Reform whistleblower describes ‘expensive, flawed and unprofessional’ vetting process

Emily Price

A Reform UK whistleblower has described the “expensive, flawed and unprofessional vetting process” used by the party to select Senedd election candidates.

The key member, who does not wish to be named, said they took part in Reform’s “full candidate assessment and training process” for the upcoming Welsh election.

They accused the party of a “lack of transparency” and criticised the “calibre of some of the people now being placed in winnable positions.”

The insider told us: “What I witnessed was not a merit-based system designed to find the best local representatives – but a centrally controlled process that favours insiders, parachuted candidates and personal connections over local knowledge and competence.

“Several high-placed candidates have been moved into top spots despite having no real connection to the areas they are supposed to represent.

“Cai Parry Jones, deputy chair of the Bangor branch, has been dropped straight into the number one position in Cardiff. Jason O’Connell from Torfaen has been similarly elevated.

“In Newport, Arthur Wright is not even Welsh. He’s originally from Birmingham and has been given the second spot.

“Lower down the lists, paper candidates such as Richard Pendry in Montgomeryshire (who actually lives in Cardiff) have been placed in constituencies they have no link to. The same applies to Newport and Caerphilly branches.”

Reform UK unveiled their full list of Senedd election hopefuls last week amid a number of candidates announcing they would quit the party citing anger about the screening process.

‘Loyalty’

Our insider said that local applicants “with strong community roots” had been pushed down the rankings or excluded altogether in favour of people with “old party ties or personal connections to senior figures”.

They said: “Arthur Wright, for example, is widely known within the party as Dan Thomas’s right-hand man.

“The message to anyone who has worked hard at grassroots level is clear: loyalty to the leadership matters more than local credibility.”

Last year, Reform UK was accused of using its candidate selection process as a money making opportunity after it was revealed that would-be MSs were to be charged £200 for an assessment.

The charge included £50 for the application and vetting and £150 for a full day at an Parliamentary Assessment Centre (PAC).

Reform said the fee covered criminal background checks and the cost of hiring a venue and providing food during the assessment day.

‘Backtracked’

The whistleblower said: “Hundreds of people – far more than the 96 who eventually made the final list – were invited to these sessions, this was to generate the £150 assessment fee.

“The PAC itself consisted of five modules: drafting a constituent letter, a hustings exercise on a controversial topic, a radio interview grilling candidates on Reform’s own backtracked policies, a one-minute speech on subjects the party does not support, and a general interview focused not on transferable skills but on ‘what you want to change’ – No actual training, more how you fitted in with the rhetoric.

“During the day candidates were repeatedly asked to make handwritten notes on policy areas important to them.

“No phones or photographs were allowed; all information was retained by the selectors – many of whom were very young local councillors based in English councils, with only two appearing over the age of 30.

“If a candidate failed even one module they were told to re-attend (and re-pay) at a new location, sometimes in Wales, sometimes in London.

“One Scottish applicant told me he had spent over £1,500 on travel alone and still did not make the final cut.”

‘Scored’

They added: “Those who progressed were offered a three-hour ‘business overview’ followed by mock interviews with Darren Grimes, Jeremy Kyle, Colin Brazier and Dr David Bull.

“Yet several candidates who were given high positions – including Richard John Jones, Francesca O’Brien and Llyr Powell – did not even attend this session.

“Laura Anne Jones did attend and participate fully. The party claims candidates are ‘scored’ and ranked according to performance, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

“Dave Thomas, the regional director for Wales, came across as heavily scripted and rehearsed, with poor people skills.

“He was abrupt and expected deference to his status, yet gave the impression of having limited political depth for his role.”

Leader

Reform UK unveiled its new Welsh leader at a rally in Newport in February.

Dan Thomas is the former Tory leader of Barnet council in London, but claims to have roots in Caerphilly.

Our source said that although Thomas seemed “personable and approachable” he appeared to have little real authority.

They said: “Multiple times he stated he wished to stand in Islwyn/Newport but never once confirmed it as leader with the words ‘this is where I am standing.’

“Key decisions clearly rest elsewhere – with Nigel Farage ultimately calling the shots.”

On the number of Recent Conservative defectors to Reform, the whistleblower described “open laughter about ‘the other blue side'”.

“Many candidates openly hold Tory values but enjoy mocking the Tories – a telling sign that the party sees itself as their natural successor rather than a genuine alternative,” they said.

‘Brutal’

Reform UK delayed announcing its slate of Senedd candidates until weeks before the Welsh election.

The party said this was because it was carrying out a “brutal” and “intrusive” vetting process in order to avoid scandals.

Our insider said they went through the entire process “in good faith” and that Reform’s own literature and training materials “stressed integrity and transparency”.

“Those values were not reflected in the way candidates were chosen,” the insider added.

They said: “The entire organisation operates like a secret society: information is tightly controlled, even at the top.

“The party delayed publishing its full candidate list for weeks, citing vetting problems, and insiders believe it was also waiting until the last minute in the hope of more defections that never materialised.”

They added: “Witnessing first-hand how Reform UK is run internally, the prospect of an immature and poorly organised Reform party winning enough seats to hold real power in the Senedd is equally frightening.

“Many candidates I spoke to privately agree with this assessment but still pursue high placements because they see a Senedd seat and salary as an easy route to power and personal advancement.

“Reform UK presents itself as the party of common sense and anti-establishment politics. Yet the selection process I experienced was expensive, opaque, centrally dictated and often indifferent to local representation.

“Inexperienced or poorly prepared candidates – one senior figure I observed was described by multiple people as ‘completely incompetent’ at interview and frighteningly ignorant of basic politics – now have a realistic chance of becoming government ministers or Senedd members. I would personally agree with this having witnessed first hand of her abilities.

“Local members and voters in Wales deserve to know how these decisions were really made.

“The public should be asking whether Reform UK is genuinely selecting the best people to serve their communities, or simply building a loyal, centrally controlled machine that rewards insiders and personal connections above all else – with ultimate power apparently residing with Nigel Farage rather than the Welsh leadership.”

Reform UK was invited to comment.