills by £250 and has said Reform would end what he calls the “Net Zero lunacy”. The party argues that current climate policies impose excessive costs on households and industry.
This is more than an environmental argument.
Reform presents energy policy as an industrial strategy.
The party argues that high energy costs damage British manufacturing and make it more difficult for companies to compete internationally. Its proposed changes are therefore intended to reduce costs while increasing domestic energy production.
Opponents of the approach argue that abandoning or substantially weakening climate policies could create other economic and environmental risks.
The debate illustrates one of the broader challenges facing Reform: its policies are designed to be disruptive precisely because the party believes existing approaches have failed, but disruption also creates questions about implementation and unintended consequences.
Tax as a political weapon
Tax is another area where Reform wants to demonstrate an immediate difference.
The party’s proposal to raise the personal allowance to £15,000 is intended to increase the amount people can earn before paying income tax. Reform argues that this would allow workers to retain more of their earnings.
The policy is attractive politically because the concept is relatively simple.
Rather than promising a complicated series of tax reforms, the party can point to a single figure that voters can easily understand.
But the cost to the Treasury would be an important question. Any government would have to determine how such a change would be funded alongside other Reform commitments, including lower energy bills and increased spending in areas such as policing and defence.
That is why Reform has increasingly emphasised what it calls fiscal credibility.
At its 2026 conference, the party introduced a business day designed to bring representatives of major companies into discussions about its economic programme. ITV reported that the party was trying to strengthen its reputation on economic management.
The “Establishment” argument
The word “Establishment” has been central to Farage’s political vocabulary for years.
In July, after resigning as MP for Clacton and triggering a by-election, Farage described the contest as “people versus the establishment”. He argued that political and institutional forces were attempting to obstruct Reform UK.
That argument is useful to Reform because it provides a common explanation for many of the obstacles the party encounters.
If politicians, journalists, regulators or political institutions criticise Reform, the party can present the criticism as evidence that the established system is uncomfortable with its rise.
However, that strategy also carries risks.
Reform is no longer simply a campaign organisation outside Parliament. It has MPs, elected representatives, policy spokespeople and a growing political machine.
As a result, voters can increasingly judge it by the same standards they apply to established parties.
The Farage problem
Perhaps the biggest question for Reform is its dependence on Farage himself.
ITV political editor Robert Peston recently described Farage as both the party’s strength and weakness. His argument was that Farage remains an exceptionally effective campaigner and communicator, but that Reform could face difficulties if it continues to depend so heavily on one individual.
The issue is particularly relevant because Reform wants to become a credible governing party.
Governments require hundreds of ministers, advisers, officials and parliamentary organisers. They also need people capable of managing departments, negotiating legislation and dealing with crises.
A party built primarily around one political personality faces a different organisational challenge from a traditional party with decades of institutional experience.
Reform appears to recognise this.
Its conference increasingly focused on policy development, business engagement and preparing for government rather than simply attacking Labour and the Conservatives.
Internal discipline
Another part of the transformation involves party discipline.
The summer of 2026 exposed disagreements inside Reform over messaging, personalities and internal management.
ITV reported that the party faced disputes involving Zia Yusuf and other senior figures, while questions about candidate selection and internal organisation continued to attract attention.
For a party seeking government, this matters.
The more seats Reform hopes to win, the more difficult it becomes to operate as a loose coalition of political personalities.
A governing party needs collective discipline.
It needs ministers who can disagree privately but defend agreed policy publicly. It needs candidates who understand the party’s programme. And it needs mechanisms for dealing with MPs or activists who breach its standards.
Farage’s “shock therapy” therefore cannot simply mean dramatic speeches.
It also requires organisational transformation.
The succession question
The future of Reform is closely connected to the question of what happens after Farage.
A recent Lord Ashcroft survey of 850 Reform members found that four in five wanted Farage to continue as leader even if the party was not in government after the next general election. Only 13% said he should step down in that situation.
The same survey found Zia Yusuf and Richard Tice were the two names most frequently identified by members as possible successors.
But that does not mean Reform has a settled succession plan.
Farage himself has repeatedly insisted that he intends to lead the party into the next general election. At the Reform conference, he told members that he was determined to lead Reform to victory.
The longer-term question is whether Reform can develop a leadership team with enough political weight to survive beyond Farage.
That may ultimately be one of the most important tests of whether the party has genuinely become an established political organisation.
Turning protest into government
The fundamental challenge for Reform is now very different from the one it faced when Farage returned to frontline politics.
The party has already demonstrated that it can attract attention and challenge the traditional political parties.
The next stage requires something else: credibility.
That means detailed policies, costings, competent candidates, parliamentary discipline and a clear understanding of how government departments actually work.
Reform’s 100-day programme is an attempt to answer that challenge by giving voters a concrete list of early priorities.
The strategy is politically distinctive because it does not promise gradual reform.
It promises rapid change.
Can Reform really “beat the Establishment”?
That question cannot be answered simply by looking at Farage’s speeches or individual opinion polls.
Reform’s ability to challenge the established parties will depend on several factors: whether it can maintain support, whether it can broaden its coalition of voters, whether its candidates can operate effectively, whether its policies withstand economic and legal scrutiny, and whether it can convince voters that it is capable of running the machinery of government.
The party’s opponents will focus heavily on those questions.
Farage, meanwhile, will continue to argue that Britain’s traditional political system has failed and that only a substantial change in direction can reverse years of what Reform describes as stagnation.
That is the central idea behind the “shock therapy” approach.
Instead of asking voters to wait for gradual improvements, Reform is promising immediate intervention across immigration, taxation, energy, education and government administration.
Whether that approach succeeds politically will depend on how voters assess both the problems Reform identifies and the practicality of its proposed solutions.
The next phase
Reform UK has reached a point where opposition to the “Establishment” alone is unlikely to define its future.
If it wants to govern, it must show how its programme would operate in practice.
That means explaining how its immigration policies would work within the law, how its tax reductions would be funded, how energy prices could be reduced, how public services would be improved and how a new government would recruit and manage the people needed to implement its programme.
Farage’s political career has been built around challenging established assumptions.
The new challenge is whether he can turn that disruptive energy into a durable governing organisation.
His 100-day programme is an attempt to make that transition.
For Reform UK, the coming period will therefore be less about proving that it can make political noise and more about demonstrating that it can convert its outsider identity into a coherent programme of government.
That is the real meaning of Farage’s latest “shock therapy”: not simply attacking the Establishment, but attempting to convince voters that Reform can replace it.