Reform UK, the political party that positions itself as a disruptor in UK politics, has made a curious and, frankly, troubling decision by appointing Jack Aaron, a man with deeply controversial views, as the head of its vetting process. Aaron, who previously made headlines for praising Adolf Hitler’s ability to inspire and defending Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, now finds himself in charge of scouring candidates’ social media and advising them on what should be removed. This decision calls into question the party’s commitment to rigorous and responsible candidate selection, especially given Aaron’s problematic history.
Aaron’s comments, which included a bizarre defense of Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine as “legitimate,” have already caused significant controversy. Despite being part of a growing movement of Reform candidates who were dismissed for offensive remarks, Aaron has somehow emerged as the person tasked with overseeing the vetting of future candidates. One would expect someone with a clearer moral compass to take on such a crucial role. Instead, Reform UK has put someone with a history of controversial and insensitive statements in charge of ensuring the party avoids similar pitfalls in the future. It’s hard to imagine a more glaring contradiction.
Reform UK, under the leadership of Nigel Farage, has promised more rigorous vetting processes following the public backlash to a string of offensive remarks from its candidates. Yet appointing Aaron, who has publicly made light of some of history’s most infamous figures, undermines any efforts to restore credibility. While Aaron’s background—being Jewish and having family members who suffered at the hands of the Nazis—might suggest some depth of personal experience with such matters, it does little to change the fact that his comments on Hitler, Putin, and Assad reveal a disturbing tendency to downplay authoritarianism and violence. His comments, despite claims of “nuance” and “psychological perspectives,” are deeply irresponsible and undermine any credibility the vetting process might have.
The party’s defense—that socionomics, Aaron’s pseudoscientific personality theory, does not influence candidate vetting—fails to adequately address the issue at hand. The real question is: how did Reform UK allow someone with such problematic views to rise to such a position of power? While Zia Yusuf, the party chair, claims that the party now has the most rigorous vetting process in the country, this decision contradicts that claim. If Reform UK cannot vet the person responsible for vetting their candidates, how can anyone take their assurances seriously?
Aaron’s past defense of dictators and his dismissive attitude towards the brutality of figures like Putin and Assad should be alarming, not just to Reform UK but to anyone concerned about the direction of politics in the UK. When a party’s vetting process is headed by someone with such controversial opinions, it raises serious questions about the values and principles they hold dear. The public deserves better than a party that seems to care more about political power than upholding the integrity of its candidates.
Reform UK’s future may hinge on whether it can distance itself from figures like Aaron and prove that it can prioritize ethical leadership over controversial figures who threaten to undermine the party’s credibility. If not, its position as a serious political force will likely remain in doubt. It’s time for Reform to take a hard look at itself before it claims the moral high ground in British politics.