Does Zia Yusuf's resignation mark the downfall of the Reform Faragists?

Is it wishful thinking to hope that the departure of Reform's chairman Zia Yusuf will mark the downfall of the Reform Faragists

Reform’s chairman Zia Yusuf has quit the party, saying that "I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time".

The media have reported that he quit over a spat with Reform’s newest MP Sarah Pochin after her call for the Labour Party to ban the burqa (while it isn’t even Reform’s party policy to do so), but the frustrated tone of his resignation statement made it clear that he was already disillusioned with Farage’s operation, and Pochin’s Islamophobic posturing was probably just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I read an interesting article by Sam Bright arguing that Yusuf’s resignation is a major setback for Reform because Yusuf was the one who brought a level of professionalism ("strategic clarity, financial nous, and operational discipline") to the Reform operation, and because it demonstrates Farage’s "fundamental inability to build a team".

Bright makes a strong case that Yusuf’s professionalism had helped Reform rise in the polls and win control of ten local councils in the local elections, and much of Bright’s criticism of Farage is spot on. I recommend that you read it for yourself, but I’ll include some quotes:

"The eternal flaw at the heart of Farage’s political projects [is] the belief that his charisma alone is a substitute for party infrastructure, and that loyalty means absolute acquiescence to his supreme leadership."

"Farage has consistently surrounded himself with acolytes rather than administrators; with yes-men rather than professionals."

"Key figures who helped to build Farage’s parties have all found themselves out of favour, discarded, or marginalised once they ceased to serve the singular purpose of amplifying his profile."

"Farage remains fundamentally incapable of building a team."

All of these criticisms of Farage seem accurate, yet many of them equally apply to Donald Trump (consider his massive recent spat with Elon Musk, and previous bust ups with former allies like Steve Bannon, Antony Scarramuci, John Bolton, Mike Pence …), and his regular fallouts with previous allies and enablers didn’t stop him from becoming President of the United States for a second time.

Bright includes the counterpoint to his argument that "voters may be so angry with the status quo that they will vote for Farage – a political wrecking-ball in human form – regardless of the competence (or incompetence) of his operation" but goes on to say that he struggles to believe that Reform can "operate as a Farage fan club" because "eventually, the electorate asks tougher questions: about policy, about delivery, about credibility, that Farage simply cannot answer alone".

I believe that there’s a strong possibility that voters will continue to vote for the human wrecking ball, and for many, this support will have little to do with Farage, the internal politics of Reform, or Reform’s stated policies.

It’s all about utter disillusion with the Westminster status quo. If people gamble on blue and their living standards decline, then they gamble on red and their living standards decline, it’s easy to understand the urge to say "fuck them" and gamble on sky blue/purple/whatever colour the Faragist operation is currently using in their branding.

In my view exact same "fuck them" impulse played an instrumental role in Leave just getting over the line in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

There’s always a danger of overestimating how much the electorate actually cares about stuff like policy, delivery, and credibility.

I’m a political nerd, and if you’re reading this article it’s fairly safe to assume that you’re at least a bit of a political nerd too. We’re the kind of people who know an infuriating amount about internal Labour Party politics; we’re aware of contemporary political legislation; we can name a whole bunch of cabinet ministers; we know who party administrators like Zia Yusuf and Morgan McSweeney are. Most people are not like this.

According to opinion polls the overwhelming majority of Brits want public ownership of core public services and vital national infrastructure like energy, water, the NHS, mail, and public transport, yet when they were given two rare opportunities to vote for public ownership for the first time in decades, more people turned out to vote in favour of continued Tory privatisation mania and austerity ruination.

It’s obvious that a lot of people don’t necessarily vote based on policy, or economic credibility. When people don’t know a lot about the parties’ specific policies, and the media does almost nothing to keep the public properly informed, often it just comes down to feelings.

The idea that the public will eventually wake up to the Faragists’ absurdly contradictory policies; dire lack of economic credibility; and extremist positions is dependent on the fantasy that Britain’s depraved media class will begin properly holding them to account at some point (in the way they abjectly failed to do with a succession of Tory PMs, and with Starmer after he brazenly lied his way into the Labour leadership).

The majority of coverage in Britain’s heavily right-wing skewed media seems to be actually revelling in Reform’s surge in popularity, and the minority of smaller liberal-capitalist publications simply don’t have the reach or popularity to turn public opinion.

Furthermore, if the Guardian says that Farage represents a danger to the established liberal-capitalist order, plenty of the people who want to take a wrecking ball to the Westminster establishment cabal would consider that a reason to actually vote in favour of Farage.

Then there’s the utter incompetence of Labour and the Tories.

Kemi Badenoch is hopelessly out of her depth and gives off the smug, student politics vibe that right-wingers usually tend to hate, and the Tory party have just suffered their worst run of electoral results in their entire history.

Keir Starmer and Labour are somehow even worse. Driving away their own traditional voter base by maintaining and even expanding Tory austerity ruination and social security vandalism; overtly telling the public that "things will get worse"; continually breaking pledges and promises; economically sanctioning the poor and vulnerable instead of taxing the mega-rich; and now imitating and legitimising the kind of xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric that Reform thrives on.

Keir Starmer didn’t actively win the last election. He actually got fewer votes and a lower vote share than Corbyn managed in either 2017 or the 2019 Tory landslide, yet he became Prime Minister by default because of the implosion of the Tory party, and as a result of Britain’s archaic and absurdly disproportional voting system.

Even if one of Farage’s key organisers has quit, it seems increasingly likely that Farage could become another Prime Minister by default, as millions reject a dishonest and despised Labour Party that is dead set on refusing to serve the interests of the people it arrogantly expects to keep voting for them.

Even though I think it’s wishful thinking to hope that Yusuf’s departure will represent a high water mark for the Faragists, Sam Bright was absolutely spot on in characterising Farage as a political wrecking ball.

And unless there are dramatic changes from the Labour government, to start improving the lives of the people it needs to vote them back into power, a lot of people will be more than happy to utilise the Farage wrecking ball to demolish the other retaining wall of the arrogant Westminster establishment cabal.

Even if this demolition job comes at the cost of handing a dangerous amount of power to an opportunistic ideologue like Farage, and the inept band of grifters and sycophants he’s surrounded himself with.