With Reform aping the Musk DOGE approach to slashing public services in Kent Karen Constantine has big questions for Reform and Labour
Reform gained control of nine councils in May’s local elections. In Kent, they won 57 of 81 seats, but between then and 4 June, Reform have cancelled 40% – nine out of 22 – of its scheduled meetings. Elsewhere in the country, this trend is repeated, with councillors missing important meetings. This appalling start, described as a ‘shambles’ and ‘shocking’ is worse than even Reform’s detractors expected.
In Thanet, we’ve seen this pattern before. In 2015, UKIP took control of Thanet District Council, resulting in chaos, broken promises, a failure to maintain a balanced budget, and by-election after by-election as poorly selected, poorly trained, poorly motivated councillors peeled away. UKIP’s governance style also led to disillusionment among its own members, many of whom left due to the party’s internal conflicts and perceived racism. This is a cautionary tale as Reform appears poised to repeat the same mistakes on a larger scale.
In Kent, Reform’s first move was to appoint Zia Yusuf (ex-chair) to set up a Department of Governance and Efficiency (D.O.G.E). Yusuf has since been vocal about uncovering what he describes as “wasteful and possibly corrupt practices” within KCC. He has had his own difficulties with Reform, and you could be forgiven if you’re wondering how long the post-Pochin truce will last. However, this initiative, modelled on a Trumpian policy, raises questions about its true purpose. Is it genuinely about improving governance, or is it a cynical move to create the narrative which will serve to easily discredit political opponents? As Yusuf himself has acknowledged, this “enormous task” aligns closely with Reform’s core mission to continue to instil creeping doubt in the mind of the electorate regarding the efficacy of either the Conservatives or Labour. Insurgent Reform are targeting both, undermining their credibility in any way necessary — they’re all the same, we should give someone else a chance — persuading disenchanted voters to switch. 12 long years of Tory misrule and Labour’s faltering first year will continue to pave the way for Reform’s attempt to form a government.
Reform’s D.O.G.E. initiative raises significant ethical and operational concerns. By granting a political party direct access to KCC’s financial and operational records, a concerning precedent is set. How can a political party (which is actually a business) be tasked with being impartial and trustworthy? Many contracts are rightly commercial in confidence. What measures are in place to ensure democratic accountability and transparency in this unprecedented arrangement?
Reform are far from the finished, polished article. Like Trump and Musk, discontent and battling masculine egos simmer beneath the surface. Yusuf had already fallen out with Farage over Sarah Pochin, Reform’s new MP for Runcorn and Helsby, over her troubling and racially charged comments in Parliament. He left, only to rejoin 48 hours later. Excusing his flip-flop, he explained eleven months of running the party had left him exhausted. Poor Zia. Maybe he needs to join a union?
Reform’s second misstep came from KCC’s newly appointed leader, Linden Kemkaran. She has requested a four-month extension to an “almost impossible” deadline for the reorganisation of local government. A plan that was well advanced previously. Under the government’s plans, Kent is set to see the largest shake-up since 1974. The mystery is, why Labour didn’t take the rise of Reform seriously enough from the beginning? For many activists across Kent, Reform’s rise was undeniable, palpable, leaving many (including myself), with the sense that a significant change was underway. When Kent’s enthusiastic bid to join Jim McMahon’s priority devolution deal was rejected in January, speculation arose that this was a calculated move by Labour to highlight Reform’s growing influence in Kent as a cautionary tale for other regions. It seems this strategy has backfired spectacularly. Kent would be in a very different place had they been granted that sought-after opportunity.
There is a broader impact on governance. As Reform apes tactics are deployed by Trump’s populist movement, the ramifications of Reform’s governance extend beyond Kent. Not least of all, the debasing of local democracy, by not holding meetings, and assuming budgetary control with no scrutiny. As Kent navigates these uncharted waters, the potential for widespread disruption in public services becomes increasingly evident. Starmer, Reeves, McSweeney and co, still underestimate the public mood and appetite for “change for change’s sake”. The public is sick of cold Conservatism, but Labour has yet to serve something warm enough to tempt them back to the table. This vacuum will be exploited by Reform.