Russell Armstrong is one of the 51 Reform Derby candidates (Chellaston and Shelton Lock) standing for election on May 4th 2023 – this is his first time standing for election. I was interested to understand more about Reform Derby and what it stands for. What underpins some of its policies and how these relate to some inflammatory comments in its leaflets about immigrants. Getting the view from a newcomer to the Party was particularly interesting.

Derby News: In this interview are you representing Reform Derby or yourself?

Russell Armstrong: A good question! Because we don’t have a whip within our group we are all free to express our own points of view. We have a collective understanding between all of us that is mostly the same, but there are different people with different subtle opinions. We are largely of the same thought – we want more transparency in the local governance, we want better visibility on decisions that are being made and we want to have a better approach to how the whole thing fits together. We feel that it is rather disjointed how the Council is run in its separate parts.

Manifesto vs Contract

DN : You have decided to call your election document a “contract” rather than a “manifesto”. Why does the use of the word “contract” make it more legitimate? A contract implies that you expect something back for what you’re going to do – is that correct?

RA: No -that’s not really how we wanted it. Historically a party’s manifesto is an intent to do something but then they never end up doing it. We wanted to put something forward that was more definite – these are the things that we’re going to achieve.

DN: But they can still be subject to non-delivery. There’s nothing inherently different about the way that it’s written that it is more likely to be delivered because you’ve used the word “contract” vs “manifesto”. There is no additional obligation on you.

RA: We feel there is. We own that promise. Because we come to the table with fresh views. There’s many people who are standing this time who have not been in local politics before so we come with a lot of new views and a lot of enthusiasm and want to deliver on something that we believe in.

DN: When you say it is fresh, a big proportion of that document was in the 2018 UKIP manifesto. I interviewed Alan Graves on 2 separate occasions ( when he was leader of UKIP Derby) and the same policies come through. What are the fresh ideas that come forward into the contract that we haven’t seen before.

RA: From a personal point of view I don’t know anything about UKIP or Brexit Party. That has no meaning for me – “these are the sins of my father”. I came into this without a “banner” or a “label”. I am neither left nor right….I look at this and ask, ‘is what has been written before, relevant, contemporary and is it sensible’ and to my mind nothing is neither left nor right if it’s sensible

Local politics should be far less partsian and more about our community than Westminster type politics.

Common Sense

DN : You say on a number of occasions within the contract that you will bring “common sense” to politics. That implies that everyone else hasn’t brought common sense to politics. Do you think that it’s likely that no one else has common sense but Reform Derby candidates do?

RA: We have to be careful about one statement being a global statement. When a series of decisions are made by the Cabinet that don’t make sense then that lacks “common sense”.

DN: What examples do you have where people in the Council have not operated with “common sense” as opposed to you “just not agreeing with it”.

RA: The temporary forest in the town centre – it was a waste of money. Even if it was a grant from government – that’s still our tax payers money. A lack of joined up thinking – what was the purpose of that. If they didn’t have the money would they have done it – no, I don’t think so. That doesn’t make any common sense. The Guildhall? Why isn’t anything happening with that? The Eagle Market – with all of those individual traders having to leave so they can build their 29 storey apartments without any car parking. That doesn’t make sense.

DN: But that’s not the Council, of course – that’s a private decision.

RA: So, how did the private company get hold of the building?

DN : They bought it off Intu. The decision to close down the Eagle Market is a decision by Cale Street Investments not Derby City Council. So it’s not an issue for common sense in the Council. If Reform had been running the Council then you would have been as powerless as any other party when the decision is made by a private organisation.

Being whipped

DN : On a separate subject, which Reform Derby make a great play on, is about not being “whipped”. It says in your contract “this means that Westminster does not control or influence us”. Westminster doesn’t control how the main parties in Derby vote on a motion that’s taking place in the Council meeting. That’s just not true.

RA : We have to be careful of getting into globalised type statements. When we say Westminster we mean the individual Party HQs.

DN : I’m not sure why Party HQs would want to influence the local motions discussed at Council which have no national significance.., for example the Budget.

RA: I think there are influences from central sources that have got a bigger sway on what happens in the Council than we can imagine.

DN : Like what?

RA: When voting for the Budget, party members have to vote for the Budget or they’ll be out. I’ve seen it happen.

DN: But that’s local “whipping” which is transparent and known about. That’s the nature of it. It’s not a national influence.

DN: If a vote was coming to a Full Council that was on a subject in your “contract” wouldn’t all Reform Derby Councillors be obligated to vote for that particular issue given that it was in your “contract”.

RA: Let’s say that there was motion brought forward that was not quite what was in the contract…say 80% of it with some tweaking. That would leave us to decide whether the tweaking of it was a step away from what we had promised.

DN : But if it was exactly as you’d promised in your contract then you’d be obligated to vote for it?

RA : Not obligated – it’s still a free choice.

DN: It’s a contractual obligation surely? If you’ve told the public what you would deliver X, and the opportunity came up to vote for X then it’s not unreasonable that the people who voted for you, would expect you to vote for it.

RA: It’s not an obligation…it’s semantics.

DN: If you’re standing as a Party and the opportunity exists to vote for things that you said you would deliver then there can’t always be a free choice because that would imply that if you vote for Reform Derby then they may or may not vote for the very things that they have contracted to deliver and so it is an obligation and therefore, in effect, whipped.

Committee system

DN: Regarding the committee system. On Reform’s publicity video it was stated that the Cabinet can overturn decisions of the Council which wouldn’t happen with a Committee system. This isn’t true. Full Council makes few decisions in reality – most are made by the Cabinet. Is that what Reform Derby generally believes to be the case?

RA: The Full Council votes and then the Cabinet will decide whether they take that as an advisory and do what they want.

DN: The Full Council only votes on a limited range of subjects – mainly the Budget, constiutional matters and Cllr motions. They don’t vote on the the full range of executive decisions – that is not Full Council.

RA: OK.

Attendance at meetings

DN : The Audit and Governance Committee is one of the main Council committees and it doesn’t have a Reform Cllr on the committee even though there is a vacancy for them.

RA : If that is the case then that’s something that I’d want to look into and ask why isn’t this happening.

DN: Likewise the Cabinet meeting. The leaders of the opposition groups have a right ot attend the Cabinet meeting and make representations. However Alan Graves ( Leader – Reform Derby) doesn’t consistently attend and give input.

RA : I can’t comment on this.

Local Referendum

DN: Moving onto an old UKIP policy which is about holding a referendum, if 5% of the electorate disagree with a Council decision on planning or service provision. How would that work for a planning decision where it’s a legal process?

RA: I’d have to refer that to Alan Graves.

Housing

DN: On Housing – you have a policy which says that “housing should be for people who live in Derby”. What does that mean as Council Housing is only available for people who live in Derby in any case? This was a UKIP policy.

RA : Let’s make sure that it is working properly. I’m not sure how the point system for Council Housing works.

DN: I don’t think that this is about whether people “live in Derby” but whether they were “born in Derby”.

RA: No! I wasn’t born in Derby. It doesn’t say “born in Derby” anyway.

DN: Post interview

DN : So under “common sense “policies you’re just repeating what the existing policy and legal position is.

RA: We are re–iterating that we’re happy to go along with that.

DN: So, under your policy, an asylum seeker who is given leave to remain (then becoming a refugee) whilst living in Derby, who has therefore a “local connection” is perfectly entitled to be allocated a Council House?

RA: What are they before? The definition of asylum seeker and / or illegal immigrant – very very different but similar things. What makes somebody illegal and what makes somebody not legal as seeking asylum. To me someone seeking asylum is someone fleeing war, torture , persecution. Somebody who lives in a country which doesn’t have any of these things …does that mean that they are legitimately seeking asylum or something else?

DN : An illegal imigrant is someone who has broken the law,. An asylum seeker hasn’t broken any law.

RA: Do they claim asylum at the point of entry into the country or before, or do they just come in and keep quiet about what they’re doing?

DN: You can’t claim asylum by being quiet – you claim asylum when you enter the country or at a police station.

RA: Each individual person has to be looked at as an individual case- you can’t say because one is illegal that all are illegal and vice versa. How do you talk about a wide ranging subject in a sensible honest way without talking too much globally?

DN: I agree however this isn’t how it seems that many in Reform Derby view it. The implication in some social media posts is that asylum seekers are a threat to the community. One of your themes is around “community” and Derby is a community of many nationalities and a good proportion have been through the asylum process, legally, and will be anxious because of a political party within the community disenfranchising them and their right to be here.

RA: I personally haven’t seen this within the Party. As far as I’m concerned we, as a country, had an influence over most of the world , then we must accept people coming back here.

DN: Are you comfortable that people who have been granted asylum might be considered a higher priority for housing than someone who is an existing resident of Derby?

RA : I think we should err on the side of keeping people safe and secure.

Armed Forces

DN: Your contract mentions in a number of places about Armed Forces. One policy states that you will “care for Armed Forces”. What care are the Armed Forces not getting?

RA : I don’t think they are getting the right level of medical treatment for PTSD, for example.

DN: A popular statement is that Derby has a number of Armed Forces personnel living on the street. Is that your belief?

RA : Yes that’s what I’ve heard.

DN: Do you believe that they’ve been refused help by Derby City Council?

RA: I don’t know.

DN: In reality Armed Forces are a priority within the Housing allocation policy and the Council will sort out any Armed Forces people who are living on the streets. Is it the case that Reform Derby are using a misunderstanding of this situation to suggest that Reform Derby is the only party that is interested in the Armed Forces?

RA: I haven’t seen any evidence of that – I don’t think Reform Derby is using it as a political stunt.

DN: The contract statement on housing that states that armed forces will have a priority implies that this is a new policy and not an existing legal obligation and that only Reform Derby will make them a priority.

RA : So we’re agreeing with what already happens.

Council Tax

DN : On Council Tax you state that you’ll keep it as low as possible. That implies that you could still put it up by 5%.

RA : I wouldn’t want to! I think the people making financial decisions are not necessarily making prudent financial choices. I think they could be making better decisions, and getting better value choices.

DN: 70%+ of the Council services are statutory ( Adult and Children Social Care) so there are less choices.

RA: Let’s look at the finances and see what could be changed that could maintain or provide a better service and still reduce costs. If you can’t, you can’t. I would want to have an open view on the entire subject. If true then there are a lot of savings that we could make.

DN: But “as low as possible” still could be +5% – so you’re not actually making a commitment to maintain Council Tax or reduce it. You’re essentially saying ” we’ll do our best”.

RA: If I could reverse the recent 5% increase, I would. I think it’s wrong that the Council just put the tax up to match the cap. It needs someone from outside the current system to bring fresh eyes on to the subject. I think this is what Reform Derby stands for.

Being independent

DN: Why did you not stand as Independent because what you seem to be expressing is not mainstream Reform Derby.

RA: Two things about that – firstly, most of the people I speak to in the group have views similar to mine, and secondly to be able to come together as a group to have enough votes, to effect, effective change. As an independent you can’t effect change within the infrastrcuture of the Council

DN: You can’t unless you’re a member of the Cabinet which Reform Derby are not part of. You have reservations about the views of the other parties, do you have any reservations about views expressed by people within Reform Derby.

RA: No views that I’ve seen expressed are a deal breaker for me. If someone does come out with something which I find unbecoming then I will have a discussion.

DN: On the more unsavoury aspects of things, would you go out of your way to encourage people to think differently or do you support their view because you know that way that you’ll get their votes.

RA: I would seek to understand why they think the way they do. I hate people who are bigotted, mysogynistic, racist, sexist etc. So, for example, if someone says we shouldn’t let asylum seekers in the country and say “they’re just coming here to sponge off us”. I’d ask , are these people so wrapped up in a certain narrative that they can’t take things apart and study them for what they should be studied for.

DN: I think that people firmly believe that they are right and that’s the worrying part of it. I think there is a responsibility of Councillors and candidates to encourage people to see the more positive side of that subject rather than reassuring people that their bigotted thoughts are actually true. Because if a candidate agrees with a resident then they’re more likely to get the vote – that’s the political rationale.

RA: I would hope that I wouldn’t fall into that trap. I’m not made like that. I’m hoping that I’m putting across to you that what your thoughts about Reform are, are not to be found in me.

DN: That’s the impression I’m getting and relates back to my opening question. Are you comfortable with all of the literature that’s gone out under the Reform Derby banner.

RA: I can’t say that I’ve seen all of the leaflets – only the ones for my Ward. I can’t comment unless you give me a specific example.

DN : Post interview

Fact Check:

• £7million isn’t spent on “illegal migrants” who, by definition, exist outside of the legal process. It should refer to asylum seekers who have a legal status and are being accommodated under s95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
• Any accommodation is private/Home Office and not Council/ social housing so local residents are not being de-prioritised.
• Approximately 80% of asylum seekers are given refugee status – the statement that “most migrants are not refugees is false.
• “A large proportion come from Europe” – Home Office statistics state that 24% come from Europe ( this includes Turkey, Russia and other ex-Soviet republics and Albania)

DN: It’s difficult to see what Reform Derby stands for as a group as it seems to be a party with no obligation to vote in any way.

RA: If on balance, you’ve got someone in the party who you’ve got doubts about and not sure about their views and then you’ve got someone like myself who you can agree with – do I have the opportunity to balance those skills by bringing my passion and my enthusiasm and my beliefs, which are honourable, to say to those people who might have these other thoughts to say “come on guys, we can’t be like this”. There is nothing I’ve seen that make me think that it’s toxic – it’s all positive.

Comment

Like many Council candidates, especially those who have never stood before, Russell Armstrong would have had no direct involvement in the production of the Party materials, apart from his own Ward leaflet. All parties have a range of beliefs and opinions. It’s clear from my interview, that Russell Armstrong assesses issues from a straighforward, balanced and independent perspective.

Reform Derby is a party that is full of contradictions. It’s a party that’s not a party – it’s a group of people who have no cohesive policy agenda ( a good proportion is 2018 UKIP manifesto vintage) nor any overt mutual obligation to pursue deliverables. A group of Independents – by definition.

It champions the principle of not being “whipped” yet on the 1st page of their manifesto/contract, they publicise themselves as “Kingmakers” – an influence that can only be truly exerted if all Reform Derby Cllrs vote in the same way – i.e. by being “whipped”. I’m sure they would say, in that circumstance, that they would have had a free-choice to be whipped.

Reform Derby are the sole advocates of the Committee system for decision making within the Council. There was a team looking at re-implementation within the last 5 years but was unsuccessful principally because the main parties didn’t support it. Where there is a majority party then, arguably, it would delay decisions; where it is a “hung” Council, which is the current situation, then it would be more inclusive of Cllrs across the party spectrum.

The change to a more proportional voting system is supported by a number of smaller parties. Interestingly if this was implemented then, based on the last 2 election results, Reform Derby would lose 2 of its original 6 seats.

It also promotes “free speech” as a policy headline whilst questioning the value of driving out “hate speech”suggesting that they would prefer historical levels of unchecked “hate speech”?

It may well be a legitimate use of free speech to overtly distinguish a sub-group of people “born in Derby”. How that improves community spirit in such a diverse City is not self-evident.

The vilification of asylum seekers ( under the misnomer of “illegal immigrants”) in the leaflets is concerning; many of whom make Derby their home when they get refugee status. To whip up an antipathy towards a section of society on the ill-informed notion that they are “illegal”, or suggest that they have less legitimacy than others, or that they have inappropriately taken a Council House in priority to a “Derby person” is not helpful in a modern multi-cultural City. It breeds divisions and “hate speech”.

That may be an unintended consequence of unencumbered “free speech”, but it is a consequence.