Reform UK discussion

[35B]

To be honest, people like you and Alex make me embarrassed to be of the centre-left.

Who said I was of the left, centre or otherwise?

I see the claims and they deserve to be taken seriously if true. But the manner of making them and the way they’ve been announced reeks more of MAGA claims of voter fraud than anything real.

The same applies to the grooming gang charges. I was appalled at what happened in Rotherham and elsewhere, in terms of both the refusal of the authorities to treat child protection seriously, and of their fear of dealing with things happening within specific communities. I absolutely believe that some communities are very insular, and that this campaign has seen some (notably the Greens) trading on that and reinforcing that insular identity.

The problem is however wider, and publicly targeting just one part of society does little to resolve the underlying problems - or protect current and future victims.

We need communities to integrate, not put walls around themselves.

 

[BeijingDave]

The best outcome from this election will be a heightened focus on guaranteeing that all electoral rules were observed at polling stations. It’ll also leave Farage to find other ‘issues’ to blame*.


(* He’ll never admit he got anything wrong - Trump playbook rules.)

Completely agree.

 

[Topological]

Who said I was of the left, centre or otherwise?

I see the claims and they deserve to be taken seriously if true. But the manner of making them and the way they’ve been announced reeks more of MAGA claims of voter fraud than anything real.

The same applies to the grooming gang charges. I was appalled at what happened in Rotherham and elsewhere, in terms of both the refusal of the authorities to treat child protection seriously, and of their fear of dealing with things happening within specific communities. I absolutely believe that some communities are very insular, and that this campaign has seen some (notably the Greens) trading on that and reinforcing that insular identity.

The problem is however wider, and publicly targeting just one part of society does little to resolve the underlying problems - or protect current and future victims.

We need communities to integrate, not put walls around themselves.

Invoking MAGA is also divisive. Calling Reform racist, or MAGA lite, is what they want.

We should be looking at the issues, not trying to score points. Where there is a religious angle (As is clearly the case in both Rochdale and Rotherham) then that needs calling out and explaining. 99% of the time it is a case of the offenders claiming the rationale stems from relgion rather than the actual teachings of the religion. No religion I know of preaches what the grooming gangs did, or killing innocents.

Our problem in the UK is that both the main parties exist in echo chambers detached from the real world. Brexit was never a "surprise", Boris taking the red wall was not a "shock", these are just manifestations of the failure of the main parties, and particularly Labour, to engage on the doorstep. So much of the UK is being left behind by the London elites and that needs to be addressed.

The US has similar issues with the Democrats going to Hollywood and New York. However, in the US the mad alternative has taken hold of the Republicans. We have to ensure a similar thing does not happen here. Labour needs to go back to Lancashire and the Conservatives to the Home Counties.

Reform need to be beaten by skill, not beaten by shouting "Racist" or "MAGA" at them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Invoking MAGA is also divisive. Calling Reform racist, or MAGA lite, is what they want.

How is calling out reality divisive exactly? I'd say in reality its those people stoking hate and racism that are the ones being divisive.

Reform do have racist policies, they do have racist politicians,they do have racist supporters and they are leaning into the maga playbook (cough dodge cough).

And of course the further right parties that have sprung up from reform are even worse and are even more obvious with their racism.

Are we not allowed to say that incase we hurt their feelings?

I actually agree we also need to focus on policies and hope. And that is what the greens are trying to do and maybe is what labour should try to do too.

 

[Topological]

How is calling out reality divisive exactly?
Reform do have racist policies, they do have racist politicians,they do have racist supporters and they are leaning into the maga playbook (cough dodge cough).
Are we not allowed to say that incase we hurt their feelings?

The point here is that some actually like to be identified by those labels. Reform gives a veneer of respectability from which to wear the badge without being seen as BNP or EDL.

I just strongly believe that arguments should take place on issues and not on name-calling.

I think a large part of the country would like to be able to debate policy without "ist" and "ism" labels being used. Any label immediately polarises.

 

[brad465]

Invoking MAGA is also divisive. Calling Reform racist, or MAGA lite, is what they want.

We should be looking at the issues, not trying to score points. Where there is a religious angle (As is clearly the case in both Rochdale and Rotherham) then that needs calling out and explaining. 99% of the time it is a case of the offenders claiming the rationale stems from relgion rather than the actual teachings of the religion. No religion I know of preaches what the grooming gangs did, or killing innocents.

Our problem in the UK is that both the main parties exist in echo chambers detached from the real world. Brexit was never a "surprise", Boris taking the red wall was not a "shock", these are just manifestations of the failure of the main parties, and particularly Labour, to engage on the doorstep. So much of the UK is being left behind by the London elites and that needs to be addressed.

The US has similar issues with the Democrats going to Hollywood and New York. However, in the US the mad alternative has taken hold of the Republicans. We have to ensure a similar thing does not happen here. Labour needs to go back to Lancashire and the Conservatives to the Home Counties.

Reform need to be beaten by skill, not beaten by shouting "Racist" or "MAGA" at them.

Not going to happen until party donations are banned and all lobbying is at least transparent. The way this is setup, a true grassroots average person either encounters a glass ceiling, or ends up being corrupted to break through it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Er, no... if rules are being broken, people shouldn't be scared to call it out by the possibility of being called 'racist'.

It's your type of thinking (which was institutionally entrenched) that facilitated grooming gangs.

Only focusing on one subset of people doing it is racist though.

"Family voting", which seems to mean the patriarch of the family directing how others should vote, it not particular to people with a Pakistani or Bangladeshi background. If and where it happens (and it does happen) it is a subset of domestic violence and coercive control, both of which are just as common in families from a white background.

As for the grooming gangs, they were allowed to continue because the police, quite frankly, don't give a toss about the victims of sexual violence. They never have, they never will. It had nothing to do with the racial background of the abusers. There are countless examples of people from white backgrounds committing horrific sexual violence against young people- Medomsley care home, for instance- and the police didn't give two figs about those victims either.

I have never heard of the Democracy Volunteers group before, and that immediately makes me very suspicious.

 

[35B]

The point here is that some actually like to be identified by those labels. Reform gives a veneer of respectability from which to wear the badge without being seen as BNP or EDL.

I just strongly believe that arguments should take place on issues and not on name-calling.

I think a large part of the country would like to be able to debate policy without "ist" and "ism" labels being used. Any label immediately polarises.

Your point is fair on the policy positions taken by Reform, though it's hard to get beyond the obvious "-ist" term to use about the once credible candidate and his campaign. Other terms I might use are even more likely to provoke the defensive reaction you rightly highlight as a risk.

The problem with the claims of electoral fraud is that Reform are following precisely the same playbook used by Trump after 2020. They are finding "evidence" of "electoral fraud" and presenting it to "justify" their claims of being robbed.

This isn't about them having an "ism" or being "-ist", but a straightforward statement of behaviour. And that behaviour needs to be exposed, before the lies take root and start to infect policy

I'm entirely prepared to believe that "family voting" does take place, and that Gorton may be the type of place where it can be found. But if it has been found, the issue needs to be identified and reported pro-actively, not saved for a press release after the event. I am willing to bet that no attempt will be made to present this before an electoral court, and not just because the level of claimed incidence is so low.

 

[Killingworth]

I think my most reactionary opinion is that postal voting is fraught with insecurities and it baffles me that it is permitted for anyone on demand (and not, say, restricted to the disabled or those in care homes or hospital etc). You can simply invent electors and register them, or don't de-register electors which have gone away and there are few controls on this. Just "trust me bro".

The postal vote area is where Trump does make a valid point.

 

[35B]

The postal vote area is where Trump does make a valid point.

Possibly - though I notice it is also deeply self-interested, and where he stands to gain most from suppressing votes from those least likely to vote for him.

 

[Topological]

Not going to happen until party donations are banned and all lobbying is at least transparent. The way this is setup, a true grassroots average person either encounters a glass ceiling, or ends up being corrupted to break through it.

I do believe MP salaries should be much higher and that there should be clear (and secure) accommodation for MPs in London. At that point, all other sources of income should be outlawed. For all most of us dream of a current MP salary, it is really not that high.

Parties should also be allowed to employ candidates so that the years of going through defeats to eventually be allowed access to a safer seat are compensated. That would allow for all to be able to afford to devote themselves to politics.

Off topic though. Except for the fact that Reform is just another party of rich enough candidates.

 

[Killingworth]

Possibly - though I notice it is also deeply self-interested, and where he stands to gain most from suppressing votes from those least likely to vote for him.

Naturally!

 

[Topological]

Your point is fair on the policy positions taken by Reform, though it's hard to get beyond the obvious "-ist" term to use about the once credible candidate and his campaign. Other terms I might use are even more likely to provoke the defensive reaction you rightly highlight as a risk.

The problem with the claims of electoral fraud is that Reform are following precisely the same playbook used by Trump after 2020. They are finding "evidence" of "electoral fraud" and presenting it to "justify" their claims of being robbed.

This isn't about them having an "ism" or being "-ist", but a straightforward statement of behaviour. And that behaviour needs to be exposed, before the lies take root and start to infect policy

I'm entirely prepared to believe that "family voting" does take place, and that Gorton may be the type of place where it can be found. But if it has been found, the issue needs to be identified and reported pro-actively, not saved for a press release after the event. I am willing to bet that no attempt will be made to present this before an electoral court, and not just because the level of claimed incidence is so low.

A very good response.

I was more impressed with the chairman of Reform on this than Farage.

I do not know the ins and outs of the campaign group who released the statement about family voting, or their relationship with Reform. These days you can have "arms length" groups to make outlandish statements on pretty much anything.

I just do not understand why the UK finds it so difficult to separate illegal immigration from legal immigration. We clearly benefit greatly from the latter, and need more robust mechanisms to counter the former. Reform trying to lump legal in with illegal is incredibly unhelpful. Likewise, migration statistics are unhelpful because they present a "higher number bad" approach. What we really need are numbers like the need in the NHS, the vacancies filled by immigrants and the proportion of fully qualified British nationals that did not get positions in the NHS despite wanting one (we cannot assume that all medical students want to work for the NHS, for example). Those numbers will strongly support legal immigration and yet no government seems to trust the public with the information. The result is a horrible demonisation of immigrants and a real potential that we are going to harm the very people British society benefits most from.

What we also need is much more accountability. Where there are Labour members doing something wrong, Labour needs to punish them. Where there are Manchester United supporters doing something wrong then Manchester United needs to call them out. But the same applies on immigration and race. All communities need to be louder with the "not in my name" approach, rather than the "people are against us, because they latched onto the fact that the bad people use our name".

I just think we have to engage with Reform and show them up for the empty and harmful group that they are. Not ostracise them with easy labels.

 

[JamesT]

Only focusing on one subset of people doing it is racist though.

"Family voting", which seems to mean the patriarch of the family directing how others should vote, it not particular to people with a Pakistani or Bangladeshi background. If and where it happens (and it does happen) it is a subset of domestic violence and coercive control, both of which are just as common in families from a white background.

As for the grooming gangs, they were allowed to continue because the police, quite frankly, don't give a toss about the victims of sexual violence. They never have, they never will. It had nothing to do with the racial background of the abusers. There are countless examples of people from white backgrounds committing horrific sexual violence against young people- Medomsley care home, for instance- and the police didn't give two figs about those victims either.

I have never heard of the Democracy Volunteers group before, and that immediately makes me very suspicious.

It's being focused on because that it appears that particular set of people do have a particular issue with it. The election observers noted the rates yesterday were massively higher than other elections they had observed recently, which were not in areas with a significant population of people of that background. There have been other notable cases such as Tower Hamlets which have also involved electoral abuses by people of that background.

You've not been paying attention if you think the grooming gangs response wasn't racially influenced. There have been numerous documented cases where agencies have admitted their response was influenced by a fear of being seen as racist due to the background of the abusers. Yes, white people commit these crimes too, but there does seem to be a disproportionate level from this group.

Democracy Volunteers have been going for 10 years. They were founded by John Ault, a former LibDem politician.

 

[BeijingDave]

Good points James, but in the world such posters inhabit everyone subscribes to universal, liberal, enlightenment values and these statistics are just an aberration (for racists to use).

 

[Topological]

Democracy Volunteers have been going for 10 years. They were founded by John Ault, a former LibDem politician.

This is very helpful, and presumably why the BBC chose not to mention it.

 

[35B]

It's being focused on because that it appears that particular set of people do have a particular issue with it. The election observers noted the rates yesterday were massively higher than other elections they had observed recently, which were not in areas with a significant population of people of that background. There have been other notable cases such as Tower Hamlets which have also involved electoral abuses by people of that background.

You've not been paying attention if you think the grooming gangs response wasn't racially influenced. There have been numerous documented cases where agencies have admitted their response was influenced by a fear of being seen as racist due to the background of the abusers. Yes, white people commit these crimes too, but there does seem to be a disproportionate level from this group.

Democracy Volunteers have been going for 10 years. They were founded by John Ault, a former LibDem politician.

The word “former” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. As for the specific behaviours noted, the conflation of religion, culture and race is precisely the problem - and what makes this so difficult to deal with.

Defining Gorton (where the Muslim vote appears to be of Urdu speaking Pakistani origin) as sharing ethnicity with Tower Hamlets (where the dominant Aspire party is especially associated with Bengali origin population) demonstrates the difficulties here - as even a cursory look at the history of Bangladesh will tell you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think my most reactionary opinion is that postal voting is fraught with insecurities and it baffles me that it is permitted for anyone on demand (and not, say, restricted to the disabled or those in care homes or hospital etc). You can simply invent electors and register them, or don't de-register electors which have gone away and there are few controls on this. Just "trust me bro".

I think this misunderstands how you get a postal vote.

You can't just ask for a postal vote and one turns up, no questions asked. To be able to get a postal vote you have to prove you are who you say you are.

When you make your postal vote, you have to sign the ballot paper and that signature is compared with the signature you provided at application.

I have a postal vote as I am an overseas voter, and I had to provide a copy of my passport when I applied for the vote.

It is a weakness of the postal vote system that someone could be pressured to vote a certain way. How common this is, I don't know; I suspect not very, but that's a guess. But there are ways of applying the same pressure to in-person voting, through getting a proxy vote for instance.

 

[Gloster]

This is very helpful, and presumably why the BBC chose not to mention it.

So what do you expect? A full run down on the political background and opinions of every single person who has made a comment? The information is given out, but there has a to be a balance between providing every possible tidbit that people may need and producing complete information overload for the viewer or listener? Or providing an outline of the main points? There is always compromise and there will always be some element of bias, usually unintended, but I am a firm believer that the BBC makes the best attempt to be fair and unbiased, sometimes going too far the wrong way.

 

[Topological]

I think the fact that in the polling booth no one can see what you vote for is the one thing that separates postal voting from in person voting.

However, I do agree it is just as easy to pressure someone into voting one way, and then to use post voting pressure too. I can see why those who feel they are controlled would still vote in the way they have been told even though the "controller" could never see the polling station vote.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2026 ==

So what do you expect? A full run down on the political background and opinions of every single person who has made a comment? The information is given out, but there has a to be a balance between providing every possible tidbit that people may need and producing complete information overload for the viewer or listener? Or providing an outline of the main points? There is always compromise and there will always be some element of bias, usually unintended, but I am a firm believer that the BBC makes the best attempt to be fair and unbiased, sometimes going too far the wrong way.

I would expect some distancing between the Democracy Volunteers and Reform.

They have plenty of time to add the sentence "Democracy Volunteers have no affiliation to Reform" or to edit any of the sentences in a way that suggests such.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Off topic though. Except for the fact that Reform is just another party of rich enough candidates.

I think this might actually be their undoing when it comes to parliamentary elections. It's very clear that they expect candidates to finance their own campaigns, and with it, it means that they're stuck with candidates who have no idea how to actually talk to people. Hannah pretty much showed that a candidate who is in touch with local people can win, and Reform will always struggle against someone who has a local accent and who doesn't have airs and graces.

"Family voting", which seems to mean the patriarch of the family directing how others should vote, it not particular to people with a Pakistani or Bangladeshi background. If and where it happens (and it does happen) it is a subset of domestic violence and coercive control, both of which are just as common in families from a white background.

I think the critical thing is that if this is going on, then there's a good reason to move away from postal voting and towards advance voting instead. At that point, it can be monitored, perhaps with stricter instructions that any attempt to direct the vote in a polling station is a criminal offence and should be immediately reported to the police.

But I don't necessarily believe that it's happening in one community more than others: I've certainly seen a middle-aged far right voter attempt to direct his family, and I'm sure it goes on in other families too.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You've not been paying attention if you think the grooming gangs response wasn't racially influenced. There have been numerous documented cases where agencies have admitted their response was influenced by a fear of being seen as racist due to the background of the abusers.

I'm from Bradford, mate.

The response wasn't racially motivated. The response was, quite simply, because the vulnerable children involved were seen as wasters and liars. They're poor, they're in care, of course they were consenting, you know what girls are like when there's a bit of bling on offer. That's the attitude the police took and that's the attitude the social workers took.

Of course when it blew up they all said it wasn't their fault, they were just too scared. What else were they going to say? "Nah, we just didn't give a ****."

 

[The exile]

I would expect some distancing between the Democracy Volunteers and Reform.

They have plenty of time to add the sentence "Democracy Volunteers have no affiliation to Reform" or to edit any of the sentences in a way that suggests such.

If you highlight their distance from Reform (or lack of it) you woukd have to do the same for its connections with other parties, unless it is specifically commenting on (say) an internal Reform election.

 

[35B]

A very good response.

I was more impressed with the chairman of Reform on this than Farage.

I do not know the ins and outs of the campaign group who released the statement about family voting, or their relationship with Reform. These days you can have "arms length" groups to make outlandish statements on pretty much anything.

I just do not understand why the UK finds it so difficult to separate illegal immigration from legal immigration. We clearly benefit greatly from the latter, and need more robust mechanisms to counter the former. Reform trying to lump legal in with illegal is incredibly unhelpful. Likewise, migration statistics are unhelpful because they present a "higher number bad" approach. What we really need are numbers like the need in the NHS, the vacancies filled by immigrants and the proportion of fully qualified British nationals that did not get positions in the NHS despite wanting one (we cannot assume that all medical students want to work for the NHS, for example). Those numbers will strongly support legal immigration and yet no government seems to trust the public with the information. The result is a horrible demonisation of immigrants and a real potential that we are going to harm the very people British society benefits most from.


I just think we have to engage with Reform and show them up for the empty and harmful group that they are. Not ostracise them with easy labels.

I tend to agree with you on the difficulty and importance of illegal migration. The difficulty is that the legality of migration is frequently used to cast doubt on all migrants, however they’ve arrived.

The reality is that the discussion is not about need but irreconcilable principles. On the one hand, represented in this by election by the Greens, you have those who basically don’t accept the validity of borders. On the other, you have those who basically oppose migration on principle, represented by Reform.

Discussion of numbers just doesn’t land with the electorate at large - see NF’s criticisms of the “Boris Wave” as an example. Politically, people vote more in the abstract than the specific - hence the Latinos voting for Trump who then seemed shocked that he was attacking them and their families.
M

 

[The exile]

I'm from Bradford, mate.

The response wasn't racially motivated. The response was, quite simply, because the vulnerable children involved were seen as wasters and liars. They're poor, they're in care, of course they were consenting, you know what girls are like when there's a bit of bling on offer. That's the attitude the police took and that's the attitude the social workers took.

Of course when it blew up they all said it wasn't their fault, they were just too scared. What else were they going to say? "Nah, we just didn't give a ****."

Like anything, it was surely a mixture of both.

 

[Topological]

I think this might actually be their undoing when it comes to parliamentary elections. It's very clear that they expect candidates to finance their own campaigns, and with it, it means that they're stuck with candidates who have no idea how to actually talk to people. Hannah pretty much showed that a candidate who is in touch with local people can win, and Reform will always struggle against someone who has a local accent and who doesn't have airs and graces.

I agree. I cannot see Reform polling highly in 2029.

However, I also expect that if politics were more accessible as a career we would see far more people joining parties that were not Reform. So even if the Reform candidate was not funding their own campaign, the canditates against Reform would still be stronger.

I really do not want a Green government, but I am glad Reform did not win.
I really do not want a Reform government, but I am glad Labour came 3rd.

 

[JamesT]

I think this misunderstands how you get a postal vote.

You can't just ask for a postal vote and one turns up, no questions asked. To be able to get a postal vote you have to prove you are who you say you are.

When you make your postal vote, you have to sign the ballot paper and that signature is compared with the signature you provided at application.

I have a postal vote as I am an overseas voter, and I had to provide a copy of my passport when I applied for the vote.

It is a weakness of the postal vote system that someone could be pressured to vote a certain way. How common this is, I don't know; I suspect not very, but that's a guess. But there are ways of applying the same pressure to in-person voting, through getting a proxy vote for instance.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695b9e2fe8f9a8d94d8d194c/PO_E_Postal_England_v2.pdf is the form to apply for a postal vote in England. All you need in terms of identity is to be able to provide the NI number of the person in whose name you're applying for.
As you note, the signature on the form is then compared to the signature on the ballot paper. But that doesn't guarantee the legitimate voter provided the signature in the first place!

 

[Topological]

I tend to agree with you on the difficulty and importance of illegal migration. The difficulty is that the legality of migration is frequently used to cast doubt on all migrants, however they’ve arrived.

The reality is that the discussion is not about need but irreconcilable principles. On the one hand, represented in this by election by the Greens, you have those who basically don’t accept the validity of borders. On the other, you have those who basically oppose migration on principle, represented by Reform.

Discussion of numbers just doesn’t land with the electorate at large - see NF’s criticisms of the “Boris Wave” as an example. Politically, people vote more in the abstract than the specific - hence the Latinos voting for Trump who then seemed shocked that he was attacking them and their families.
M

This is why I believe that a strong action on Illegal migration (presently manifest in the small boats) is needed.

The Green policy of completely open borders is not going to go very well either.

There is a whole chunk of the UK who are being branded as "stupid" when the world is reduced to soundbites. It may be true that soundbites stick. The NHS buses at Brexit are a great example. However, the serious point that if you stop contributing money to an organisation you still have that money is true. People do resonate with the truth. This is why the "what happened to the £350m(?) for hospitals" criticism does not stick, because the truth was always that we saved money by not being a net contributor to the EU. I think people do know deep down that immigration is a massive benefit to the UK and a similar "bus message" could be used to change the debate.

At the moment the only message out there is that illegal immigration is bad (which by definition it is, it has the word illegal in there).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Like anything, it was surely a mixture of both.

I went to school in Manningham.

It wasn't a mix of both. Social workers didn't believe the vulnerable children. Police didn't believe the vulnerable children. There's no evidence that they believed the children but were too fearful of addressing it. They just assumed the children, most of whom were in care or in dysfunctional families, were consenting because they wanted the drugs/bling/money/whatever.

Ann Cryer, the Labour MP for Keighley, was trying to raise this issue as long ago as 2000. Bradford Council labelled her a fantasist and a liar.

Very similar to how the sexual abuse of vulnerable children was so common in care homes and secure training centres.

 

[Topological]

If you highlight their distance from Reform (or lack of it) you woukd have to do the same for its connections with other parties, unless it is specifically commenting on (say) an internal Reform election.

You could. But since the story is about Reform and the claims of Reform then that is where the disclaimer needs to be.

However, I do believe that the use of "Indpendent" group "Democracy Observers" would have worked well too.