Reform UK has told its members it is introducing a less stringent “common sense” vetting system for would-be candidates after complaints the previous checks were too strict, despite a recent series of controversies linked to the party.
In a message sent to members and also posted by a regional party branch, Nigel Farage’s party said the updated vetting was “more proportionate than before and designed to strike the right balance between party reputation, individual freedom of expression and public confidence”.
This new system would be seen as “a blank slate”, said the message to members, seen by the Guardian, adding: “If you have previously failed vetting, you are strongly encouraged to reapply under the new standards.”
Under the earlier regime, touted by Farage as the most rigorous vetting system by any major party, “in some cases our standards and communication fell short of the mark”, the message said, adding: “We’ve listened, reflected and acted.”
A message posted to Facebook by Reform’s East Thanet branch in Kent indicated one reason for the change was a need to generate enough candidates. The message – later removed – said council byelections “are frequent events as councillors retire or stand down – it is important that all branches have prospective candidates lined up ready to go”.
While Reform has not previously set out its vetting criteria, beyond a ban on previous members of far-right groups such as the British National party, the message hints at a lowering of the threshold for concerns about controversial statements, for example on X or other social media.
Before the general election last year the party disowned three parliamentary candidates already in place over comments they had made. One had made derogatory comments about the IQ of sub-Saharan African people, and another said asylum seekers arriving on small boats were “scum”.
After the election it emerged that one of the Reform MPs elected on 4 July last year, James McMurdock, had been convicted of assaulting his girlfriend 18 years previously.
McMurdock voluntarily removed the party whip on Friday ahead of the publication of a newspaper story saying that before entering parliament he had taken out £70,000 in Covid loans for two companies that appeared to have no employees.
Since May’s local elections, where Reform won 677 seats and took control of 10 councils, a series of its councillors have been suspended or quit the party for reasons including one man who has appeared in court accused of making threats to kill his wife.
While Reform has had to act at speed to recruit parliamentary and council candidates, Farage has argued that its vetting system was beyond reproach.
“We’ve been vetting, I bet, to a standard that no other party has ever done before for local council elections,” he told GB News in March. “The reason is, I know we’ll be held to a higher standard than all the others.”
skip past newsletter promotion
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
Reform UK was contacted for comment about the new vetting system.
A Labour source said: “Nigel Farage has consistently bragged about how brilliant he thinks his party’s vetting is.
“Yet reams of Reform councillors and MPs have faced disturbing allegations. The Reform rap sheet reads jail time for assaulting a woman, alleged financial misconduct, and flirting with the far right.
“It’s disturbing that Farage is seemingly looking to further water down Reform’s standards. The public rightly expects the highest standards in public office. It appears Reform just aren’t up to the job.”
Antony Hook, the Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition on Kent council and member of the party’s “Reform watch” board, said: “Reform must urgently clarify the situation. They have clear issues with candidate vetting at all levels, so the idea that their standards could be watered down further is shocking and very concerning. Inviting failed candidates to try again under lax rules suggests that they are either struggling to recruit candidates, or something more sinister.”