Reform’s decision to welcome Robert Jenrick tells us far more about what kind of political project it really is than any speech, slogan or rally ever could.
This is not the behaviour of a serious insurgent movement preparing for government. It is the behaviour of a party more interested in Punch and Judy politics than in the hard work of credibility, coherence and discipline. Exactly the kind of politics voters repeatedly say they are tired of.
For months, Nigel Farage and his closest allies subjected Jenrick to sustained and highly personal attacks. Over asylum hotels. Over immigration numbers. Over his past support for Remain. Over what Reform figures routinely describe as the moral bankruptcy of mainstream Conservatism.
These were not minor disagreements. Farage publicly called Jenrick a “fraud”. Jenrick, for his part, said he wanted to put Reform “out of business”, send Farage “back to retirement”, and described him as not being a “serious politician”.
MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’
Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court
And now, suddenly, Reform is happy to roll out the turquoise carpet.
Knowing Jenrick was hoping to defect, Reform had two options.
The first was obvious and entirely available. They could have said no.
They could have drawn a clear line and said: we have already taken enough. We are not a refuge for disillusioned Conservative politicians. We are not a halfway house for stalled careers. We are not a retirement home for failed or angry Tories. We are something new, radical and different.
That choice would have had internal coherence. It would have matched Reform’s rhetoric about being an insurgent force. It would have signalled confidence in their own grassroots and a willingness to build something from scratch.
Instead, they chose the opposite.
Reform is not attracting new voices, innovators or unknowns. It is accumulating the political debris of the last Conservative decade. The question it cannot answer is simple: if Reform is a genuine cross-cutting populist movement, why does every major defection come from one side of the political aisle?
Where are the Labour big beasts? Where are the figures who demonstrate this is about ideas rather than convenience?
This takes us to the second option. Reform said yes because it could not resist the theatre.
Taking Jenrick adds nothing to Reform’s claim to be an insurgent party. It actively undermines it. It blurs the brand. It exposes a movement more animated by headlines, pageantry and internal drama than by the disciplines of governing.
You cannot spend months denouncing someone as everything that is wrong with politics and then welcome them aboard without looking unserious. Voters notice that kind of contradiction. They always do.
If Reform wanted to show it was growing up, this was the moment to demonstrate restraint. To prioritise coherence over clicks. To prove it was building a team rather than a cast list for the next political row.
Instead, it chose the easy path.
There is also an uncomfortable truth here for Reform: this episode has strengthened the Conservative Party’s reputation, not weakened it.
Kemi Badenoch discovered that Jenrick was planning a defection and acted immediately. No dithering. No procedural delay. No weeks of quiet indulgence. She removed him from the shadow cabinet and expelled him from the Conservative Parliamentary Party.
She drew a line and enforced it.
That stands in stark contrast to Keir Starmer’s slow and hesitant handling of Peter Mandelson, where weeks passed amid confusion, delay and apparent tolerance. Badenoch showed backbone. She showed authority. And she showed that discipline still matters.
That, in turn, throws Reform’s motivations into sharper relief.
Because while Badenoch is drawing boundaries, Reform is erasing them. Not just with Jenrick, but with a growing cast list that directly contradicts its own rhetoric.
Nadine Dorries, the principal architect of the Online Harms Bill that Reform supporters have spent much energy denouncing. Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccines minister in a movement that has actively courted scepticism about pandemic policy.
These are not minor inconsistencies. They go to the heart of Reform’s credibility.
Farage appears more interested in political showmanship than in consistency or seriousness. What matters is not whether Reform can translate anger into power, but that it continues to reveal what it actually is: a vehicle for noise, not leadership.
On this evidence, Reform is not assembling a governing project. It is assembling a collection of grievances, grudges and contradictions, united less by conviction than by convenience. That may sustain headlines, but it does not withstand scrutiny.
And that is precisely the point.
By acting decisively, Badenoch has drawn a sharp contrast. One party enforces standards, disciplines its ranks and protects its credibility. The other welcomes yesterday’s villains as today’s recruits, with barely a blush.
Reform’s decision to take Jenrick does not weaken the Conservatives. It clarifies the choice. It reinforces the difference between a party prepared to govern and a movement content to posture.
Voters are watching. And increasingly, they can see which is which.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
Discussion about this post