Reform UK branded ‘dangerous influence’ on British politics

As I observed and listened to the various parties share their policies and make their arguments during the general election campaign, I found myself increasingly concerned about one party in particular: Reform UK.

Their political rhetoric and positions on defence and international affairs go far beyond simple errors of judgment or forgivable confusion. They are, without a doubt, dangerous.

I have seen and heard enough to conclude that Reform UK is utterly unfit to wield any influence over British politics, especially in the realms of defence and international affairs.

The party’s alarming rhetoric, coupled with the questionable credentials and views of its candidates, underscores a deep-seated irresponsibility and a dangerously misguided worldview. Recent revelations about Reform UK candidates’ statements and the party leader’s viewpoints offer compelling evidence of their unsuitability for political office.

This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.

One particularly disturbing incident involves Jack Aaron, a Reform UK candidate attempting to unseat Defence Secretary Grant Shapps in Welwyn Hatfield. According to The Independent, Aaron described Adolf Hitler as “brilliant” at inspiring people into action. This bizarre and troubling justification underscores a profound lack of judgement and an alarming willingness to downplay the horrific actions of one of history’s most notorious tyrants. Such views are not only out of step with the values of decency and human rights but also demonstrate a perilous inclination to overlook brutal authoritarianism, and a sheer ignorance of democratic principles.

The problem isn’t confined to Aaron alone. Samantha Goggin, another Reform UK candidate, has shown a shocking ignorance of historical events and a disturbing tendency to distort facts for political gain. At a hustings event in Surrey Heath, Goggin suggested that Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, rather than Argentine dictator General Galtieri, was to blame for the Falklands War. This revisionist history not only disrespects the sacrifices of British servicemen but also undermines the reality of Argentine aggression that precipitated the conflict. Furthermore, her confused and misleading statements about British involvement in Afghanistan and support for Ukraine betray a fundamental lack of understanding of international affairs, making her unfit for any role in commenting on, let alone shaping, UK defence policy.

The rot in Reform UK’s approach to international affairs is evident at the highest levels of the party. Nigel Farage, the party leader, has openly blamed NATO and the West for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson, Farage argued that NATO’s expansion gave Putin a pretext for war, effectively placing the blame for Russian aggression on Western democracies. This stance is not only factually inaccurate but also dangerously appeasing towards an aggressive autocrat responsible for an unprovoked and brutal invasion. Farage’s position raises serious questions about his allegiance to Western democratic values and his fitness to lead a political party in the UK.

Farage’s position is also at odds with his own party’s policy. Any party wanting to increase defence spending to 3% would be aware that much of the spending will directly contribute towards NATO defence. It makes no sense whatsoever for the leader of such a party to want to spend more on NATO activities while also blaming NATO for provoking Russia’s aggression. This clearly indicates that Reform UK’s defence policies are nonsensical. They either don’t understand even the basics of defence and international cooperation, or they are using the 3% policy to entice and entrap genuine defence voters. Given the evidence, I believe it is a combination of both.

Reform UK’s rhetoric and actions are not merely misguided; they are a clear and present danger to the integrity and security of British political discourse and policy. By espousing views that excuse and even endorse authoritarian leaders, downplay historical atrocities, and spread misinformation about critical international conflicts, Reform UK candidates and leaders have shown they lack the judgement, knowledge, and moral compass required for public office.

The British electorate must recognise the peril that Reform UK represents. The party’s influence on defence and international affairs would not only be detrimental but outright dangerous, aligning the UK with the worst elements of global politics rather than standing firm for democracy, human rights, and international law.

In a time of global uncertainty and rising authoritarianism, Britain needs leaders who are principled, informed, and resolute in their commitment to democratic values. Reform UK, by its own actions and statements, has demonstrated it is fundamentally unfit to fulfil this crucial role.