The local elections in a few weeks’ time will offer a sense of which way the political wind is blowing and a preview of what we might expect in the next general election.
With Reform predicted in some polls to make heavy gains across the UK, charities need to get their heads round what the party’s increasing influence and potential election could mean, including a Farage-led government.
Reform’s rhetoric and policy emphases are already familiar to many charities including hostility to “illegal” immigrants; cutting aid and welfare; slashing taxes, red tape, quangos and “waste” in government; and promoting Christian heritage as badge of cultural identity.
Many charities are already feeling the effects of anger and division over some of these issues, in the form of online abuse, attacks on their offices and assaults on their beneficiaries. If Reform were to win power, those who perpetrate such attacks might be further emboldened.
But looking at the party’s recent policy announcements, there are some broader themes that emerge which would be a logical consequence of Reform’s policy agenda.
Atmosphere of intimidation and insecurity?
Charities who lobby and campaign in affected subject areas would undoubtedly encounter strong official hostility from a Reform-led government. For example, the party’s Scottish manifesto promises that a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE – yes, like Elon Musk’s) will “cut waste and duplication and the endless funding of lobbyist charities by taxpayers”.
Similarly, Reform’s Welsh manifesto promises to “end public funding for NGOs and charities that operate as political campaigning organisations under the guise of promoting civil society”.
“Public money should be used to deliver services that benefit the public not to promote political agendas or activism,” it adds. Meanwhile, the party’s home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf has criticised a “charity industrial complex” that he argues facilitates illegal entry into the UK.
As a minimum, those attitudes imply a renewed battle over banning all public funding of any campaigning, fiercer than the one initiated by Eric Pickles and later Matt Hancock under the Conservatives. Sweeping gagging clauses, here we come.
Goodbye to key charitable objects?
But the potential implications go further than that. Since the 1990s, parliament has broadened markedly the definition of charitable causes. What parliament gives, it could take away. If too many charities are campaigning to maintain or increase a “bloated” welfare budget, why wouldn’t Reform consider removing the charitable objective of preventing poverty, and getting back to just relieving it?
If the current object of advancing environmental protection or improvement is cover for vigorous campaigning in favour of net zero, what’s to stop Reform from narrowing the definition?
If the advancement of human rights and the promotion of religious harmony, equality and diversity is being used to criticise Reform policy towards immigrants, why would the party not take those out of the charity acts?
And how would a Reform government likely view the advancement of Islam and the status of mosques as charities?
It is plausible that as a consequence of Reform’s stated agenda, many charities could find in due course that they are not advancing a charitable cause any longer.
A weakened Charity Commission?
In much shorter order, what are the prospects for the Charity Commission and its sister regulators in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Although technically a non-ministerial department, the commission is likely to be seen by Reform as a quango and could be in line to have its budget slashed or even to be abolished.
If it remains, the commission’s chair is a ministerial appointment, and so it would surely not be long before a regulator more sympathetic to a Reform government would emerge. Then a different kind of speeches, signals and re-drafted guidance to the sector would likely follow, with CC9 (on political activity) in the firing line in accordance with Reform’s manifesto sentiments.
Don’t forget that the same quite slim body of case law was used by the commission up to the 1990s to be interpreted as justifying a much more restricted view of charities’ legitimate political activity than the current one. It could be used in that way again and may mark a return to the days of “stick to your knitting” under former commission chair William Shawcross and board member Gwithian Prins, only worse.
Some cross-currents
Of course, there are contradictions within Reform’s thinking, as with all political parties.
Reform strongly supports veterans’ charities, which campaign for the social covenant with former veterans. It does not want wind farms in the countryside, so it had better not loosen the planning system or attack conservationists too much.
The party wants to outsource more public services to charities, some of which campaign and lobby for their beneficiaries. Meanwhile, its Welsh manifesto includes a “women’s health improvement strategy” and embraces public health campaigns.
We also know that Danny Kruger, now of Reform, wrote a report for Boris Johnson in 2020 which was reasonably warmly received by umbrella charities.
Engage, think carefully, and plan
We are likely some years from the next general election (2029 at the latest) and much can change in that time. Reform’s policy platform is relatively new and charities will need to engage to try and understand it and influence it as it evolves.
However, the party’s overall direction warrants some careful consideration, including the potential for a massive, government-led culture war.
We should be asking ourselves what our sector is doing now to buttress the legitimacy of established charitable objects. How can we enhance the independence and political neutrality of the commission? How can we futureproof the hard-won rights of beneficiaries?
Charities must also think about how to engage with and influence Reform as they do other parties. 2029 may seem a long way away, but these kinds of big questions deserve considered discussion and debate now.
