Strategically, it’s a hiding to nowhere to think you can just push for some tax changes, and identity tensions around immigration will just be somehow overcome
Banseka Kayembe
“I’m not saying Donald Trump or Farage are racist” says YouTuber economist Gary Stevenson, cautiously. In one sentence he’s captured a popular perspective floating around some progressive YouTube bros: don’t call Reform UK, its leader or its policies racist, just promise to fix the economy by redistributing some wealth. The idea is that it’s strategically bad to whip out the “R-word” as it will alienate those voters who are being enticed by Reform. As an idea, it seems simple and straightforward; I understand its appeal. It’s also in my opinion, completely wrong.
On paper, it makes an inordinate amount of sense. Why risk alienating voters who are drawn in by exclusionary politics when you can offer them a better economic deal to alleviate their economic strife? Why get into the messiness of talking about identity if you don’t need to? But it’s not that simple. People are not just a balance sheet of financial losses and gains. People relate to identities, histories, and desires- and more than the economy that’s exactly the terrain Reform, The Conservatives and elements of the far/radical right are fighting on.
We want to keep our journalism independent, people powered, with no paywalls and away from big corporate and billionare funders- but we need your help! Please consider becoming a subscriber or making a one off donation, for as little as 99p
There’s a name for this particular approach to class politics: class reductionism. It’s a theory that treats class exploitation as the sole focus, with little to no consideration of how other forms of oppression interact with it. As a result, other forms of oppression (for example racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.) are seen as a distraction, as minor or easily reducible to broader class struggles. Class is an incredibly important lens through which to understand the world we live in, and the early 2020s were marked by a dominance of liberal identity politics which stripped a lot of class considerations out of racism, sexism and other forms of oppression. Unequivocally I think this was very, very bad, and was arguably instrumental in ushering in some of the reactionary backlash we’re now seeing in 2025.
On some elements of the left (during what others might call some sort of “post woke period") an uno-reverso of liberal identity politics into class reductionism instead has taken place. In my opinion this is equally as unhelpful as what came before it. Identity has become a bit of a dirty word now for some progressives/left wingers, a tainted idea whose stocks have seriously plummeted in the big market place of ideas. To label their politics as racist and posit an alternative vision for identity is to fall into a right wing trap, where you’ll get tarred as that deeply unchic category of woke, or worse as we’ve seen recently, accused of “inciting violence” against politicians and not be taken seriously.
But the real trap is to not talk about these things, to not confront them head on. Much of Reform’s policy agenda and messaging taps heavily into identity. Theirs is an exclusionary identity, an us v them. It’s about regaining a sense of agency, control, and self worth, in a zero-sum game where others have to lose in order for you to win. These things aren’t necessarily economic but highly personal.
We saw for example with Brexit (soz to rehash this) that people were willing to vote potentially against their own economic interests, in part because of identity. The “Vote Leave” campaign tapped into something deeper than pounds and pence: a sense of national identity, belonging, and “taking back control.” Nigel Farage’s now infamous poster depicting a queue of brown men emblazoned with the words “breaking point” suggested something far more sinister than an argument that migrants would put a strain on the economy; it was also about an impending threat to the national identity of this country. Identity is therefore not a side issue, but absolutely central to how Reform UK is gaining such political traction.
Gary has attempted to side step conversations about immigration, under the justification he’s “not an expert” , relegating himself unable to actually provide a direct alternative to Reform’s political offering. Racism and xenophobia is a way to divide the working class, often against the better economic interests of white working class people. If we don’t really name this phenomenon when we see it, how are we meant to magically unite workers? You can build solidarity by exposing how racism is used as a wedge, and by offering a political vision that gives people both material security and their dignity and sense of belonging, without scapegoating others.
I don’t think these class reductionist views necessarily come with an intended maliciousness; to the contrary I think progressive YouTubers like Gary and Jimmy The Giant think they are being the smart and pragmatic people in the room. Unfortunately it actually reveals they are lacking the wider grounding required at times. Racism and other forms of oppression aren’t a glitch in the system; it’s one of the main ways certain parties and movements build their power. Ignoring that fact doesn’t neutralise Reform’s strategy; in some ways it actually legitimises it.
I’m not inside his head ultimately, but it’s hard to escape the feeling that Gary does on some level agree that Reform UK’s politics contains racist elements, he just thinks strategically it would be bad to admit this. If that’s the case, it strikes me as a politically dishonest move, and frankly patronising for anyone progressive (or not) to essentially pretend they think something they obviously don’t. People can tell when you are not really being authentic and will respect you less for it! (See: Keir Starmer).
I’m also in some ways unsurprised that some of the biggest proponents of this approach are YouTubers; influencer-style political commentators whose entry point into campaigning has been via amassing a large social media following. Stevenson’s origin story in particular is unique: a guy who was on the inside of trading for a long time, who saw how f*cked things were and has an undoubtable talent for economic predictions. But there’s a reason why you’re less likely (although it’s not impossible) to hear on the ground campaigners, unionists and community organisers making such arguments: because in reality ignoring tensions around identity is not that effective as a way to bring people on board.
Gary Stevenson is accountable to his subscribers, not a membership base. I noticed in a podcast appearance with Zack Polanski he often spoke in terms of “I” not “we” (lamenting the Labour Party having neglected to meet him to discuss taxation); a more collective language often seemed missing from his lexicon. Campaigners, unionists and organisers by contrast, must balance complexity because they’re accountable to broad, often diverse groups of people, not just to a personal brand. They are also realistically more at the coal face when it comes to actually doing the work of persuading people in real life. Whilst I welcome a broad movement that can involve as many voices as possible calling for policies like a wealth tax, I do wonder whether politics is being misshaped when influencer-like political commentators dominate the conversation too much.
In all fairness to Gary, I don’t think he’s wrong about needing to specify that there’s a spectrum of people who will have been brought into Reform’s politics, or attended the Unite The Kingdom rally several weekends ago. Many of them, likely most of them, will absolutely not be dye-in-the wool racists, or Tommy Robinson supporters at all. We absolutely should have some sophistication about how we speak about this coalition of people being brought together under a more radical right politics. At the Trump protest two weeks ago I spoke to an older socialist lady who said “I don’t think it’s helpful for people like myself to accuse them all of being fascists”. But she also unequivocally called Nigel Farage “wretched” and said “we will not allow racism… to take over our city or the UK”. It is possible to clearly do all of these things: call Farage’s politics explicitly what it is, push back on racism and have a more positive vision of identity.
Morally, you’re on shaky ground if you refuse to speak persuasively and with clarity on the state of play. Even worse, strategically it’s an absolute hiding to nowhere to think you can just push for some tax changes, and identity tensions around immigration will just be somehow overcome as a result. Progressive political forces need to have an alternative vision of identity; anything else is just unserious.
Thanks for reading our article! We know there's power in people and really appreciate everyone who reads our work. Give us a follow on Instagram and TikTok to see more of our independent journalism.