Issue five | From popularity to power: why Conservative-to-Reform defections matter for governing credibility
Lucy Harris is a former Brexit Party Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and political strategist. Now serving as a senior adviser at Weber Shandwick, she provides expert guidance to organisations navigating the UK’s political landscape.
The defections over the past week signal more than an effort by Reform UK to close the credibility gap between popularity and their ability to govern demonstrated in recent polls; they mark a significant shift in the underlying economic philosophy on the right.
As a former “populist” campaigner, I managed and grew a pro-Brexit campaign of over 11,000 members across the north and south of the UK. During this time, it became clear through frequent conversations with my members that there was a fundamental divide in how ordinary people approached the economy. I was often asked by more affluent members whether our supporters were primarily concerned with immigration or with free-market principles of leaving the EU. In reality, this question was a window into broader, unresolved questions on the economy that continue to shape political debate and political philosophy on the right across global politics. The most recent defections bring not only the institutional knowledge necessary for Reform to address questions of governance competence but also a cohort of broadly free-market Conservatives, whose perspectives highlight these economic tensions. I believe that these tensions can be reconciled within the party’s emerging values-based framework which are shared by both Conservatives and Reform alike, a reconciliation which will be demonstrated through the defectors’ softening of their free-market principles.
Beyond Personalities: The Importance of Institutional Capability
For Nigel Farage and Reform UK, the challenge has moved beyond building public recognition or polling strength. Those achievements, while significant, are no longer enough. The next phase is about institutional competence, demonstrating an ability to operate within, and ultimately lead (and reshape) the UK’s complex governing system.
That means understanding how Whitehall functions, how legislation is delivered, how fiscal policy is implemented, and how the UK engages with international markets and institutions. In this context, defections from the Conservatives are important not simply because of the individuals involved, but because of the experience, process knowledge and administrative credibility they bring with them.
Recent Defections and Governing Experience
Recent Conservative-to-Reform defections, both at parliamentary and senior political levels, have followed a clear pattern. Those moving across are not political novices; many have held ministerial office, managed departments, or operated at senior levels of government and party machinery. Their collective background includes experience in Cabinet and ministerial decision-making, legislative delivery, Treasury-facing policy development and managing large public bodies/regulatory frameworks.
For Reform, this matters. It begins to address one of the most persistent concerns raised by voters, businesses and institutions alike: can Reform realistically govern, not merely campaign?
Why This Matters: Closing the Credibility Gap
Polling over the past year has shown a striking divergence. Reform UK has performed strongly in national voting intention surveys, often outpacing both Labour and the Conservatives with over 30% polled in support. However, when pollsters test a different question, which party is capable of governing effectively, Reform’s advantage narrows significantly. In YouGov research ahead of Reform UK’s 2025 conference, only 24% of Britons believed a Reform government would do a good job of running the country, while 49% expected them to do a bad job.
This is a familiar phenomenon. Political history shows that insurgent parties frequently enjoy high levels of support while simultaneously facing scepticism about competence and delivery. For business audiences in particular, this distinction is critical.
Businesses plan across long time horizons. They assess not just electoral outcomes, but policy continuity, regulatory competence, fiscal discipline and administrative stability. While three years is a long time in politics, it is a short period for investment decisions, infrastructure planning and capital allocation.
The perception that Reform is “new” to government, regardless of the experience of individual defectors, continues to generate apprehension in parts of the business community. Farage via appearances on the likes of Bloomberg has sought to reassure the business community with a broadened team experienced in policymaking. However, where do the defectors stand on the fundamentals?
Economic Philosophy: Free Markets, Statism and an Unresolved Tension
An under-discussed dimension of recent defections is economic ideology. Many of those sympathetic to, or joining, Reform come from a broadly free-market tradition shaped by Conservative economics and a pro-globalisation outlook. Nadhim Zahawi has past links to free market think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, while Suella Braverman has expressed her support of free markets. David Frost, former Brexit negotiator and head of the free market think tank IEA, has backed Braverman, saying, “We’ve always seen the things the same way”.
This creates a potential internal tension. Reform’s economic messaging has, at times, appeared sceptical of aspects of globalisation and unrestrained market liberalism and simultaneously pro-state intervention. These opposing positions resonated during the Brexit debate between the two major pro-Brexit campaigns and still sit uneasily with orthodox free-market thinking. This tension is not hypothetical. It echoes longstanding debates on the right over the limits of global markets, national resilience versus efficiency and state intervention versus market allocation.
Figures such as Robert Jenrick, who was recently appointed as Reform’s future Chancellor, have been notably cautious in defining his precise economic stance, even in leadership contexts and in his most recent Conservative Party Conference speeches. This strategic ambiguity creates flexibility, but it also makes less clear the direction of a necessary reckoning: how will Reform reconcile free-market instincts with a more sceptical stance on globalisation and macroeconomic intervention?
A Values-Based Resolution: Community, Responsibility and Shared Obligation
The emerging answer appears less economic and more philosophical.
Rather than framing policy purely through the lens of market efficiency or state control, Reform has increasingly emphasised community, responsibility and shared obligation - concepts deeply rooted in British political tradition and, for many supporters, religious or moral frameworks.
One could draw intellectual parallels with strands of Blue Labour, particularly Maurice Glasman, who supported Brexit and prioritises social cohesion, mutual responsibility and localism over abstract market outcomes. While not formally aligned, these ideas have circulated among figures and voters who now find common cause with Reform and are frequently mentioned at mutual policy events.
For free-market-oriented defectors, this may provide an important bridge. It allows support for policies that temper market outcomes not as an abandonment of principle, but as a values-driven justification grounded in ”fairness“, community resilience and national solidarity. Does this represent a positive way forward for the right and a new era of economic thinking? We wait to see, but whatever the outcome, a close eye on the polls and the closing of the credibility gap will be the main focus after a widely touted successful May for Reform.
What does this mean for business?
For businesses seeking to engage with Reform UK, it is worth considering how proposals or policies that require state funding could be framed to align with the party’s emerging economic philosophy. Approaches that emphasise local impact, national responsibility, or broader societal value are likely to resonate more effectively than purely technical or polling arguments. Where there is uncertainty about the most persuasive framing, the team at Weber Sandwick can provide valuable guidance. Similarly, constructive engagement can be strengthened by offering practical, supply-side policy suggestions upfront, helping to build rapport and position your business as a trusted contributor to the party’s evolving economic platform.
