Cllr Holly Whitbread is an Epping Forest District councillor and the Cabinet Member for Housing & Community.
ITV’s documentary Undercover: A year in Reform exposed deeply troubling behaviour within Reform UK, from its grassroots activists to the upper levels of the party. Sadly, much of what was revealed drew uncomfortable parallels with our own experiences here in Epping Forest.
Reform promised to change British politics for the better, offering an alternative to the political mainstream. Locally, its politics may have captured a mood and tapped into the entirely justified frustrations people feel about illegal immigration and its tangible impact on their own doorstep. However, Reform has walked a tightrope with decency, and on far too many occasions, it has fallen off.
The documentary has brought wider attention to serious questions about the culture and conduct within Reform UK. The controversies highlighted feel all too familiar to what we have witnessed in Epping Forest, where concerns about local Reform Councillors have ranged from allegations involving explicit images to photographs of local Reform councillors appearing in blackface. These allegations and incidents raise serious questions about conduct, judgement and decency within the party.
The performative politics and Trump-style tactics highlighted in the documentary were on full display at the latest Epping Forest District Council meeting. We witnessed a style of politics characterised by interruptions, shouting over speakers and pointed remarks seemingly designed to provoke and undermine. It created an ugly and aggressive atmosphere that, in my view, has no place in local democracy.
A year on from the Bell Hotel protests, and with the hotel now closed, Reform councillors presented a motion on the asylum hotel, riddled, in my view, with accusations, inaccuracies and inflammatory language. The motion demanded that the Council apologise for the disruption caused, despite Reform UK’s own prominent role in the protests. It failed to acknowledge the Council’s consistent opposition to the Home Office’s decision to use the hotel for asylum accommodation and included what I considered unfair and unsubstantiated criticism of the police, who deserve our support.
As one Epping councillor from another party observed, the debate was “reopening old wounds”. For me, this motion was not about the victims, and it was not about Epping. At a time when our community is trying to move forward, the motion risked reigniting the very divisions we are working so hard to overcome.
I firmly believe in freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest. These are fundamental principles of our democracy, and I will always defend them. But I also believe in law and order, personal responsibility and basic decency. Supporting the right to protest does not mean excusing intimidation, disorder or extremism.
The links between Reform UK activists in Portsmouth and the extreme right, highlighted in the documentary, echo concerns raised here in Epping Forest. During last year’s Bell Hotel protests, questions were raised about Reform activists and representatives working alongside individuals associated with far-right organisations, including former BNP members and people linked to Homeland, Blood & Honour and Combat 18.
When I previously raised concerns about these associations, Reform UK used social media to manipulate the narrative and misrepresent my position as an attack on ordinary residents protesting against the hotel. Nothing could have been further from the truth. I had campaigned for the hotel’s closure long before the incident that sparked the protests. Supporting residents, defending peaceful protest and challenging extremist associations are not mutually exclusive.
The motion was presented by two councillors who do not live in Epping. Many Epping residents opposed the hotel and wanted it closed, but also experienced daily disruption, anxiety and fear as their town became the focus of national attention and political confrontation. The minority responsible for disorder caused lasting damage to a previously peaceful community.
What I found particularly frustrating about Reform’s motion was the performative political point-scoring. Before the local Reform leader was expelled from the Conservative Party, he had supported funding bids opposed by other Conservatives, stating that “any opportunity to integrate asylum seekers in our community is welcome” and that “it is within the interests of the local community that we encourage integration.” Those earlier statements are difficult to reconcile with the position now being presented. When I challenged this inconsistency and questioned whether a deeply sensitive local issue was being exploited for political gain, I was shouted down. This motion was lacking conviction and purely about political opportunism.
Perhaps most troubling, and particularly evident during the debate on the motion, was the disrespect shown towards women who dared to disagree with or challenge Reform UK, despite the party claiming to champion the protection of women and girls. In Epping Forest, female councillors from across the chamber have experienced abuse and intimidation which, in my view, has been fuelled by the rhetoric and actions of Reform UK activists and representatives. A party cannot credibly claim to stand up for women and girls while showing such contempt towards woman who dare to who challenge or question them.
My experiences of Reform in Epping Forest meant that Kemi Badenoch’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference resonated strongly with me and made me prouder than ever to be a Conservative. It reminded me of the values I believe should underpin public life: decency, integrity, personal responsibility and the principles that unite us rather than divide us. The hateful and inflammatory behaviour I have witnessed from Reform locally raises serious questions about the party’s commitment to those principles. Beyond the TikTok populism and confrontational rhetoric, what standards of leadership and conduct does it offer?
Political debate should be robust, and those in power must be held to account. But legitimate concerns must never be exploited to divide communities, nor should political disagreement come at the expense of honesty, respect and decency.