How Robert Jenrick saved democracy

Robert Jenrick is the hero of his own story. That's not, in itself, a bad thing; everyone is the hero of their own story. But he is an unusually grandiose hero. His defection planning allegedly saw him as 'the most dynamic politician in the Conservative party' and a 'new sheriff in town' for Reform. To aggrandise him further, I have started to wonder if he is the saviour of British liberal democracy, and the turning point in the Reform story.
This is, admittedly, contrary to most current commentary, which sees Reform as a newsworthy juggernaut. Despite that, the idea keeps weighing on my mind that the defections of Jenrick, Andrew Rosindell, and Suella Braverman will highlight and exacerbate underlying issues, taking the shine off Reform.

Politics are returning to normal

Kemi Badenoch is probably going to be an unsuccessful leader. For a start, she failed to learn from William Hague. Both let ambition and hubris get the better of them, winning the post-landslide-defeat leadership of a tarnished brand. In both cases success requires Labour to make a huge mess.
However, her response to Jenrick's departure was, I thought, interesting. It was the first time I saw anyone push back against the broken Britain narrative. Britain isn't broken, she said, "ours is one of the most successful, resilient and influential countries on earth". Reform would fail, she continued, because it attracted 'toxic people' who 'destroy organisations'.
While it might seem – and could be – just something you say after one of the chief cheerleaders for the broken-Britain narrative has left your party, it was arguably something different: an affirmation of belief in the existing systems and structures of the state. A suggestion that the Conservatives think things could be better, but that the foundations of the nation are strong enough to build that improvement.
Anyone who has read How Democracies Die will recognise the importance. Levitsky and Ziblatt's book, written during Trump's first term, seems horribly prescient now, and one of the core arguments they make is the importance of oppositions that accept institutions, rather than railing against them and threatening to tear them down. Badenoch's comment may not have shifted policy, which may remain close to Reform in many aspects, but makes them a small-c Conservative party, a position that many in the Reform/Conservative electorate may prefer.

The Tories are stronger

Saying the Tories are stronger without Jenrick and the others may seem like the response of a jilted lover. But the history of politics suggests this may well be the case. The UK has, typically, tended towards broad church political parties. The benefit, arguably, is that they are coalitions and, as such, have platforms with broad appeal. However, when that church is too broad, it can create problems.
Labour may be the party with the tradition of purging those at the extremes. The 80s saw the self-purging of the party's right to the SDP, then the left as Kinnock tried to rehabilitate Labour's image. That tradition has continued, several to the right of the party opted for other careers under Corbyn's leadership, then Corbyn himself, along with several allies, found himself ejected from the party.
The Tories have been less public in their purges, but they have happened nonetheless. In the 80s, the Federation of Conservative Students was too extreme for Norman Tebbit. Boris Johnson ejected many, including grandees, from the parliamentary party for their pro-European views. While short of an outright purge, Theresa May's (ironic, with hindsight) speech about 'the nasty party' and Cameron's moves to make the party more socially liberal and inclusive, those at the top have often made it clear that some views are unwelcome.
With those at the extremes leaving the Tories for Reform, it leaves a more cohesive, more traditionally Conservative party. It makes leadership easier, with less need to pander to those at the extreme wing, and will, to many, present a more palatable face. Whatever other merits they may have, people like Jenrick and Braverman carry baggage, it's difficult to see someone who ordered the removal of a cartoon mural in a children's centre as relatable.

The weakening of Reform

Conversely, Reform is not gaining valuable assets. The defections are mainly those whose best days are behind, or perhaps never had great days to begin.
Farage's deadline for Tory defections may also be a strategic error. Tactically sensible, it helps counter the argument of being a Tory-reject party and may also cover up that they were reaching the limit of defections. But away from Westminster it may force the hands of some who decide to try their luck with Reform, and while councillors may have little profile, they are an essential to a party's health.
Those who have been involved in local government (and I am one of those) will tell you how soul-destroying the campaigning can be, and that's even when you have a supposedly strong local organisation. While MPs can continue to call on their Parliamentary offices, and perhaps even donors, for everyone else giving up the support of a local party is a huge step for anyone but a masochist. The result is that in many cases those leaving the Tories for Reform are the ones that are on their way out, jumping before they were pushed.
In ground campaigns, much relies on councillors and local candidates. When you only have rejects from other parties you struggle, and in close elections, you will pay the price if the other side has a good operation and can get their vote out.
Reform may have attention-grabbing press conferences, but their local campaigning tends to be reliant on a handful of die-hard members which is not sustainable.

Reform's structure has no room for ego

Ironically, since Reform is a limited company majority owned by Farage, Reform's structures are probably not very ego tolerant.
Every mainstream political party, and even Your Party, comes with a series of rules and that govern how it is run. There will be places and positions for the ambitious to give them status. And for the really ambitious, there will be clear rules on how they can climb to the very top. But in a Farage-owned reform, only his voice matters.
This has worked remarkably well for an insurgent Reform. Internal infighting is a major cause of death for small and new political parties, Reform has not, for example, had to contend with any of the personality issues that have marked Your Party's short history. But that advantage does not last forever. How long will Jenrick, a self-proclaimed bringer of heft, be content sitting in Nigel’s shadow? How comfortable will longer serving Reform MPs be if they see arriviste Tories taking top jobs? When it's all down to Farage's management decisions, arguments can turn ugly.

Reality-testing of Reform

Finally, Reform have the problem that reality is starting to bite. In the last few years they have gained MPs and taken control of councils. Suddenly, they have to deliver because voters have the unfortunate tendency to expect results.
The evidence, so far, has not been promising. Although they have grown their parliamentary representation, they managed to lose one of their first MPs, who now leads his own party. And for all the talk of a local government DOGE, most Reform councils are planning to raise council tax by the maximum permissible 5%.
Returning to the dull reality of local government, it was a predictable outcome. Much of its work is regulated by national legislation, most of its money comes from Whitehall, and the amount of legal wriggle room is limited. Without the training ground and discipline that established political parties offer, those with experience of local government will not be surprised that most Reform councils have seen plenty of arguments, conflict, and virtue signalling, but not much in political delivery.
It is a very hard time for local councils. The costs of their legal duties, especially social care, are escalating far faster than any increases in income. Even treading water requires a remarkable level of political leadership that few Reform councils have.

A lukewarm take

This is now a decidedly lukewarm take on old news. Jenrick's defection, which started me thinking about it, is now forgotten about, overtaken by Braverman. Neither are surprising moves, but somehow fuel the narrative of 'momentum'.
The polling over the coming weeks will be interesting. Both Labour and Conservatives appear to have been polling at about their floor, Reform’s numbers have been slipping for a few weeks. But it’s hard to imagine where Reform can gain more votes from, the current Green surge may subside, but their supporters are unlikely to turn turquoise. It’s difficult to reconcile declining support and no obvious source of new voters with momentum.
The other side of this argument is that, as a relatively new party, Reform's vote is soft by definition. If the Conservatives are polling at their low, it's a much easier thought exercise to imagine them getting Reform voters to return.
Most of my rationale relates to deeper trends and structures rather than individuals. But it's the actions of individuals that test, and can break, those structures. If that is to happen, Jenrick and Braverman are good candidates to be the ones who did it. And if they do, the past week or so may be the period people point to as when things started to turn sour.