Reform UK discussion

[Purple Train]

Minor pointless piece of trivia about the family voting fuss - the Democracy Volunteers' chairman, John Ault, won a Top Gear competition for the "fastest political party", representing the Lib Dems, back in the early-mid 2000s.

I think that what the by-election shows, more than anything about Reform's polling, is the massive Trumpification of Reform - picking a TV presenter who makes Starmer look charismatic as a candidate for political office, using AI-generated images rather than running a proper campaign, and then creating a voter fraud narrative to implicate the "other people".

I really think Trump is not a vote-winner over here: maybe among some of Reform's voter based but by no means all of it. But nobody wins elections by pandering only to their voter base. (Though, as Labour are finding out, pandering only to someone else's voter base is worse.)

 

[BAFRA77]

However, the UK is not the first safe country encountered, so we are not condemning anyone by processing elsewhere.

That claim simply doesn’t stand up.

There is no rule in international law that forces refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country - none.

So pretending the UK can wash its hands because someone passed through France or anywhere else is legally wrong and morally evasive.

And calling a country ‘safe’ in the abstract means nothing if it’s unsafe for that person - whether they’re LGBTQ+, a political dissident, or someone targeted by gangs or authorities elsewhere.

If the UK ships people to a place where they face danger, poor legal protections, or no meaningful asylum process, then yes, we are condemning them.

The route they travelled doesn’t erase our responsibilities, and it certainly doesn’t justify outsourcing them.

 

[Railwaycat]

You will need to explain

Family voting is something which happens before the winner is known. There was less evidence of Family Voting in the Helsby and Runcorn by-election.

And who's to say any 'family voting' wasn't for reform?

 

[Topological]

And who's to say any 'family voting' wasn't for reform?

Indeed. It is just a subset who want to go on about it.

Family voting is against the rules and should be reported whoever the votes were in favour of. Maybe only the party that thinks the votes were against them will report, but you never know...

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

That claim simply doesn’t stand up.

There is no rule in international law that forces refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country - none.

So pretending the UK can wash its hands because someone passed through France or anywhere else is legally wrong and morally evasive.

And calling a country ‘safe’ in the abstract means nothing if it’s unsafe for that person - whether they’re LGBTQ+, a political dissident, or someone targeted by gangs or authorities elsewhere.

If the UK ships people to a place where they face danger, poor legal protections, or no meaningful asylum process, then yes, we are condemning them.

The route they travelled doesn’t erase our responsibilities, and it certainly doesn’t justify outsourcing them.

If you wish to call me morally evasive then so be it. I would prefer a reasoned debate for allowing small boat arrivals than insults, but...

Which people are left in an unsafe country because the boats get stopped?

 

[Lewisham2221]

And who's to say any 'family voting' wasn't for reform?

Reform and their supporters clearly seem to be implying that the "family voting" was being carried out by Muslims and in favour of the Greens. I'm not quite sure how Reform thinks these people would've otherwise voted, if such allegations are even true. Suggesting that 4000+ Muslim voters would've otherwise voted for Reform - a party who quite openly despise them - is something of a stretch. If anything, those votes would surely have gone to Labour, which would've still resulted in Reform losing out. The only other interpretation could be that they think these people wouldn't have voted at all, but I think that's a bit of a stretch also.

 

[35B]

Which people are left in an unsafe country because the boats get stopped?

Irrelevant. The issue is that these claiming refugee status wish to get to the UK and under international are allowed to claim asylum where they choose.

The small boats exist because the UK is a desirable destination for many, and as a matter of policy forces those who cannot be legitimate economic migrants to get here before they can claim asylum.

 

[Topological]

Irrelevant. The issue is that these claiming refugee status wish to get to the UK and under international are allowed to claim asylum where they choose.

The small boats exist because the UK is a desirable destination for many, and as a matter of policy forces those who cannot be legitimate economic migrants to get here before they can claim asylum.

This is the part that I, and I am sure others, advocate doing something about.

Ideally the closer that place that pre-claim can be made to the origin of the individual, is the less criminal activity is supported. The boat is only the final stage of the process.

Indeed, we could simply offer flights to a processing location in the UK.

I do not see why we have to accept small boat arrivals.

 

[ainsworth74]

There is no rule in international law that forces refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country - none.

And it's worth noting that most of them do claim asylum in the first safe country. Take Afghans (in the news here recently). According to the Migration Observatory (citing UNHCR data) the UK was hosting 66,000 Afghan refugees. Pakistan meanwhile was hosting 1.7 million and Iran 3.4 million.

Afghan asylum seekers and refugees in the UK - Migration Observatory

This briefing examines the migration of Afghan asylum seekers and refugees to the UK.

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

(Figure 10 towards the bottom of the page)

Most Afghans absolutely claimed asylums in the first safe (or safe ish) country they reached.

Turkey hosts on the order of 3 million Syrian refugees.

Türkiye currently hosts some 3.2 million registered Syrian refugees along with close to 222,000 persons of concern from other nationalities.

https://www.unhcr.org/tr/en/kime-yardim-ediyoruz/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-tuerkiye

The UK hosts around 30,000.

In 2019, it was calculated that around 47,000 Syrians were living in the UK, but that number is thought to have since fallen to around 30,000.

Syrian asylum seekers in limbo as countries halt applications

Austria, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Greece have all said they will suspend asylum decisions for now.

www.bbc.co.uk

Or Ukrainians. Germany hosts around 1.2 million and Poland around another million.

At the end of December 2025, the EU countries hosting the highest number of beneficiaries of temporary protection from Ukraine were Germany (1 250 620 people; 28.7% of the EU total), Poland (969 240; 22.3%) and Czechia (393 055; 9.0%).

Temporary protection for persons fleeing Ukraine - monthly statistics - Statistics Explained - Eurostat

On 4 March 2022, the European Council unanimously adopted an implementing decision introducing temporary protection for people fleeing Ukraine as a consequence of Russia's invasion.

ec.europa.eu

Figures vary a little bit for the UK but it's probably between 200,000 at the low end and 300,000 at the high end.

About 310,000 Ukrainians have been welcomed to the UK under special visa schemes following Russia's invasion in February 2022.

Ukrainian family denied UK asylum told to block out bombs with headphones

Thousands of Ukrainians were welcomed to the UK in 2022 after Russia invaded. But Home Office figures show there has since been a dramatic reduction in the numbers now being approved for asylum.

news.sky.com

The overwhelming majority of refugees globally do seek asylum in the first safe country they come to (or one very close). It's a handful of the numbers globally that go elsewhere. Usually because they have some attachment (family or history, usually colonial), some grasp of the language (if you speak a bit of English but no French where would you rather go to start a new life?), or think it is a safe place that will treat them well and that they've heard of (that's our cultural soft power working for us again). Plus most of them hope that they'll get to go home someday so why flee to the other side of the world?

I wish people would drop this nonsense about having to seek safety in the first safe country they come to. Most of them already do! If they didn't we'd know about it because there would be millions more asylum seekers rocking up than do in reality.

 

[35B]

This is the part that I, and I am sure others, advocate doing something about.

Ideally the closer that place that pre-claim can be made to the origin of the individual, is the less criminal activity is supported. The boat is only the final stage of the process.

Indeed, we could simply offer flights to a processing location in the UK.

I do not see why we have to accept small boat arrivals.

I am uncomfortable about the assertion of a causal connection between migration and crime, but get the point. What concerns me is that too much of policy focuses on the stick of "stop the boats" but ignores the role of providing a carrot to divert the traffic.

 

[Topological]

I am uncomfortable about the assertion of a causal connection between migration and crime, but get the point. What concerns me is that too much of policy focuses on the stick of "stop the boats" but ignores the role of providing a carrot to divert the traffic.

Same. That is why I want a carrot-led policy. But I do want a policy.

 

[JGurney]

So why was that happening much, much less in Helsby & Runcorn?

No idea. There is not enough data to theorise.

The idea that significant numbers of young Muslims would have voted Reform if their parents had not coerced them into voting for some other party, or that significant numbers of Muslim women might have voted Reform if their husbands had not coerced them otherwise, is inherently absurd. Coercion of votors must be prevented as a matter of principle, but I do not believe it is a factor which created bias against Reform in this by-election.

 

[JamesT]

Same. That is why I want a carrot-led policy. But I do want a policy.

What is the carrot to stop people wanting to come to the UK? Providing processing centres in countries reached before they get to the UK is most likely to increase numbers as you’ve made it easier to apply. People who are willing to pay traffickers or risk death are hardly likely to just accept a rejection from such a centre and not try the illegal route too.

 

[35B]

No idea. There is not enough data to theorise.

The idea that significant numbers of young Muslims would have voted Reform if their parents had not coerced them into voting for some other party, or that significant numbers of Muslim women might have voted Reform if their husbands had not coerced them otherwise, is inherently absurd. Coercion of votors must be prevented as a matter of principle, but I do not believe it is a factor which created bias against Reform in this by-election.

I agree strongly. However, if I wanted to argue this for Reform, I would argue that those probably went from Labour to the Greens, and that this inflated the Green vote to the detriment of the Reform vote - and therefore affected their chances of winning the election. The mathematical hole in that argument is that such a switch would have boosted Labour, and merely altered the balance between Greens and Labour.

However, I very much doubt that the allegations are being made in any kind of good faith, and believe firmly that Reform are pushing this argument to try to undermine confidence in the system as a whole

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

What is the carrot to stop people wanting to come to the UK? Providing processing centres in countries reached before they get to the UK is most likely to increase numbers as you’ve made it easier to apply. People who are willing to pay traffickers or risk death are hardly likely to just accept a rejection from such a centre and not try the illegal route too.

Possibly. But making the decision clear before landing in the UK would make it virtually impossible to claim asylum because the previous failure would be on record - something which would be a deterrent to most.

 

[BeijingDave]

No idea. There is not enough data to theorise.

The idea that significant numbers of young Muslims would have voted Reform if their parents had not coerced them into voting for some other party, or that significant numbers of Muslim women might have voted Reform if their husbands had not coerced them otherwise, is inherently absurd.

Oh right, nothing to see here then, let's just let people crowd into voting booths together because it's their culture.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Oh right, nothing to see here then, let's just let people crowd into voting booths together because it's their culture.

What is alleged to have happened is wrong, if it indeed did happen, and it should have been stopped at the time. However, even the chairman of Reform has said that it didn't prevent his candidate from winning

 

[Topological]

What is the carrot to stop people wanting to come to the UK? Providing processing centres in countries reached before they get to the UK is most likely to increase numbers as you’ve made it easier to apply. People who are willing to pay traffickers or risk death are hardly likely to just accept a rejection from such a centre and not try the illegal route too.

There will not be an illegal route. Arrival by boat will be immediate deportation to the designated safe country where the processing centre is.

Whilst criminals exist to exploit, there is a tool there to make it a non-workable model.

Meanwhile, it would be good to have a bit more cooperation from the French side.

I have no problem if numbers increase. If there are more people who qualify, then more people should be offered.

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

No idea. There is not enough data to theorise.

The idea that significant numbers of young Muslims would have voted Reform if their parents had not coerced them into voting for some other party, or that significant numbers of Muslim women might have voted Reform if their husbands had not coerced them otherwise, is inherently absurd. Coercion of votors must be prevented as a matter of principle, but I do not believe it is a factor which created bias against Reform in this by-election.

I think the bigger issue is that their votes become invalid.

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh right, nothing to see here then, let's just let people crowd into voting booths together because it's their culture.

That isn't what he's saying, is it? It seems clear that regardless of however much family voting went on, it wasn't enough to affect the outcome of the election.

 

[jon0844]

I have a postal vote, and have done since routine postal voting was introduced about 20 years ago. At the time, I regularly worked away or was travelling, so unable to be confident of being near the polling station during opening times. The previous rules, by contrast, were extremely restrictive and would have meant that there were some elections I simply could not have voted in

The requirements for registering a postal vote have become more robust over time, and the attested fraud levels have reduced.

"Family voting" is more of a challenge and, as the examples show, exhibits in a number of ways.

I don't know why it's suddenly suggested family voting is a thing that only Muslims do, but I recall campaigns in the last US election that told (female) American voters not to just vote for who you were told to. I am pretty sure it's always been a thing and isn't unique to any one group of demographic.

Here's one example:

When my son gets to voting age, I want him to be able to make up his mind and not ask me who I voted for.. but I suspect this is commonplace. I'd be amazed if many households have people voting for different people.

 

[35B]

I don't know why it's suddenly suggested family voting is a thing that only Muslims do, but I recall campaigns in the last US election that told (female) American voters not to just vote for who you were told to. I am pretty sure it's always been a thing and isn't unique to any one group of demographic.

Here's one example:

Precisely. Hence my comments about coercive control upthread.

 

[Topological]

This is probably the point to say correlation is not causation.

We see a higher level of reported family voting in the Gorton and Denton by-election. We see a different demographic characteristic of the constituency. These are both knowns.

 

[Class73Electro]

What is the carrot to stop people wanting to come to the UK? Providing processing centres in countries reached before they get to the UK is most likely to increase numbers as you’ve made it easier to apply. People who are willing to pay traffickers or risk death are hardly likely to just accept a rejection from such a centre and not try the illegal route too.

But then it IS an illegal entry. If there is a legal route into the UK, with, as others have said, a processing centre, then if you are rejected, you will be recorded as having rejected, and you try the boat method, and you will then be deported. problem solved.

 

[DarloRich]

You will need to explain

Family voting is something which happens before the winner is known. There was less evidence of Family Voting in the Helsby and Runcorn by-election.

Reform wouldn't be wittering about this if they won.

Rather than wonder if appealing to one section of the community is enough to win it is easier to say the defeat is because of cheating.

 

[weeklycommuter]

There is no rule in international law that forces refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country - none.

The European Union Dublin Regulation that the UK was part of until leaving the EU at the end of 2020.

It clearly convinced almost all who might otherwise have crossed the Channel in small boats to seek asylum in the UK as very few did so while the UK was covered by the Dublin Regulation. It was not necessary to send people back as it was a very effective deterrent. The problem of very large numbers of people crossing the Channel in small boats to claim asylum in the UK started when the UK left the Dublin Regulation.

 

[Topological]

The European Union Dublin Regulation that the UK was part of until leaving the EU at the end of 2020.

It clearly convinced almost all who might otherwise have crossed the Channel in small boats to seek asylum in the UK as very few did so while the UK was covered by the Dublin Regulation. It was not necessary to send people back as it was a very effective deterrent. The problem of very large numbers of people crossing the Channel in small boats to claim asylum in the UK started when the UK left the Dublin Regulation.

So another example where our elected government have failed to put in place appropriate replacements for EU law.

Perhaps Sir Kier could do something about it, such as placing the spirit of the Dublin Regulation into law. We may not have the co-operation of the EU members, but if the spirit was legal then it is still legal now.

 

[SuspectUsual]

So another example where our elected government have failed to put in place appropriate replacements for EU law.

Perhaps Sir Kier could do something about it, such as placing the spirit of the Dublin Regulation into law. We may not have the co-operation of the EU members, but if the spirit was legal then it is still legal now.

I'm not quite sure that unilaterally passing a law that requires the cooperation of another country to be effective is really a viable option.

And, for what little its worth, your first sentence missed out the word "knowingly". But it was Johnson, so you know, details aren't as important as blustering in cod Latin

 

[Topological]

I'm not quite sure that unilaterally passing a law that requires the cooperation of another country to be effective is really a viable option.

And, for what little its worth, your first sentence missed out the word "knowingly". But it was Johnson, so you know, details aren't as important as blustering in cod Latin

That was a bit of a problem with the 2019 Conservatives.

I think we can pass a law that states that asylum in the UK is only granted in the UK to anyone who has not passed through a safe country to reach the UK. I am not sure that requires anyone else to cooperate. The Dublin Regulation is being claimed to be that, so...

I should point out I do not know what the Dublin Regulation is. But, whether it is saying that we accept a quota and processing is done elsewhere in the EU, or whatever, the claim was that under the Dublin Regulation there were no small boats.

IF we have the option to claim asylum in the UK in many locations, and a law that says we will not grant asylum to anyone who has passed through a safe country, then I think we are meeting our duty to international law.

Plus, I have no problem if the numbers go up. I just want a system that criminal gangs cannot exploit and which ensures that we are able to get those most in need to the UK quickly and safely.

 

[martin butler]

The only way we can solve the boat problem is to have centres in France, where those wishing to come here can apply, as long as they have documentation, to prove they are not wanted elsewhere for crime, and there to be a comprehensive agreement with Franch and Belgium that anyone who comes by small boat be returned to that country, and told you have to use the proper channels, and passage be arranged to bring them across, it could also be tied into what jobs need filling, so they come across to work it will mean having to accept some will be migrant workers ,and should be processed as that, with time limited entry, and peroid of stay, renewable every say 2 years, once it expires they can be arrested and taken back to france, or deported if they don't renew.

 

[BAFRA77]

That was a bit of a problem with the 2019 Conservatives.

I think we can pass a law that states that asylum in the UK is only granted in the UK to anyone who has not passed through a safe country to reach the UK. I am not sure that requires anyone else to cooperate. The Dublin Regulation is being claimed to be that, so...

I should point out I do not know what the Dublin Regulation is. But, whether it is saying that we accept a quota and processing is done elsewhere in the EU, or whatever, the claim was that under the Dublin Regulation there were no small boats.

IF we have the option to claim asylum in the UK in many locations, and a law that says we will not grant asylum to anyone who has passed through a safe country, then I think we are meeting our duty to international law.

Plus, I have no problem if the numbers go up. I just want a system that criminal gangs cannot exploit and which ensures that we are able to get those most in need to the UK quickly and safely.

The UK cannot simply declare that anyone who travelled through a safe country is automatically barred from asylum.

International refugee law requires case‑by‑case assessment, and courts have already ruled that a safe‑third‑country system must include strong safeguards to prevent returning people to places where they risk serious harm - the High Court of Ireland made this exact point when examining the UK’s own “safe” designation.

The Dublin Regulation is being misrepresented. Dublin never stopped small boats. It was only a system for deciding which EU state processes a claim, with priorities like family reunion and first entry, not border control.

The Dublin system was meant to stop “asylum shopping,” but it:

Overloaded border states like Greece and Italy, never stopped irregular entry routes and was widely recognised as dysfunctional, which is why it’s being replaced with the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR) later this year.

If Dublin - an EU‑wide system with shared data, agreements, and law - struggled to function, the idea that the UK alone could implement something stricter and have it succeed is unrealistic.

The idea that the UK can set up asylum application points abroad - without cooperation from other countries - is impossible. After Brexit, the EU wouldn’t even negotiate narrow agreements on returns or family reunification.

You can’t run offshore processing or safe‑third‑country returns unless the receiving state actually agrees.

If we shut down asylum for people who arrive irregularly, we don’t stop the boats - we hand the market to smugglers. When legal routes are closed, people are pushed into dangerous journeys because there’s no alternative. The Dublin system itself was designed to prevent “orbiting,” not to deter crossings.

So the proposal isn’t legal, isn’t workable, and wouldn’t stop exploitation. The real solution is expanding safe, controlled routes and rebuilding international cooperation - not pretending we can legislate international law out of existence.

 

[Topological]

Sorry, you lost me.

If it is 100% certain that arrival by boat will not succeed then where is the market for the smugglers? Note arrival by boat really means any form of illegal arrival. the boats are just more common than the back of a lorry etc.

In terms of the receiving state. I suspect most would only be too happy for the UK to financially support the process.

So all refugees are free to be processed at any one of the processing centres. Who is actually going to take the UK to court for providing such safe routes into the UK?

 

[BAFRA77]

The only way we can solve the boat problem is to have centres in France, where those wishing to come here can apply, as long as they have documentation, to prove they are not wanted elsewhere for crime, and there to be a comprehensive agreement with Franch and Belgium that anyone who comes by small boat be returned to that country, and told you have to use the proper channels, and passage be arranged to bring them across, it could also be tied into what jobs need filling, so they come across to work it will mean having to accept some will be migrant workers ,and should be processed as that, with time limited entry, and peroid of stay, renewable every say 2 years, once it expires they can be arrested and taken back to france, or deported if they don't renew.

This plan falls apart for one simple reason: France will never agree to it. They’ve already refused far smaller UK proposals. No country is going to host British asylum centres or accept everyone who crosses the Channel back on their shores.

International refugee law does not require refugees to carry passports or proof they aren't “wanted elsewhere.” Most refugees flee precisely because they cannot safely obtain documents. Setting documentation as a precondition is simply unlawful and would exclude exactly the people the system is supposed to protect.

Tying asylum to job shortages mixes up two completely different systems. If the UK wants more workers, it can create worker visas. That has nothing to do with persecuted people fleeing danger. Worker routes require planning, not ad hoc selection at the border

Finally, the idea that the UK could arrest and “send people back to France” after a visa expires is pure fantasy. Deportation requires French agreement—something we absolutely do not have.

So the proposal isn’t legal, isn’t realistic, and wouldn’t stop small boats. The only workable solutions involve legal routes, faster processing, and real cooperation, not demanding France do things it has repeatedly said it won’t do.