Jonathan Saxty is issuing a dire warning to Reform UK (Image: PA)
Those within Reform UK who wish to rock the boat need to see the big picture. Shouting from the sidelines does nothing if it never leads to power, and power is what Reform is within spitting distance of.
According to a shock poll for Sky News by YouGov, Nigel Farage‘s party has grown to within one percentage point of Labour, with Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative Party dropping fast in the polls, voters clearly reluctant to forgive its decade-and-a-half of failure.
Despite its landslide win just months ago, Labour is now stuck on 26% versus Reform UK on 25%, the Conservatives on 22%, and the Lib Dems on 14%. In July the numbers were Labour on 35%, Conservatives on 24%, Reform UK on 15% and the Lib Dems on 13%.
Of course, thanks to first past the post this may not translate into proportionate seats for Reform UK. Much depends upon how seats are distributed.
Still, separate polling finds that once Reform hits the high-20s it could well be the largest party in the Commons, with an outright majority once it crosses the 30% threshold.
Worryingly for Labour and the Tories, Reform UK is now the least unpopular party, with a net favourability rating of -32, against Labour on -34 and the Tories on -45.
Although Farage’s leadership has come under scrutiny of late, not least over party management (which is currently being changed) and Elon Musk‘s criticism of Farage’s stance towards Tommy Robinson, now is surely not the time to rock the boat.
Reform UK could be on the brink of a revolution in British politics, and this without Musk’s deep pockets.
Yes, we are years off an election, but the direction of travel is clear, not least with Labour having just about the shortest political honeymoon in history.
The Conservatives are still in disarray after years of misrule, while Labour continues to disappoint. Reform UK has tapped into the vibes era, where voters seek authenticity more than anything else, and that bodes very ill for the inauthentic Conservatives.
Tired of politics as usual, many see in Reform UK an opportunity to shake things once and for all, perhaps the last chance for Britain. Now is the time for Reform backers to get with the programme and realise this moment may never come again.
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.
This Could All Go Very Wrong: The One Thing Reform UK Must Stop Doing Right Now
Reform UK has built its political profile by presenting itself as an alternative to Britain’s established parties. Under Nigel Farage, the party has sought to channel public frustration over immigration, living costs, public services and distrust of Westminster into a wider challenge to the political establishment.
But a party that grows quickly also faces a difficult test: can it demonstrate that it is ready for greater responsibility, rather than simply criticising the people already in power?
That question is becoming harder to avoid. Reform’s recent controversy over political donations has placed its internal procedures, leadership decisions and standards of accountability under renewed scrutiny. The party’s own investigation found no evidence that electoral law had been broken, while also criticising the conduct of two senior figures. The Metropolitan Police investigation remains a separate process. <Cite refs={[“turn923578search5″,”turn923578search6”]}/>
The lesson for Reform is clear: it must stop treating political communication as a substitute for robust governance.
The danger of believing the message is enough
Reform’s political appeal has depended in part on a simple argument: the established parties have failed, and a new political force can do things differently. That message can attract voters who feel ignored by traditional politicians, particularly when concerns about immigration, taxation and public services remain prominent.
Yet a party cannot rely indefinitely on being the outsider. As its influence expands, voters and journalists will increasingly examine how it raises money, chooses candidates, manages its staff and responds when something goes wrong.
The standards applied to a party seeking power are inevitably different from those applied to a protest movement. A campaign can win attention through sharp slogans and confrontational interviews. A governing party must also demonstrate that it can manage complicated institutions, maintain transparent procedures and take responsibility for mistakes.
Reform therefore faces a challenge that extends beyond any single controversy. It must show that the organisation behind the public message is capable of meeting the expectations that come with political influence.
The donations controversy has made transparency central
The latest funding dispute illustrates the problem. An undercover investigation broadcast by Channel 4 raised questions about discussions involving a potential foreign-linked donation and the funding of opinion polls. Reform denied breaking electoral law and commissioned its own inquiry.
On 7 October, the party published the findings of that internal investigation. It concluded that no laws had been broken, but criticised statements made by two senior figures as wrong or careless. The officials involved had stepped away from their roles, while the police inquiry into the allegations remained ongoing. <Cite refs={[“turn923578search5″,”turn923578search11”]}/>
Those details matter because several different questions are involved. Whether a specific donation was actually made is one question. Whether a proposed arrangement would have complied with electoral law is another. Whether party officials exercised sound judgement in discussing funding is a third.
A finding by the party’s own inquiry is relevant, but it does not automatically resolve every question being examined by outside investigators. Equally, allegations should not be treated as proof of criminal wrongdoing. A fair assessment requires distinguishing what has been established, what the party disputes and what remains under investigation.
For Reform, the practical response should be to make its financial controls as clear and independently verifiable as possible. Potential donations should be subject to documented checks, responsibility for approving them should be unambiguous, and the party should explain how it separates legitimate fundraising from arrangements that could create legal or reputational risks.
That is not merely a defensive exercise. Transparent systems help protect a party from the actions of individual staff members and give supporters a clearer basis on which to judge its conduct.
Why internal discipline matters
Reform has also faced the broader challenge of maintaining consistency as it expands. A growing political organisation must coordinate elected representatives, prospective candidates, advisers, campaign staff and local branches. Without clear procedures, conflicting statements and avoidable mistakes can quickly become national stories.
The party’s critics will naturally use such incidents to question its readiness for government. Reform supporters may regard some criticism as politically motivated. Both realities can exist at once: political opponents have incentives to highlight damaging stories, while a party still has a responsibility to investigate genuine weaknesses in its own organisation.
The answer is not to demand silence from critics or to dismiss every allegation as an attack. It is to establish rules that are applied consistently, regardless of who is involved.
That means clear standards for public statements, appropriate vetting of candidates, defined disciplinary procedures and a willingness to correct inaccurate claims. It also means that senior figures should be held to the same expectations as junior staff and local representatives.
When a party promises to challenge the political establishment, its own internal standards become part of the test. Voters may forgive a mistake more readily than they forgive what appears to be an attempt to avoid responsibility for it.