Reform and ‘two-tier Britain’ have become synonymous with one another.
One cannot live without the other. For every mention of Reform, it appears as though one must also mention ‘two-tier Britain.’ The two are simply inseparable.
Indeed, two-tier Britain is a phrase that has been tossed about of late. It is an ideology that fuels Nigel Farage, grounded in the logic that certain groups are treated differently (and often times better) than others. It forms the basis for his political philosophy and is an accusation levied against Labour, against the British police force, and against DEI initiatives across the UK.
It is a worthy endeavour to seek to end, no one would deny that. Equality for all is a worthy and noble objective for any politician who submits themselves to the scrutiny of public office. Yet, despite such a noble goal, Reform’s recent announcements seek not to end two-tier Britain, but to exacerbate it – creating a two-tier Britain that only they are content with.
It would appear, therefore, that Reform have fallen victim to perhaps the most damning political illness of them all – hypocrisy.
The evidence for this?
Farage’s turquoise troopers propose to reduce employer National Insurance from 15 per cent to 13.8 per cent as a rebuttal to Labour’s previous hike in the 2024 Budget. The catch, however, is that the reduction will only apply to British nationals. Foreign workers who are employed by the same companies, who perform the same job, will attract a vastly higher rate for employers.
On top of this, companies which employ foreign nationals would face a graduated levy – £3,750 for a minimum wage hire, reduced down to £500 for someone who is on six figures. It would appear then, at least on the surface, to be straightforward logic. In making a foreign worker more expensive to hire, Reform seek to incentivise the hiring of British workers.
But the reality is not one of fairness, but one of hypocrisy. In seeking to defeat ‘two-tier Britain,’ Reform have, in fact, done the opposite. They have enabled the creation of a system which prioritises one group of people over another, just in a different font.
Now, there will be those which argue that such an act restores fairness to an already broken system. That Britain is, at the moment, fundamentally unfair and fosters an environment which benefits those who are not born in Britain. Following this logic, this means of ‘fixing the system’ as it were is not an episode of hypocrisy but of restorative justice.
This is a tempting argument to make, I will admit, but it is an argument that does not hold water. There is no law, nor piece of legislation which compels employers to hire foreign nationals over domestic ones. Foreign nationals are often hired as a result of availability, willingness, or price. This is the free market in action, rather than a state-imposed injustice. The response from Reform to level the playing field through state-imposed means is thus a solution which tilts the playing field in a different direction, therefore. It is an act of overcorrection – an idea which Reform have pushed back against significantly when it comes to DEI initiatives. Yet, they have fallen victim to it themselves.
I would contest, therefore, that this policy proposal exposes a fundamental contradiction within Reform’s platform. It is one thing to support the end of ‘two-tier Britain’ and another to promote the interests of British workers ahead of foreign nationals – but the two cannot exist simultaneously. They are inherently contradictory. One cannot claim that two-tier Britain is unacceptable when it disadvantages British nationals, but acceptable when it disadvantages foreign nationals.
The basis for the criticism of two-tier Britain is founded in a simple principle. Namely, that equality before the law and state is non-negotiable. That, no matter your skin colour, ethnicity or gender, you will be treated the same as anyone else by the law of the land.
Yet Jenrick proposes that workers who do the same job should cost their employer different amounts solely based on their identity. For a party that rails against identity politics so forcefully, Reform certainly knows how to play to it when the need arises. Were any other MP from any other party to claim that employers should pay different levels of National Insurance based on the nationality of their employee, they would be accused of exacerbating two-tier Britain. When Reform do it, however, it is considered acceptable.
But beyond the identity politics, there is also a practical inconsistency that deserves more attention than it has received. Jenrick acknowledged, with an unusual degree of honesty I might add, that Reform’s separate pledge – to abolish permanent settlement rights for migrants – would cause the levy’s tax base to “rapidly shrink.” The compensation, he argued, would come from reduced unemployment benefit payments as British workers filled the roles left empty.
But this is a policy that is simultaneously supposed to raise £11.2 billion and to eliminate the conditions that generate that revenue. Either the foreign workers remain – in which case the levy raises money – or they leave and are replaced by British workers, in which case it doesn’t. The maths does not add up.
Were this not bad enough, the announcement sits within a pattern that is becoming difficult to ignore. In recent weeks, Reform has pledged a VAT cut for smaller businesses, an Air Passenger Duty exemption for families on short-haul flights, a ban on foreign nationals in social housing, the elimination of tax on overtime and now this.
There is a common thread – the absence of credible costing. Too often, these policies are floated to the public and sold as the solution to Britain’s economic woes. Yet when put under the microscope, they collapse into nothing more than unfunded commitments designed to appease a select group of voters. There is no serious economic rationale behind such policies. As one Tory MP told me “Reform seem to have given up on even the pretence of fiscal responsibility.”
None of this is to say the underlying concern is illegitimate, however. Labour market pressures exist, and such pressures have failed to be addressed by parties on the right of British politics. But Reform is not addressing them seriously, nor fairly – only rhetorically, through a policy that is riddled with internal contradictions and mathematical inconsistencies.
The phrase ‘two-tier Britain’ can be tossed around as much as the right want. But for Reform, there are two versions of it. One they will happily scrutinise and lambast. And one that quietly suits them fine.
They only oppose two-tier Britain when it is a problem for them. It is political opportunism masquerading as virtue. That is not the behaviour of a serious party of government, and it should be called out at every opportunity.