Are Reform UK Just Another Establishment Party? The Uncomfortable Truth After 4 Decades Of Watching Politics

They Talk About Change, But They Won’t Challenge The System That Gave Away Your Country – Here’s Why Reform Is Establishment In The Only Way That Matters

Introduction: When “Anti-Establishment” Is Still Establishment

I’ve followed politics closely for forty years. I’ve watched “outsider” parties rise, promise change, and then either collapse or become exactly what they claimed to oppose.

UKIP promised to get Britain out of Europe – achieved it, then imploded.
The SNP promised Scottish independence – got devolved power, now manage the system.
Even Corbyn’s “radical” Labour ended up playing Westminster games and compromising on everything.

Now we have Reform UK. Nigel Farage. Richard Tice. Fourteen percent of the vote. Five MPs. The media calls them “far-right.” The establishment clearly hates them.

So they must be genuine, right?

Wrong.

After four decades of watching this pattern repeat, I can tell you: Reform UK is establishment in the only way that matters.

Not because they’re secretly controlled by Labour or the Tories. Not because they don’t mean what they say about immigration.

But because they accept the legitimacy of the Westminster system that gave away your sovereignty, opened England to 800 million foreigners, and still refuses to admit the English people are sovereign.

In this article, I’ll show you:

• Why “working within the system” makes you part of the establishment
• The seven ways Reform proves they’re just establishment-lite
• What a truly anti-establishment movement would actually say and do
• And why your movement must be independent of all parties – including Reform

By the end, you’ll understand why the question “Are Reform establishment?” has only one answer:

Yes. And that’s why they’ll disappoint you, just like all the others.

What “Establishment” Actually Means

Before we get into Reform specifically, let’s define terms.

“Establishment” doesn’t just mean Labour and the Conservatives.

The establishment is the entire Westminster system that:

• Gave away sovereignty to the EU without asking you (1973)
• Passed the British Nationality Act 1948 without your consent
• Still obeys foreign courts like the ECHR
• Treats England as a resource to be managed, not a homeland to be protected
• Operates on the lie that Parliament is sovereign (when constitutional law says the people are sovereign)

Being “anti-establishment” means challenging that system at its foundations.

It means saying:

• Westminster had no authority to join the EU
• The 1948 Act was unconstitutional
• Parliament serves the people, the people don’t serve Parliament
• England needs self-governance, not “reform”
• The entire post-1707 settlement is illegitimate without English consent

Anything less is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Now let’s look at Reform through that lens.

Test #1: Do They Say “England” Or Hide Behind “Britain”?

This is the first and simplest test of whether Reform is establishment.

Watch their language.

Reform talks about:

• “Britain” and “British values”
• The “United Kingdom”
• “Our country” (meaning the UK)

What they don’t say:

• England
• English people
• English self-governance
• England for the English

Why does this matter?

Because “British” is the political fiction created in 1707 to dilute English identity and merge England into a union that England never voted for.

When you say “British,” you’re accepting:

• The Act of Union 1707 (which dissolved England without asking English people)
• The idea that England, Scotland, Wales are interchangeable parts of “Britain”
• That England doesn’t exist as a distinct nation with its own rights

A truly anti-establishment movement would say:

“England is the homeland of the English people. England deserves self-governance. An English Parliament for English people. England first, always.”

Reform won’t say that.

They’ll talk about “British sovereignty” and “British borders” – but never explicitly about England’s right to exist as England.

That’s establishment behavior. Because the establishment needs “British” to keep the Union together and keep England from demanding independence.

After forty years of watching this, I can tell you: any party that won’t say “England” explicitly is playing by establishment rules.

Test #2: Do They Challenge Parliamentary Sovereignty?

Here’s the nuclear test.

Does Reform accept that Parliament can do anything, or do they argue that the people are sovereign?

Reform’s position is:

• “Parliament should control our borders”
• “Parliament should leave the ECHR”
• “Parliament should enact our policies”

What they never say:

“Parliament had no authority to pass the British Nationality Act 1948 without the English people’s consent. Under English constitutional law, the people are sovereign – not Parliament. That Act is void. We will repeal it because Parliament violated the people’s sovereignty.”

Why won’t they say that?

Because it would:

• Challenge the entire Westminster system
• Expose seventy-five years of unconstitutional acts
• Make Remigration not just policy preference but legal obligation
• Threaten the establishment narrative that Parliament is supreme

Reform wants to work within Parliament. That means accepting Parliamentary sovereignty.

But accepting Parliamentary sovereignty makes you establishment.

Because Parliamentary sovereignty is the lie that lets Westminster:

• Give away your country without asking
• Ignore your votes
• Claim “we can’t do that” when you demand change
• Then turn around and do whatever the establishment wants

I’ve watched this for forty years. Every “outsider” party that accepts Parliamentary sovereignty ends up playing by Westminster’s rules.

Reform is no different.

Test #3: How Specific Are They On Remigration?

Reform mentions “Remigration.” That’s more than the other parties will say.

But watch how vague they keep it:

• “Some people might choose to return to their countries of origin”
• “We’ll control our borders going forward”
• “Sensible immigration policy”

What they won’t say:

• Criminals deported back to 1948
• Welfare-dependent offered paid repatriation
• Boris Wave (2021–2023) arrivals have Leave to Remain revoked
• England returning to 99% ethnically English
• The 1948 Act was unconstitutional, so reversing it is a legal remedy

I’ve laid out a detailed Remigration policy in previous posts. Have you seen Reform do the same?

No. Because specifics are “controversial.” Specifics get you attacked. Specifics make it harder to moderate when you’re trying to form coalitions.

Reform keeps Remigration vague because they’re already thinking about how to compromise on it.

That’s establishment thinking.

After forty years, I’ve learned: if a party won’t give you numbers, dates, and mechanisms, they’re not serious.

Test #4: Will They Demand Retrospective Consent?

Here’s a question Reform will never answer honestly:

If the British Nationality Act 1948 was passed without the English people’s consent, should there be a retrospective referendum asking if we want to keep it or repeal it?

A truly anti-establishment movement would say:

“Yes. Every major constitutional change since 1707 that was imposed without English consent should be put to a referendum. The 1948 Act. Joining the EU. Devolution for everyone except England. The people are sovereign, so the people must be asked.”

Reform will never say that.

Because it would:

• Expose that Westminster has been violating the people’s sovereignty for centuries
• Create precedent for questioning other laws
• Open the door to English independence (if we get to vote on staying in the Union)
• Threaten the entire establishment narrative

Reform wants to “take back control” within the existing system.

But you can’t take back what was stolen by the system without challenging the system’s legitimacy.

I’ve watched this dance for forty years. Parties that won’t demand retrospective consent are parties that still need Westminster’s permission.

That makes them establishment.

Test #5: The Farage and Tice Problem

Let’s talk about who actually leads Reform.

Nigel Farage:

• Decades in politics (MEP from 1999–2020)
• Wealthy, well-connected
• Now a regular on establishment media (GB News, Question Time, interviews everywhere)
• Made his career within the EU system he claimed to oppose
• Got Brexit, then stepped back while it was betrayed

Richard Tice:

• Millionaire property developer
• Made his money from the system
• Business interests that benefit from cheap labour (even if he talks tough on immigration)

Compare that to a genuine revolutionary:

• Working or middle class background
• No establishment connections
• Willing to be deplatformed, debanked, destroyed
• Nothing to lose
• Can’t be bought or compromised

Farage and Tice are establishment figures playing anti-establishment.

I’m not saying they’re insincere about immigration or Brexit. I’m saying they’re too invested in the system to truly threaten it.

After forty years, I’ve learned: revolutionary movements don’t come from millionaires and career politicians. They come from people with nothing to lose and everything to fight for.

Reform’s leadership guarantees they’ll compromise when it matters.

Test #6: What Happens When They Get Power?

Here’s the pattern I’ve seen repeat for forty years:

Stage 1: Radical Outsider

• “We’ll drain the swamp!”
• “They’re all corrupt!”
• “We’ll really change things!”

Stage 2: Electoral Success

• Win some seats
• Get media attention
• Start being taken seriously

Stage 3: The Compromise Begins

• “We need to be pragmatic”
• “We can’t do everything at once”
• “Politics is the art of the possible”

Stage 4: Coalition or Moderation

• Work with establishment parties
• Water down radical policies
• Become “responsible” opposition

Stage 5: Absorption

• Indistinguishable from establishment
• Defend the system they claimed to oppose
• “We shifted the conversation!” (while delivering nothing fundamental)

Reform is currently at Stage 2, heading toward Stage 3.

Watch what happens over the next 2–3 years:

If Reform is establishment, you’ll see:

• Softer language on Remigration
• Talk of coalition with Conservatives
• “We have to work within reality”
• Acceptance of staying in international bodies “for now”
• Farage and Tice becoming establishment-friendly media figures

If Reform is genuine (spoiler: they’re not), you’ll see:

• Harder, more explicit language
• Constitutional arguments (1948 Act void, people sovereign)
• Refusal to compromise
• Grassroots organizing outside Parliament
• Willingness to be destroyed rather than absorbed

I’ve watched this pattern too many times to be fooled again.

Reform will follow the script. They always do.

Test #7: Do They Accept Foreign Authority (Just Less Of It)?

Reform says they’ll leave the ECHR. Good.

But what about:

• NATO (foreign military authority over England)
• UN treaties (foreign diplomatic authority)
• “International obligations” (whenever convenient)
• The Commonwealth (sentimental attachment to a system that opened England to 800 million)

A truly anti-establishment movement would make the constitutional argument:

“The Bill of Rights 1689 says no foreign power shall have authority over England. That means the ECHR, NATO, the UN – all of it is subordinate to English sovereignty. The English people decide what treaties we honor. No one else.”

Reform won’t say that.

Too radical. Too isolationist. Too threatening to the “rules-based international order.”

So they’ll leave the ECHR but accept everything else.

That’s not sovereignty. That’s selective sovereignty – which means you’re still letting others set the boundaries.

After forty years, I know the difference between actual sovereignty and managed sovereignty.

Reform offers managed sovereignty. That’s establishment.

What A Truly Anti-Establishment Movement Would Say

Let me show you the difference.

Reform says:

• “Control our borders”
• “British values”
• “Reform Westminster”
• “Sensible immigration”
• “Take back control”

A genuine anti-establishment movement would say:

“England for the English. The British Nationality Act 1948 was unconstitutional – Parliament gave away our homeland without asking us. Under English constitutional law, WE are sovereign, not Parliament. That Act is void. We demand:

1. Repeal of the 1948 Act and enactment of Remigration – criminals deported back to 1948, welfare-dependent paid to leave, Boris Wave Leave to Remain revoked
2. English self-governance – an English Parliament, separate from Scotland and Wales
3. Retrospective referendums – on every sovereignty transfer since 1707
4. Recognition that the people are sovereign – Parliament serves us, we don’t serve Parliament
5. No foreign authority – ECHR, UN, NATO – all subordinate to English sovereignty

We will not compromise. We will not moderate. We will not accept less. England belongs to the English. Full stop.”

Have you ever heard Reform say anything close to that?

No. Because that would make them genuinely anti-establishment.

And Reform is establishment.

Why Your Movement Must Be Independent of All Parties

This is why I keep telling you: “England Then and Now” must be bigger than any party – including Reform.

Parties compromise. Movements don’t.

Reform will water down Remigration, accept staying in some international bodies, and eventually coalition with the Tories.

Your movement doesn’t have to.

Parties need permission. Movements take power.

Reform asks Westminster for change.

Your movement asserts the people’s sovereignty and declares Westminster’s actions void.

Parties get co-opted. Movements outlast them.

Reform will eventually moderate or collapse.

Your movement continues regardless, because it’s built on constitutional law – not election results.

Your positioning should be:

“We are not left. We are not right. We are not Reform.

We are English.

We will support ANY candidate – Reform, Independent, or otherwise – who commits to:

1. English self-governance
2. Repeal of the 1948 Act and Remigration
3. People’s sovereignty over Parliamentary sovereignty
4. No foreign authority over England

And we will replace ANY candidate – Reform included – who compromises.”

That’s how you stay independent and uncorrupted.

Conclusion: Use Reform, Don’t Trust Reform

After forty years of watching politics, here’s my advice on Reform UK:

Are Reform establishment?

Yes. In the only way that matters.

They accept the Westminster system. They won’t challenge Parliamentary sovereignty. They won’t say “England.” They’ll compromise when it’s convenient.

But are they useful?

Also yes.

Reform can:

• Split the establishment vote
• Move the Overton window slightly
• Force other parties to talk about immigration
• Get some immigration-skeptic MPs into Parliament

So use them tactically:

• Vote for them if they’re the best option locally
• Pressure them publicly to adopt your constitutional arguments
• Challenge them when they water down their message
• Recruit their disappointed voters when Reform inevitably compromises

But never rely on Reform to deliver what England needs.

Because parties that work within the system become part of the system.

Your “England Then and Now” movement must be the alternative when Reform disappoints.

And they will disappoint. They always do.

Build your movement on:

• Constitutional law (people sovereign, 1948 Act void)
• England-first (not “British”)
• No compromise (Remigration means Remigration, not “border control”)
• Independence from all parties (support principles, not politicians)

When Reform moderates, your movement doesn’t.

When Reform coalitions with Tories, your movement doesn’t.

When Reform accepts “pragmatic reality,” your movement asserts constitutional rights.

That’s how you win.

Not by trusting politicians to give you what they can take away.

But by building a movement of English people who know they’re sovereign – and who refuse to ask Westminster’s permission to take back what’s already theirs.

Are Reform establishment? Yes.

Does that mean give up? No.

It means build something they can’t co-opt, something they can’t compromise, something that will outlast them.

England Then and Now. England for the English. No compromise. Ever.

FAQs

1. If Reform is establishment, why does the media attack them so viciously?

The media attacks Reform because they threaten the Labour/Tory duopoly, not because they threaten the system itself. Reform wants to manage the Westminster system differently – lower immigration, less EU influence, more “British sovereignty.” That threatens the current power structure (Labour/Tories/establishment bureaucrats) but doesn’t threaten the underlying system. Compare that to truly revolutionary movements that get completely deplatformed, leaders arrested, bank accounts systematically frozen. Reform gets attacked but remains within acceptable political discourse – Farage appears on Question Time, GB News, mainstream interviews. That’s controlled opposition, not revolution. The establishment can tolerate Reform because Reform still accepts Parliamentary sovereignty and the legitimacy of Westminster.

2. Isn’t voting Reform better than voting Labour or Conservative?

Yes, tactically. If your choice is between Reform, Labour, Tories, or Liberal Democrats, Reform is probably the best option because they’ll at least talk about immigration and sovereignty issues the others ignore. But “better than the worst options” doesn’t make them good enough. Vote Reform if you must, but don’t invest hope in them delivering fundamental change. Build your own movement that will outlast Reform’s inevitable compromise or collapse. Use Reform as a tool to shift the conversation and get some immigration-skeptic MPs into Parliament – but your movement must be the force that holds them accountable and pushes them further than they want to go. Vote Reform, but don’t trust Reform.

3. What would a truly anti-establishment party actually do differently from Reform?

A genuine anti-establishment movement would: (1) Challenge Parliamentary sovereignty explicitly and assert that the people are sovereign under English constitutional law, (2) Declare the British Nationality Act 1948 unconstitutional and void for lack of popular consent, (3) Campaign specifically for English self-governance and an English Parliament (not “British” anything), (4) Demand retrospective referendums on all major sovereignty transfers since 1707, (5) Refuse all compromise, coalition, and moderation – accept destruction rather than absorption, (6) Build grassroots organizing outside Parliament focused on direct action, not just electoral machinery, (7) Use constitutional law arguments (Bill of Rights 1689, people’s sovereignty) to prove Westminster has been violating English rights for centuries. Reform does precisely none of these things. They want to work within Westminster, not challenge its legitimacy.

4. Won’t attacking Reform just help Labour and the Conservatives win?

No – the opposite. Holding Reform accountable and building an independent England-first movement creates pressure from the right that forces Reform to either adopt genuinely radical positions or be exposed as establishment-lite. If Reform knows there’s an organized movement ready to abandon them when they compromise, they’re less likely to water down their message. But if everyone blindly supports Reform regardless of what they do, they have zero incentive to stay radical – they’ll moderate to appeal to “swing voters” and the establishment. Your movement should make Reform compete for your support by meeting your demands (English Parliament, repeal 1948 Act, constitutional arguments) rather than giving them unconditional loyalty. Pressure from a principled movement makes parties better, not worse.

5. If no party can be trusted, what’s the point of voting or engaging in politics at all?

Voting is a tactic, not a strategy. Vote for whoever will do the least damage or most good in the short term (often Reform, sometimes independents). But don’t confuse voting with political change. Real change comes from movements that shift culture, law, and power – making it politically impossible for any party to ignore your demands regardless of who wins elections. The suffragettes didn’t win by voting. Brexit didn’t happen because UKIP got a handful of MPs – it happened because millions of ordinary people refused to accept “no” and forced Westminster’s hand. Build a movement so powerful that every party – Reform, Tories, Labour, whoever – has to compete for your support by committing to English self-governance, Remigration, and constitutional restoration. Then vote tactically for whoever comes closest while your movement continues applying relentless pressure regardless of election results. The movement is the strategy. Voting is just one small tactic within it.