Cuts, NHS reform and no net zero: Five things we learned from Reform’s manifesto launch
Nigel Farage positioned Reform UK as the main opposition to Labour as he unveiled a manifesto that included drastic public sector cuts, sweeping NHS reforms and a major reversal on net zero policies.
Framing the document as a “contract for the people” , the leader’s speech was not short on the rhetorical flourishes and controversial claims for which he has become renowned.
But the set piece moment also contained several revelations about the party’s aims and aspirations above and beyond its already-announced pledges to get net immigration to zero and push up the personal tax allowance to £20,000.
We have highlighted the five most important points you need to know:
Major public sector cuts
Reform’s tax and spend plans were light on detail relative to the other major parties, but the numbers it did commit to paper were big.
In addition to its contested claim it could save £30bn-a-year by stopping interest payments to the Bank of England, it promised to save £50bn a year throughout the parliament – roughly £250bn overall – by slashing public sector waste. Reform says that cuts could be found through efficiencies and shedding quangos and commissions.
The end of net zero
Farage also used his speech as an opportunity to brand the UK’s policy to get to net zero by 2050 as “destructive”.
Pledging to scrap all net zero subsidies, and “fast track” North Sea oil licences, he claimed the current direction of travel on helping the environment was in fact working directly against the interests of voters.
Genuine NHS reform
Reform’s leader took aim at the health service, traditionally a sacred cow in election campaigns. He claimed: “We all grew up loving the NHS. It was a fantastic thing… but we are not getting bang for our buck. There’s a growing level of disenchantment at the way the NHS is being run.”
The party’s solution is to adopt a model similar to France’s, where healthcare would be free at the point of need, but which would integrate the private sector much more explicitly.
The party would give a 20 per cent tax subsidy on the use of private healthcare providers, which, it claims, would relieve pressure from the state and improve the overall quality of service.
The dress rehearsal for 2029
Moving from policy to politics, Farage and his deputy Richard Tice were both clear they view this election as the dress rehearsal for the next one – expected in 2029 – when they hope to be genuine contenders to lead the country.
This can be read two ways. First it is a sign of the the party’s confidence as it closes in on second place in the polls.
But it also allowed Farage to position manifesto’s contents as “issues that the party would campaign on from opposition” as opposed to concrete commitments that they would implement were they to be elected, thereby distancing himself from their feasibility.
Answering a question on how deliverable his party’s radical policy platform was, the party leader said: “It is a promise that this is what we are going to campaign for over the next five years. These are the principles, these are the issues… this is what we’re going to campaign for. I said at the very start, we are not going to be in government this time round, but we are going to provide a voice of opposition and this outlines where we’re going to challenge Labour.”
Sights set on Labour
This barb at Labour wasn’t the only one of the launch.
Farage’s long line of parties have earned most of their electoral success by eating away at the right of the Conservative Party with their consistent focus on cutting immigration and the size of the state state. But it was Starmer’s party that drew the most direct rebukes during Farage’s speech.
Claiming that Wales now faced higher tax rates and poorer public services, Farage accused Labour, which has been in power in the country since 1997, of profligacy saying it was “even more wasteful than the Conservatives”.
And it was against Labour that Farage pitched Reform as being most effective, arguing that Ed Davey’s Liberal Democrats were too similar to act as a “real opposition”.